Brief biography of Ivan Franko in Ukrainian. Francisco Franco: the great Spanish "caudillo"
3. The most ancient chronicles. The Tale of Bygone Years
The “historical memory” of the East Slavic tribes stretched back several centuries: traditions and legends were passed down from generation to generation about the settlement of Slavic tribes, about the clashes of the Slavs with the Avars (“Obras”), about the founding of Kyiv, about the glorious deeds of the first Kyiv princes, about distant campaigns Kiya, about the wisdom of the prophetic Oleg, about the cunning and decisive Olga, about the warlike and noble Svyatoslav.
In the 11th century Along with the historical epic, chronicle writing appears. It was the chronicle that was destined for several centuries, right up to the time of Peter the Great, to become not just a weather record of current events, but one of the leading literary genres, in the depths of which Russian plot storytelling developed, and at the same time a journalistic genre, sensitively responding to the political demands of its time.
Study of chronicles of the 11th–12th centuries. presents considerable difficulties: the oldest chronicles that have reached us date back to the 13th century (the first part of the first Novgorod chronicle of the older edition) or to the end of the 14th century. (Laurentian Chronicle). But thanks to the fundamental research of A. A. Shakhmatov, M. D. Priselkov and D. S. Likhachev, a fairly substantiated hypothesis has now been created about the initial stage of Russian chronicle writing, into which some additions and clarifications will undoubtedly be made over time, but which is unlikely will change essentially.
According to this hypothesis, chronicle writing appears during the time of Yaroslav the Wise. At this time, Christianized Rus' began to be burdened by Byzantine tutelage and sought to justify its right to church independence, which was invariably combined with political independence, for Byzantium was inclined to consider all Christian states as the spiritual flock of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and as a kind of vassals of the Byzantine Empire. This is precisely what Yaroslav’s decisive actions oppose: he seeks the establishment of a metropolitanate in Kyiv (which raises the ecclesiastical authority of Rus'), and seeks the canonization of the first Russian saints - princes Boris and Gleb. It was in this situation that the first historical work, the predecessor of the future chronicle, was apparently created - a collection of stories about the spread of Christianity in Rus'. Kyiv scribes argued that the history of Rus' repeats the history of other great powers: “divine grace” descended on Rus' just as it once did on Rome and Byzantium; Rus' had its own forerunners of Christianity - for example, Princess Olga, who was baptized in Constantinople during the time of the convinced pagan Svyatoslav; they had their own martyrs - a Christian Varangian who did not give up his son to be “slaughtered” to idols, and the prince-brothers Boris and Gleb, who died but did not break the Christian covenants of brotherly love and obedience to the “eldest”. Rus' also had its own “equal to the apostles” prince Vladimir, who baptized Rus' and thereby became equal to the great Constantine, who declared Christianity state religion Byzantium. To substantiate this idea, according to the assumption of D.S. Likhachev, a set of legends about the emergence of Christianity in Rus' was compiled. It included stories about the baptism and death of Olga, a legend about the first Russian martyrs - the Varangian Christians, a legend about the baptism of Rus' (including the “Philosopher’s Speech”, in which short form expounded the Christian concept of world history), the legend of the princes Boris and Gleb and extensive praise for Yaroslav the Wise under 1037. All six of these works “reveal their belonging to the same hand... the closest relationship between each other: compositional, stylistic and ideological.” This set of articles (which D.S. Likhachev suggested conditionally calling “The Legend of the Spread of Christianity in Rus'”) was compiled, in his opinion, in the first half of the 40s. XI century scribes of the Kyiv metropolis.
Probably at the same time, the first Russian chronographic code was created in Kyiv - “Chronograph according to the Great Presentation”. He represented summary world history (with a clearly expressed interest in the history of the church), compiled on the basis of Byzantine chronicles - “Chronicles of George Amartol” and “Chronicles of John Malala”; it is possible that already at this time other translated monuments became known in Rus', setting out world history or containing prophecies about the coming “end of the world”: “The Revelation of Methodius of Patara”, “Interpretations” of Hippolytus on the books of the Prophet Daniel, “The Tale of Epiphanius of Cyprus about the Six days of creation”, etc.
The next stage in the development of Russian chronicles occurred in the 60–70s. XI century and is associated with the activities of the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nikon.
It was Nikon who added to the “Tale of the Spread of Christianity in Rus'” the legends about the first Russian princes and stories about their campaigns against Constantinople. Perhaps Nikon also included the “Korsun Legend” into the chronicle (according to which Vladimir was baptized not in Kyiv, but in Korsun); finally, the chronicle owes the same Nikon the inclusion of the so-called Varangian legend. This legend reported that the Kyiv princes allegedly descended from the Varangian prince Rurik, who was invited to Rus' to stop the internecine strife of the Slavs. The inclusion of the legend in the chronicle had its own meaning: with the authority of legend, Nikon tried to convince his contemporaries of the unnaturalness of internecine wars, of the need for all princes to obey the Grand Duke of Kyiv - the heir and descendant of Rurik. Finally, according to researchers, it was Nikon who gave the chronicle the form of weather records.
Initial arch. Around 1095, a new chronicle was created, which A. A. Shakhmatov proposed to call “Initial”. From the moment of the creation of the “Initial Code”, the possibility of a textual study of the ancient chronicles itself appears. A. A. Shakhmatov drew attention to the fact that the description of events up to the beginning of the 12th century. different in the Laurentian, Radzivilov, Moscow Academic and Ipatiev Chronicles, on the one hand, and in the Novgorod First Chronicle, on the other. This gave him the opportunity to establish that the Novgorod First Chronicle reflected the previous stage of chronicle writing - the “Initial Code”, and the rest of the named chronicles included a revision of the “Initial Code”, a new chronicle monument - “The Tale of Bygone Years”.
The compiler of the “Initial Code” continued the chronicle with a description of the events of 1073–1095, giving his work, especially in this part he added, a clearly journalistic character: he reproached the princes for internecine wars, complained that they do not care about the defense of the Russian land, do not listen to the advice of “sensible husbands”.
The Tale of Bygone Years. At the beginning of the 12th century. The “Initial Code” was again revised: the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor, a scribe with a broad historical outlook and great literary talent (he also wrote “The Life of Boris and Gleb” and “The Life of Theodosius of the Pechersk”) creates a new chronicle collection - “The Tale of Bygone Years” " Nestor set himself a significant task: not only to present the events of the turn of the 11th–12th centuries, of which he was an eyewitness, but also to completely rework the story about the beginning of Rus' - “where did the Russian land come from, who began the first princedom in Kyiv,” as he himself formulated this task in the title of his work (PVL, p. 9).
Nestor introduces the history of Rus' into the mainstream of world history. He begins his chronicle with a presentation of the biblical legend about the division of the land between the sons of Noah, while placing the Slavs in the list of peoples going back to the “Chronicle of Amartol” (elsewhere in the text the Slavs are identified by the chronicler with the “Norics” - the inhabitants of one of the provinces of the Roman Empire, located on the banks of the Danube). Nestor slowly and thoroughly talks about the territory occupied by the Slavs, about the Slavic tribes and their past, gradually focusing the readers’ attention on one of these tribes - the glades, on the land of which Kyiv arose, a city that in his time became the “mother of Russian cities.” Nestor clarifies and develops the Varangian concept of the history of Rus': Askold and Dir, mentioned in the “Initial Code” as “certain” Varangian princes, are now called “boyars” of Rurik, they are credited with the campaign against Byzantium during the time of Emperor Michael; Oleg, referred to in the “Initial Code” as Igor’s governor, in the “Tale of Bygone Years” his princely dignity was “returned” (in accordance with history), but it is emphasized that it is Igor who is the direct heir of Rurik, and Oleg, a relative of Rurik, reigned only during Igor’s childhood.
Nestor is even more of a historian than his predecessors. He tries to arrange the maximum of events known to him on the scale of absolute chronology, uses documents for his narration (texts of treaties with Byzantium), uses fragments from the “Chronicle of George Amartol” and Russian historical legends (for example, the story of Olga’s fourth revenge, the legend of the “Belgorod jelly "and about the young man-kozhemyak). “We can safely say,” D.S. Likhachev writes about Nestor’s work, “that never before or later, until the 16th century, has Russian historical thought risen to such a height of scholarly inquisitiveness and literary skill.”
Around 1116, on behalf of Vladimir Monomakh, “The Tale of Bygone Years” was revised by the abbot of the Vydubitsky Monastery (near Kiev) Sylvester. In this new (second) edition of the Tale, the interpretation of the events of 1093–1113 was changed: they were now presented with a clear tendency to glorify the acts of Monomakh. In particular, the story of the blinding of Vasilko Terebovlsky was introduced into the text of the Tale (in article 1097), for Monomakh acted as a champion of justice and brotherly love in the inter-princely feud of these years.
Finally, in 1118, “The Tale of Bygone Years” underwent another revision, carried out at the direction of Prince Mstislav, the son of Vladimir Monomakh. The narrative was continued until 1117, separate articles for more early years changed. We call this edition of The Tale of Bygone Years the third. These are modern ideas about the history of ancient chronicles.
As has already been said, only relatively late lists of chronicles have been preserved, which reflect the mentioned ancient codes. Thus, the “Initial Code” was preserved in the Novgorod First Chronicle (lists of the 13th–14th and 15th centuries), the second edition of the “Tale of Bygone Years” is best represented by the Laurentian (1377) and Radzivilovskaya (15th century) chronicles, and the third edition came to us as part of the Ipatiev Chronicle. Through the Tver Vault of 1305 - a common source of the Laurentian and Trinity Chronicles - “The Tale of Bygone Years” of the second edition was included in the majority of Russian chronicles of the 15th–16th centuries.
Since the middle of the 19th century. Researchers have repeatedly noted the high literary skill of Russian chroniclers. But private observations of the style of chronicles, sometimes quite deep and fair, were replaced by holistic ideas only relatively recently in the works of D. S. Likhachev and I. P. Eremin.
Thus, in the article “The Kiev Chronicle as a Literary Monument” I. P. Eremin draws attention to different literary nature various components of the chronicle text: weather records, chronicle stories and chronicle stories. In the latter, according to the researcher, the chronicler resorted to a special “hagiographic”, idealizing manner of narration.
D. S. Likhachev showed that the difference stylistic devices that we find in the chronicle is explained primarily by the origin and specificity of the chronicle genre: in the chronicle, articles created by the chronicler himself, telling about the events of contemporary political life, are adjacent to fragments from epic tales and legends, which have their own special style, a special manner of plot narration. In addition, the “style of the era” had a significant influence on the chronicler’s stylistic techniques. This last phenomenon needs to be discussed in more detail.
It is extremely difficult to characterize the “style of the era,” that is, some general trends in worldview, literature, art, norms of social life, etc. Nevertheless, in the literature of the 11th–13th centuries. The phenomenon that D. S. Likhachev called “literary etiquette” manifests itself quite thoroughly. Literary etiquette is the refraction of the “style of the era”, the peculiarities of worldview and ideology in literary creativity. Literary etiquette, as it were, determines the tasks of literature and already its themes, principles of construction literary plots and, finally, the visual means themselves, highlighting the circle of the most preferred speech patterns, images, metaphors.
The concept of literary etiquette is based on the idea of an unshakable and ordered world, where all people’s actions are, as it were, predetermined, where for each person there is a special standard of his behavior. Literature must accordingly affirm and demonstrate this static, “normative” world. This means that its subject should primarily be the depiction of “normative” situations: if a chronicle is written, then the focus is on descriptions of the prince’s accession to the throne, battles, diplomatic actions, death and burial of the prince; Moreover, in this last case, a unique summary of his life is summed up, summarized in the necrological description. Similarly, the lives must necessarily tell about the saint’s childhood, about his path to asceticism, about his “traditional” (precisely traditional, almost obligatory for every saint) virtues, about the miracles he performed during his life and after death, etc.
Moreover, each of these situations (in which the hero of the chronicle or life most clearly appears in his role - a prince or a saint) had to be depicted in similar, traditional speech patterns: it was necessarily said about the parents of the saint that they were pious, about the child - the future saint, that he shunned games with peers, the battle was narrated in traditional formulas such as: “and the slaughter of evil came,” “some were cut down, and others were caught” (i.e., some were chopped up with swords, others were captured), etc.
The chronicle style that most corresponded to the literary etiquette of the 11th–13th centuries was called by D. S. Likhachev “the style of monumental historicism.” But at the same time, it cannot be argued that the entire chronicle narrative is maintained in this style. If we understand style as a general characteristic of the author’s attitude to the subject of his narration, then we can undoubtedly talk about the comprehensive nature of this style in the chronicle - the chronicler really selects for his narration only the most important, national importance events and actions. If we demand from the style and indispensable observance of certain linguistic features (i.e., stylistic devices themselves), then it turns out that not every line of the chronicle will be an illustration of the style of monumental historicism. Firstly, because various phenomena of reality - and the chronicle could not help but correlate with it - could not fit into a pre-conceived scheme of “etiquette situations”, and therefore we find the most striking manifestation of this style only in the description of traditional situations: in the depiction of the parish the prince “on the table”, in the description of battles, in necrological characteristics, etc. Secondly, two genetically different layers of narration coexist in the chronicle: along with the articles compiled by the chronicler, we also find fragments introduced by the chronicler into the text. Among them, a significant place is occupied by folk legends and traditions, many of which are included in the “Tale of Bygone Years” and - although to a lesser extent - subsequent chronicle collections.
If the chronicle articles themselves were the product of their time, bore the stamp of the “style of the era”, and were consistent with the traditions of the style of monumental historicism, then the oral legends included in the chronicle reflected a different - epic tradition and, naturally, had a different stylistic character. The style of folk legends included in the chronicle was defined by D. S. Likhachev as the “epic style.”
“The Tale of Bygone Years,” where the story of modern events is preceded by memories of deeds glorious princes past centuries - Oleg the Prophet, Igor, Olga, Svyatoslav, Vladimir, combines both of these styles.
In the style of monumental historicism, for example, the events of the time of Yaroslav the Wise and his son Vsevolod are presented. Suffice it to recall the description of the battle on Alta (PVL, pp. 97–98), which brought Yaroslav victory over the “accursed” Svyatopolk, the killer of Boris and Gleb: Svyatopolk came to the battlefield “in the strength of a heavy man,” Yaroslav also gathered “a multitude of howls, and against him on Lto." Before the battle, Yaroslav prays to God and his murdered brothers, asking for their help “against this nasty murderer and proud man.” And now the troops moved towards each other, “and covered the Letetskoye field with a multitude of howls.” At dawn (“the rising sun”) “there was a slaughter of evil, as if I had not been in Rus', and I was cut by the hands, and stepped three times, as if across the valleys [valleys, hollows] of the mother-in-law’s blood.” By evening, Yaroslav won, and Svyatopolk fled. Yaroslav ascended the Kiev throne, “wiped off his sweat with his retinue, showing victory and great labor.” Everything in this story is intended to emphasize the historical significance of the battle: an indication of the large number of troops, and details indicating the ferocity of the battle, and the pathetic ending - Yaroslav solemnly ascends to the Kiev throne, which he won through military labor and the struggle for a “just cause.”
And at the same time, it turns out that what we have before us is not so much the impressions of an eyewitness about a specific battle, but the traditional formulas that described other battles in the same “Tale of Bygone Years” and in subsequent chronicles: the phrase “slaughter of evil” is traditional, the ending is traditional , telling who “overcame” and who “fleeed”, usually for the chronicle narrative an indication of the large number of troops, and even the formula “as if to please the blood of the mother-in-law” is found in descriptions of other battles. In short, we have before us one of the examples of an “etiquette” depiction of a battle.
The creators of “The Tale of Bygone Years” write out the obituary characteristics of the princes with special care. For example, according to the chronicler, Prince Vsevolod Yaroslavich was “mockishly loving of God, loving the truth, providing for the poor [caring for the unfortunate and poor], giving honor to the bishop and presbytery [priests], being overly loving to the monks, and giving their demands” (PVL, with .142). This type of chronicle obituary will be used more than once by chroniclers of the 12th and subsequent centuries. The use of literary formulas prescribed by the style of monumental historicism gave the chronicle text a special artistic flavor: not the effect of surprise, but, on the contrary, the expectation of a meeting with the familiar, the customary, expressed in a “polished” form, sanctified by tradition - this is what had the power aesthetic impact on the reader. This same technique is well known to folklore - let us remember the traditional plots of epics, triple repetitions plot situations, constant epithets and the like artistic media. The style of monumental historicism is therefore not evidence of limitations artistic possibilities, but, on the contrary, evidence of a deep awareness of the role poetic word. But at the same time, this style naturally fettered the freedom of plot narration, because it sought to unify and express various life situations in the same speech formulas and plot motifs.
For the development of the plot narrative, oral traditions enshrined in the chronicle text played a significant role. folk legends, each time distinguished by its unusual and “entertaining” plot. The story of Oleg’s death is widely known, the plot of which was the basis for the famous ballad of A. S. Pushkin, stories about Olga’s revenge on the Drevlyans, etc. It is in this kind of legends that not only princes, but also those insignificant in their social status could act as heroes people: an old man who saved Belgorod residents from death and Pecheneg captivity, a young Kozhemyak who defeated the Pecheneg hero. But the main thing, perhaps, is something else: it is in such chronicle stories, which are genetically oral historical traditions, that the chronicler uses a completely different - compared to stories written in the style of monumental historicism - method of depicting events and characterizing characters.
In works of verbal art, there are two opposing methods of aesthetic influence on the reader (listener). In one case, a work of art influences precisely by its dissimilarity on everyday life and, we add, on the “everyday” story about it. Such a work is distinguished by special vocabulary, rhythm of speech, inversions, special visual means (epithets, metaphors) and, finally, special “unusual” behavior of the characters. We know that people in real life don’t talk like that or act like that, but it is precisely this unusualness that is perceived as art. The literature of the style of monumental historicism also occupies the same position.
In another case, art seems to strive to become like life, and the narrative strives to create the “illusion of authenticity”, to bring itself as close as possible to the eyewitness account. The means of influencing the reader here are completely different: in this kind of narration, a “plot detail” plays a huge role, a successfully found everyday detail that seems to awaken in the reader his own life impressions, helps him to see what is being described with his own eyes and thereby believe in the truth of the story.
An important caveat needs to be made here. Such details are often called “elements of realism,” but it is significant that if in the literature of modern times these realistic elements are a means of reproducing real life (and the work itself is intended not only to depict reality, but also to comprehend it), then in ancient times “plot details” - nothing more than a means to create the “illusion of reality,” since the story itself can tell about a legendary event, about a miracle, in a word, about something that the author portrays as something that really happened, but which may not be so.
In The Tale of Bygone Years, stories performed in this manner widely use “everyday detail”: this is a bridle in the hands of a Kiev youth who, pretending looking for a horse, runs with her through the camp of enemies, then there is a mention of how, testing himself before a duel with the Pecheneg hero, the young man-kozhemyak pulls out (professionally strong hands) from the side of a bull running past “the skin of the meat, as strong as a hare’s hand”, then a detailed, detailed (and skillfully slowing down the story) description of how the Belgorodians “took honey with a bow”, which they found “in the prince of Medusha”, how they diluted the honey, how they poured the drink into the “kad”, etc. These details evoke vivid visual images in the reader, help him imagine what is being described, and become, as it were, a witness to the events.
If in stories written in the manner of monumental historicism, everything is known to the reader in advance, then in epic legends the narrator skillfully uses the effect of surprise. Wise Olga seems to take seriously the matchmaking of the Drevlyan prince Mal, secretly preparing him for the ambassadors terrible death; the prediction given to Oleg the Prophet, it would seem, did not come true (the horse from which the prince was supposed to die had already died himself), but nevertheless, the bones of this horse, from which the snake would crawl, would bring death to Oleg. It is not a warrior who comes out to duel with the Pecheneg hero, but a skinned youth, moreover, “of average body,” and the Pecheneg hero - “very great and terrible” - laughs at him. And despite this “exposition”, it is the youth who prevails.
It is very significant to note that the chronicler resorts to the method of “reproducing reality” not only in retelling epic legends, but also in narrating contemporary events. An example of this is the story of “The Tale of Bygone Years” under 1097 about the blinding of Vasilko Terebovlsky (pp. 170–180). It is no coincidence that it was in this example that researchers examined the “elements of realism” of the Old Russian narrative, it was in it that they found the skillful use of “strong details,” and it was here that they discovered the masterful use of “plot direct speech.”
The climax of the story is the scene of Vasilko’s blinding. On the way to the Terebovl volost assigned to him at the Lyubech princely congress, Vasilko settled down for the night not far from Vydobich. The Kiev prince Svyatopolk, succumbing to the persuasion of David Igorevich, decides to lure Vasilko and blind him. After persistent invitations (“Don’t go on my name day”), Vasilko arrives at the “prince’s court”; David and Svyatopolk lead the guest into the “istba” (hut). Svyatopolk persuades Vasilko to stay, and David, frightened by his own malicious intent, “sits as if mute.” When Svyatopolk left the source, Vasilko tries to continue the conversation with David, but, says the chronicler, “there was no voice in David, no obedience [hearing].” This is a very rare example for early chronicles when the mood of the interlocutors is conveyed. But then David comes out (ostensibly to call Svyatopolk), and the prince’s servants burst into the hut, they rush at Vasilko, knock him to the floor. And the terrible details of the ensuing struggle: in order to restrain the powerful and desperately resisting Vasilko, they remove the board from the stove, put it on his chest, sit on the board and press their victim to the floor “like a persem [chest] of a troscotati,” and a mention that “ Torchin Berendi,” who was supposed to blind the prince with a blow of a knife, missed and cut the unfortunate man’s face - all these are not simple details of the story, but rather artistic “strong details” that help the reader visually imagine scary scene blindness. According to the chronicler’s plan, the story was supposed to excite the reader, turn him against Svyatopolk and David, and convince him of the rightness of Vladimir Monomakh, who condemned the cruel massacre of the innocent Vasilko and punished the oath-breaking princes.
The literary influence of The Tale of Bygone Years has been clearly felt for several centuries: chroniclers continue to apply or vary the literary formulas that were used by the creators of the Tale of Bygone Years, imitate the characteristics contained in it, and sometimes quote the Tale, introducing fragments into their text from this monument. The Tale of Bygone Years has retained its aesthetic charm to this day, eloquently testifying to literary skill ancient Russian chroniclers.
From the book Pre-Mongol Rus' in chronicles of the V-XIII centuries. author Gudz-Markov Alexey Viktorovich“The Tale of Bygone Years” “The Tale of Bygone Years” begins to recount events from 852. Under 859, the Tale reports that the Varangians and Khazars took tribute from individual unions of the Slavs of eastern Europe. Under 862, it is reported that the Varangians were expelled overseas and refusing them tribute. And under the same 862
From book True story ancient Rus' author Belyakov AntonChapter 1 THE Tale of Bygone Years A huge number of interpretations and readings of Russian chronicles forces us to reject everything at once, collect bare facts, and on their basis re-build a logical version of the events that took place. To build a version on a different fundamental
From the book The Rus' That Was-2. Alternative version of history author Maksimov Albert VasilievichA Tale of Bygone Years
From the book Ancient Slavs, I-X centuries [Mysterious and fascinating stories about the Slavic world] author Soloviev Vladimir MikhailovichThe Tale of Bygone Years So let's begin this story. The Slavs settled along the Danube, where now the land is Hungarian and Bulgarian. And from those Slavs the Slavs spread throughout the land and began to be called by the places where they settled. So some people came and sat down on the river, named Morava, and were called Moravians, and
From the book “The Tale of Bygone Years” as a historical source author Nikitin Andrey Leonidovich"The Tale of Bygone Years" as a historical source
author Egorov Vladimir BorisovichChapter 1 READING “THE Tale of Bygone Years”
From the book The True History of Russia. Notes from an Amateur [with illustrations] author Guts Alexander KonstantinovichThe Tale of Bygone Years The main source for writing history ancient Russia is a chronicle, or rather a chronicle collection, called “The Tale of Bygone Years, the monk of the Fedosiev Pechersk Monastery, where the Russian land came from, and who started the first in it
From the book Russian Chronicles and Chroniclers of the 10th–13th centuries. author Tolochko Petr Petrovich3. “The Tale of Bygone Years” A striking monument of ancient Russian chronicle writing from the end of the 11th century to the beginning. XII century is "The Tale of Bygone Years". It is a chronicle collection that has absorbed not only all previous experience historical knowledge Rus', but also the achievements of European
From the book From Hyperborea to Rus'. Unconventional history of the Slavs by Markov GermanWhen was The Tale of Bygone Years written and by whom was it edited? We all studied The Tale of Bygone Years at school. But the chronicler-monk Nestor covered history to please the Kyiv princes, exalting the local dynasty and belittling the role of Novgorod, and his description must be treated with
From the book Chronology of Russian history. Russia and the world author Anisimov Evgeniy Viktorovich1113 “The Tale of Bygone Years” Chronicles began to be written in Kyiv during the times of Olga and Svyatoslav. Under Yaroslav the Wise in 1037–1039. The center of the work of the monastic chroniclers became the St. Sophia Cathedral. The monks took old chronicles and compiled them into new edition, which was supplemented with their own
From the book Pre-Petrine Rus'. Historical portraits. author Fedorova Olga PetrovnaTHE TALE OF TIME YEARS (extracts) TRADE ABOUT THE VISIT TO THE RUSSIAN LAND BY THE APOSTLE ANDREW...When Andrei (46) taught in Sinop (47) and arrived in Korsun (48), he learned that not far from Korsun there was the mouth of the Dnieper, and he wanted to go to Rome, and sailed to the mouth of the Dnieper, and set off from there
From the book There was no “Yoke”! Intellectual sabotage of the West author Sarbuchev Mikhail MikhailovichReading “The Tale of Bygone Years” Prince Dunduk sits at the Academy of Sciences. They say such an honor does not befit Dunduk; Why is he sitting? Because well...there is. A. Pushkin, 1835 One of the most famous documents cited by supporters of the “yoke” is “The Tale of Bygone Years.”
From the book Russian Truth. Charter Teaching [collection] author Monomakh VladimirAppendix 1. THE Tale of Bygone Years Introduction “Teaching” of Vladimir Monomakh - a historical and literary monument national importance, ancient Russian paternal instruction to children, which retains its enduring significance today, on the nine hundredth anniversary
From the book At the Origins of Rus': Between the Varangian and the Greek author Egorov Vladimir BorisovichChapter 1 Reading “The Tale of Bygone Years”
From the book Source Studies author Team of authors1.1.2. The Tale of Bygone Years and the codes that preceded it The beginning of ancient Russian chronicle writing is associated with a stable text, which begins the vast majority of chronicle codes that have survived to our time. There are no separate lists of him. In some later
From the book History of Political and Legal Doctrines: A Textbook for Universities author Team of authors"The Tale of Bygone Years" as a historical source
Abakan, 2012
1. Characteristics of time in “The Tale of Bygone Years”
Researchers conducting source analysis and synthesis, perfectly represent the complexity of that intellectual space in which cognition takes place. It is important for him to determine the measure of real knowledge available to him. “The Tale of Bygone Years” is an outstanding historical and literary monument that reflected the formation of the ancient Russian state, its political and cultural flourishing, as well as the beginning of the process of feudal fragmentation. Created in the first decades of the 12th century, it has come to us as part of chronicles of a later time. In this regard, the importance of its presence in the history of writing chronicles is quite great.
The objectives of the study are to consider the characteristics of time as such, as well as the perception of the concept of time in the chronicle.
“The Tale of Bygone Years” is an ancient Russian chronicle created in the 1110s. Chronicles - historical works, in which events are presented on the so-called yearly principle, are combined into annual, or “weather” articles (they are also called weather records).
“Yearly articles,” which combined information about events that occurred during one year, begin with the words “In the summer of such and such...” (“summer” in Old Russian means “year”). In this regard, the chronicles, including the Tale of Bygone Years, are fundamentally different from the Byzantine chronicles known in Ancient Rus', from which Russian compilers borrowed numerous information from world history. In the translated Byzantine chronicles, events were distributed not by years, but by the reigns of the emperors.
The Tale of Bygone Years is the first chronicle whose text has reached us almost in its original form. Thanks to a thorough textual analysis of the Tale of Bygone Years, researchers have discovered traces of earlier works included in its composition. Probably the oldest chronicles were created in the 11th century. The hypothesis of A.A. received the greatest recognition. Shakhmatova (1864-1920), explaining the emergence and describing the history of Russian chronicles of the 11th and early 12th centuries. He resorted to the comparative method, comparing the surviving chronicles and finding out their relationships. According to A.A. Shakhmatov, around 1037, but not later than 1044, compiled the Kiev chronicle, which told about the beginning of history and the baptism of Rus'. Around 1073, in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, the first Kiev-Pechersk chronicle was probably completed by the monk Nikon. It combined new news and legends with the text of the Most Ancient Code and with borrowings from the Novgorod Chronicle of the mid-11th century. In 1093-1095, it condemned the unreasonableness and weakness of the current princes, who were contrasted with the former wise and powerful rulers of Rus'.
The Tale of Bygone Years is alien to the unity of style; it is an “open” genre. The simplest element in a chronicle text is a brief weather record, which only reports an event, but does not describe it.
Calendar units of time in the Tale
The study of time calculation systems of the initial Russian chronicles is one of the most pressing tasks of Russian historical chronology. However, the results obtained in this direction for last decades, clearly do not correspond to the significance of the issues being addressed.
The point, apparently, is not only (and not even so much) in the “ungratefulness” of such work and its predominantly “rough” nature. A much more serious obstacle, in our opinion, is a number of fundamental differences in the perception of time and the units of its measurement by modern scientists and ancient Russian chroniclers.
The same applies to chronological material. Any chronicle record (including the date - annual, calendar, georthological) is of interest, first of all, as a “reliable” story about what, when and how it happened.
Preliminary textual and source studies must at the same time insure the scientist against the use of poor-quality information about the event of interest, which got into the text under study from unreliable or unverified sources. Solving the questions of “when, how and why this record was formed”, “determining the original type of record and studying its subsequent changes in the chronicle tradition” seemed to reliably clear the source text of later layers, both factual and ideological. In this way, “protocol” accurate information ended up in the hands of the historian (ideally). From this body of information, a historian with a pure heart “arbitrarily selects the records he needs, as if from a fund specially prepared for him,” which, in fact, was what all the procedures for preliminary criticism of the text were directed against.
Meanwhile, as has been repeatedly noted, the idea of authenticity for the people of Ancient Rus' was primarily associated with collective experience and social traditions. It was they who became the main filter in the chronicle for the selection of material, its evaluation and the form in which it was recorded by the chronicler.
The direct temporary instructions that accompanied the presentation were no exception in this regard. Researchers have already paid attention to the fact that direct dates in the chronicle could have, like any other fragment of text, a symbolic meaning in addition to the literal one. Such comments, however, concerned mainly the calendar part of the dates and were sporadic.
The appearance of direct dating indications in the chronicle text dates back to the mid-60s - early 70s. This is associated with the name of Nikon the Great. Until this time, according to experts studying ancient Russian chronicles, direct annual indications were a rare exception. More precisely, only 2-3 dates are usually mentioned, which were included in the Tale from earlier written sources. An example is the date of death of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich - July 15, 1015. The remaining dates - not only daily, but also annual - until the mid-60s of the 11th century, as most researchers believe, were calculated by Nikon.
However, the basis for such calculations is difficult to reconstruct.
Another striking example of direct dating indications is the chronological calculation placed in the Tale under the year 6360/852, immediately after the dated message about the beginning of the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Michael III:
“In the same way, let us count the numbers, as from Adam to the Flood there are 2242 years; and from the flood to Avram 1000 and 82 years, and from Abram to the march of Moses 430 years; and from the descent of Moses to David, 600 years and 1; and from David and from the beginning of the kingdom of Solomon to the captivity of Jerusalem, 448 years; and from captivity to Alexander 318 years; and from Oleksandr to the Nativity of Christ 333 years: But we will return to the former and say that this is the time of this year, as before they began the first summer with Michael, and we will put the numbers in a row.”
The fact that almost any calendar date was considered in the context of its real or symbolic content can be judged even by the frequency of certain calendar references. Thus, in the Tale of Bygone Years, Monday and Tuesday are mentioned only once, Wednesday - twice, Thursday - three times, Friday - 5 times, Saturday - 9, and Sunday (“week”) - as many as 17!
Methods for working with temporary information
When compiling the chronicle, the chronological method was used. However, contrary to the theory of probability, events are unevenly distributed both in relation to months and in relation to individual numbers. For example, in the Pskov 1st Chronicle there are calendar dates (05.01; 02.02; 20.07; 01.08; 18.08; 01.09; 01.10; 26.10), which account for 6 to 8 events throughout the chronicle text. In the same time whole line dates are not mentioned at all by the compiler of the code (03.01; 08.01; 19.01; 25.01; 01.02; 08.02; 14.02, etc.).
All such cases can have fairly substantiated explanations from the point of view of their eventful content, or the value relationship to the calendar part of the date. As for the chronographic (annual) instructions, they, from the standpoint common sense, generally cannot have any other meaning other than the “external” designation of the year number of the event.
An example is the analysis of a text fragment conducted by A.A. Shakhmatov. the composition of the ancient Russian chronicles being studied. He used comparative textual analysis.
The main attention was focused on identifying the source that the chronicler used when calculating the years “from Adam.” It turned out to be a text close to the Slavic translation of “The Chronicler Soon” by the Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople, known in Rus' since the beginning of the 12th century. A comparative textual analysis of the surviving copies of “The Chronicler Soon” did not, however, make it possible to identify the original, which the chronicler directly used. At the same time, researchers have repeatedly emphasized that when compiling the chronological list in the Tale of Bygone Years, a number of errors were made when calculating periods.
They amounted to distortion of the digital part of the original text as a result of repeated “mechanical rewriting” or incorrect reading of the original.
Their appearance and accumulation inevitably led to a distortion of the total number of years. In the lists that have survived to our time, from the Creation of the World to the Nativity of Christ, it amounts to 5434 or, “after eliminating errors,” 5453.
Grouping of terms in the text of the chronicle
Grouping the dates given in this chronological list into the indicated periods gives a sequence of five time periods of approximately 1000 years each (the first period is double). This result seems quite satisfactory, since thousand-year periods in the Christian tradition were often equated to one divine day (cf.: “With the Lord one day is like a thousand years” - Psalm 89.5; 2 Pet. 3.8-9, etc.) or to one “century” (Kirik Novgorodets). The existing deviations from the thousand-year period are not yet entirely clear, but, apparently, they are also not without meaning. In any case, there is every reason to believe that the calculation of years under the year 6360, as it appears in the Tale of Bygone Years, leads the reader to an event that should complete the story, as well as earthly history in general - the second coming of the Savior.
However, the fact that the proposed interpretation of the first part of the chronological calculation of the year 6360 has the right to exist is indicated, in our opinion, by the accompanying phrase: “Then from now on, let’s put the numbers, and let’s put the numbers in a series.” Traditionally, it is perceived as the chronicler’s “promise” to conduct further narrative in strict chronological order.
For a medieval reader, it could also carry additional semantic load. The fact is that the word “number”, in addition to the usual ones for modern man meanings, in the Old Russian language it was also understood as “measure, limit.” The word “row” is defined as a row, order (“in a row” - one after another, sequentially, continuously), improvement, as well as an order, a will, a court, an agreement (in particular, “put a row” - to conclude an agreement) .
The “new” title of the Tale, however, is not so clear. The phrase “time years” is usually translated as “about past years”, “past years”, “passing years”. On this occasion D.S. Likhachev wrote: “The definition of “temporary” refers not to the word “story”, but to the word “years.”
Summarizing the analysis of time in the Tale of Bygone Years, it should be concluded that the very name of the chronicle, apparently, was in direct connection with the chronological calculation inserted in the second decade of the 12th century. in article 6360. This suggests that when analyzing direct time data, both in the calendar and chronographic parts, it is necessary to take into account their semantic content, which sometimes significantly exceeds, and even contradicts, the literal meaning.
2.Historical sources in The Tale of Bygone Years
The historical significance of the chronicle sources is important. This is a historical aspect that allows us to saturate Russian historical and educational literature. It is not for nothing that all textbooks on Russian history are equipped with quotes from this ancient chronicle monument. From time to time fragments are published that most clearly characterize ancient Russian state and society of the 9th-10th centuries. A historical source is a realized product of the human psyche, suitable for studying facts with historical significance. Distinguish between sources and studies. The historian uses not only sources, but also research. In this regard, it is important that research is a subjective concept of the main historical event. The author of the source directly describes the events, and the author of the study relies on existing sources.
The main tasks in considering historical sources are to analyze the methods of use by the author of the chronicle: phraseological, allegorical, symbolic, as the foundations of a moral worldview.
When writing the chronicle, documents from the princely archive were used, which made it possible to preserve the texts of the Russian-Byzantine treaties of 911, 944 and 971 to this day. Some of the information was taken from Byzantine sources.
Techniques for using sources
The chronicle also presents a type of detailed record, recording not only the “actions” of the prince, but also their results. For example: “In the summer of 6391, Oleg fought against the Derevlyans, and, having tortured them, imposed a tribute on them according to the black kun,” etc. Both a brief weather record and a more detailed one are documentary. They do not contain any tropes that embellish the speech. It is simple , is clear and concise, which gives it special significance, expressiveness and even majesty. The chronicler’s focus is on the event - “what happened in this summer.”
Reports about the military campaigns of the princes occupy more than half of the chronicle. They are followed by news of the death of the princes. Less often, the birth of children and their marriage are recorded. Then, information about the construction activities of the princes. Finally, reports on church affairs, which occupy a very modest place.
The Chronicler enjoys medieval system chronology from the “creation of the world.” To convert this system to the modern one, it is necessary to subtract 5508 from the date of the chronicle.
The connection between the chronicle and folklore and epic description
The chronicler draws material about the events of the distant past from the treasury of folk memory. The appeal to the toponymic legend was dictated by the chronicler’s desire to find out the origin of the names of Slavic tribes, individual cities and the word “Rus” itself.
For example, the origin of the Slavic tribes Radimichi and Vyatichi is associated with the legendary people from the Poles - the brothers Radim and Vyatko. This legend arose among the Slavs, obviously, during the period of decomposition of the clan system, when an isolated clan elder, in order to justify his right to political dominance over the rest of the clan, creates a legend about his supposedly foreign origin. Close to this chronicle legend is the legend about the calling of princes, placed in the chronicle under 6370 (862). At the invitation of the Novgorodians, three Varangian brothers come from across the sea to reign and “rule” the Russian land with their families: Rurik, Sineus, Truvor.
The folklore nature of the legend confirms the presence of the epic number three - three brothers. The legend is of purely Novgorod, local origin, reflecting the practice of relations between the feudal city republic and the princes. In the life of Novgorod, there were frequent cases of the “calling” of a prince, who performed the functions of a military leader. Included in the Russian chronicle, this local legend acquired a certain political meaning. The legend about the calling of the princes emphasized the absolute political independence of the princely power from the Byzantine Empire.
The chronicles about the Slavic tribes, their customs, wedding and funeral ceremonies are filled with echoes of ritual poetry from the times of the tribal system. The first Russian princes were described in the chronicles using the techniques of oral folk epic: Oleg, Igor, Olga, Svyatoslav. Oleg is, first of all, a courageous and wise warrior. Thanks to his military ingenuity, he defeats the Greeks by putting his ships on wheels and sailing them across the land. He deftly unravels all the intricacies of his Greek enemies and concludes a peace treaty with Byzantium that is beneficial for Rus'. As a sign of the victory, Oleg nails his shield on the gates of Constantinople, to the greater shame of his enemies and the glory of his homeland. The successful prince-warrior is popularly nicknamed the “prophetic”, i.e., a wizard.
The chronicle news about Vladimir’s marriage to the Polotsk princess Rogneda, about his abundant and generous feasts held in Kyiv - the Korsun legend - goes back to folk tales. On the one hand, before us appears a pagan prince with his unbridled passions, on the other, an ideal Christian ruler, endowed with all the virtues: meekness, humility, love for the poor, for the monastic and monastic order, etc. The contrasting comparison of the prince between a pagan and a Christian prince, the chronicler sought to prove the superiority of the new Christian morality over pagan morality.
Compilers of chronicles of the 16th century. drew attention to the inconsistency of the first part of the story, about the Apostle Andrei's visit to Kyiv, with the second, they replaced the everyday story with a pious legend, according to which Andrei leaves his cross in the Novgorod land. Thus, most of chronicle tales dedicated to the events of the 9th - late 10th centuries are associated with oral folk art and its epic genres.
By using artistic descriptions and the organization of the plot, the chronicler introduces the genre of plot storytelling, and not just recording information.
These examples show how the entertainment of an epic plot is built on the fact that the reader, along with positive hero deceives (often medieval cruelly and insidiously) the enemy, until last moment unaware of his disastrous fate.
Stories of folklore and epic origin also include the legend about the death of Oleg, which served as the basis for the plot of Pushkin’s “Song of the Prophetic Oleg”, the story about the young Kozhemyak who defeated the Pecheneg hero, and some others.
Apocryphal texts in the Tale
Apocrypha is characterized by an abundance of miracles and fantasy. Apocrypha for people who think. Primitivization is characteristic. Apocrypha - books of prohibited indexes, although they are written on biblical and evangelical subjects. They were brighter, more specific, more interesting, and attracted attention. Apocrypha - legendary religious works. The Apocrypha was classified as non-canonical, as heretical literature. Heresy - oppositional godparent movements.
Articles by A.A. are also of great importance. Shakhmatov devoted to the analysis of the Explanatory Paleia and the Tale of Bygone Years, where he touched on some apocryphal inserts. A very interesting and important attempt is the scientist’s attempt to trace the routes by which apocryphal literature came to Rus'.
Here there is clearly an attempt to accurately establish the apocryphal source of the chronicle's story about the division of lands by the sons of Noah by lot by direct comparison of the text. Accordingly, there is also the presence of an apocryphal text in the chronicle.
Old Testament influence on the Tale. So, for example, Svyatopolk, who killed his brothers according to the chronicle, is called “cursed” and “cursed” in it. Let us pay attention to the root of the word “cursed”; this root is “cain”. It is clear that this refers to the biblical Cain, who killed his brother and was cursed by God. Like Cain, doomed to wander and die in the desert, the chronicle Svyatopolk also died. There are many examples like this. Even in terms of stylistic features of the presentation of the text, the Bible and the Tale are similar in some points: more than once the Tale repeats a textual turn characteristic of the book of Joshua, referring to the fact that evidence of an event can be seen “to this day.”
However, not all plots of the story fit into the biblical texts. There are stories that are written on biblical themes, but do not agree with the canonical Old Testament. One example of this is the chronicle story about Noah, who divided the earth after the flood between his sons: “After the flood, the first sons of Noah divided the earth: Shem, Ham, Afet. And I am in Simovi... Khamovi is in the midday country... Afetu is in the midnight country and the Western..."... “Now Ham and Afet, having divided the earth, cast lots - do not transgress anyone in the lot, brother. And each one is alive in his own part.”
It should be noted that the chronicle consists of works complex composition. Includes monuments of different origin, content, and genres: original documents (for example, treaties between Rus' and the Greeks in 911, 944, 971), diplomatic and legislative acts from princely and monastic archives, information from the military (for example, “The Tale about the invasion of Batu"), political and church history, materials of a geographical and ethnographic nature, descriptions of natural disasters, folk legends, theological works (for example, the legend about the spread of faith in Rus'), sermons, teachings (for example, the Teaching of Vladimir Monomakh), words of praise (for example, to Theodosius of Pechersk), fragments of life (for example, from the life of Boris and Gleb), quotes and references to biblical stories and Byzantine chronicles, etc.
It is clear now that the chronicles were compiled in different time, in different regions, by different people (authors, compilers) and were subjected, especially the most ancient ones, to repeated editorial revision. Based on this, the chronicle cannot be considered as the work of a single author-compiler. At the same time, it is a single, integral literary work. It is distinguished by the unity of concept, composition and ideological aspirations of the editors. The language of the chronicle is characterized by both diversity and diversity, as well as a certain unity due to the work of the editors. Its language is not a homogeneous system. In it, in addition to two stylistic types of the ancient Russian literary language - bookish (Church Slavic) and folk colloquial - dialect differences were reflected.
Certain linguistic features, e.g. in phonetics and vocabulary, indicate their source of different regional localization; grammatical and syntactic phenomena are more difficult to localize.
Hypothesis about the most ancient constructions
The study of the Initial Code showed that it was based on some work (or works) of a chronicle nature. This was evidenced by some logical inconsistencies in the text reflected in the Novgorod First Chronicle. So, according to the observations of A.A. Shakhmatov, in the early chronicles there should not have been a story about Olga’s first three revenges, and a legend about a brave young man (a boy with a bridle) who saved Kyiv from the Pecheneg siege, and about embassies sent to test faith, and many other stories.
In addition, A.A. Shakhmatov drew attention to the fact that the story about the death of Vladimir Svyatoslavich’s elder brother, Oleg (under 6485/977) ended in the Initial Code with the words: “And... burying him [Oleg] on the m ?st ?at the city, calling Vruchyago; There is his grave to this day near Vruchyago Grad.” However, under 6552/1044 we read: “Pogr ?bena fast 2 princes, son of Svyatoslavl: Yaropl, Olg; and baptized the bones with it,” to which the Laurentian Chronicle added: “and I laid the Holy Mother of God in the church.”
Therefore, according to A.A. Shakhmatova, the chronicler who described the tragic outcome of the Svyatoslavich strife, did not yet know about the transfer of Oleg’s remains to the Tithe Church from Vruchy. From this it was concluded that the Primary Code was based on some kind of chronicle compiled between 977 and 1044. The most likely in this interval is A.A. Shakhmatov considered 1037 (6545), under which the Tale contains extensive praise for Prince Yaroslav Vladimirovich, or 1939 (6547), which dates the article on the consecration of Sophia of Kyiv and “the establishment of the metropolis by Yaroslav.”
The researcher proposed to call the hypothetical chronicle work created this year the Most Ancient Code. The narrative in it was not yet divided into years and was of a monothematic (plot) nature. Yearly dates (as they sometimes say, a chronological network) were introduced into it by the Kiev-Pechersk monk Nikon the Great in the 70s. XI century
Shakhmatov’s constructions were supported by almost all researchers, but the idea of the existence of the Most Ancient Code aroused objections. It is believed that this hypothesis does not have sufficient grounds. At the same time, most scientists agree that the Primary Code was indeed based on some kind of chronicle or monothematic narrative. Its characteristics and dating, however, differ significantly.
So, M.N. Tikhomirov drew attention to the fact that the Tale better reflects the reign of Svyatoslav Igorevich than Vladimir Svyatoslavich and Yaroslav Vladimirovich. Based comparative study The Tale and the Novgorod Chronicle, he came to the conclusion that the Tale was based on the monothematic “Tale of the Beginning of the Russian Land,” based on oral traditions about the foundation of Kyiv and the first Kyiv princes. Assumption M.N. Tikhomirov essentially coincided with the opinion of N.K. Nikolsky and found support from L.V. Cherepnina. They also connected the origin of Russian chronicles with “some ancient story about the glades-Rus” - “a now lost historical work, which, having no significance as an all-Russian chronicle and containing news about the fate and ancient connections of the Russian tribes (Rus) with the Slavic world, was free from Byzantinism and Normanism" .The creation of such a work coincided with the reign of Svyatopolk Yaropolkovich (Vladimirovich) in Kyiv and dated back to 1015-1019. No textual verification of this hypothesis has been carried out.
An attempt to test this hypothesis was made by D.A. Balovnev. The textual, stylistic and ideological analysis chronicle fragments, which, according to D.S. Likhachev, once constituted a single work, showed that the hypothesis about the existence of the “Tale of the Initial Spread of Christianity” is not confirmed. In all texts related to D.S. Likhachev to the “Legend”, “there is clearly no unified narrative, no belonging to the same hand and no common terminology.” On the contrary, D.A. Balovnev managed to prove textually that the basis of the stories that were supposedly included in the “Tale” were precisely those fragments that at one time A.A. Shakhmatov attributed it to the folk (fairy-tale) layer of chronicle narration. Texts belonging to the spiritual (clerical, church) layer turn out to be inserts that complicate the original text. Moreover, these insertions were based on other literary sources than the original story, which, on the one hand, led to their terminological differences, and on the other, lexical and phraseological similarities with other chronicle stories (which, according to D.S. Likhachev, were not included, into the “Tale”), based on the same sources.
Despite the differences with the views of A.A. Shakhmatov about the nature and exact time of writing of the oldest literary work, which later formed the basis of the actual chronicle presentation, researchers agree that a certain work (or works) did exist. They do not fundamentally disagree in determining the date of its composition: the first half of the 11th century. Apparently, further study of early chronicle texts should clarify what this source was, its composition, ideological orientation, and date of creation.
Examples of information sources Chronicles
As is already known, literary genre chronicles was formed by the middle of the 11th century, but the oldest lists of chronicles available to us, such as the Synodal list of the First Novgorod Chronicle, date back to a much later period - the 13th and 14th centuries.
The Laurentian list dates back to the first quarter of the 15th century, the Ipatiev list of the Ipatiev Chronicle dates back to the first quarter of the 15th century, and the rest of the chronicles date back to an even later time. Based on this, the oldest period in the development of chronicles must be studied based on few lists, compiled 2-3 centuries later than the writing of the chronicles themselves.
Another problem in studying the chronicles is that each of them is a compilation of chronicles, that is, it recounts previous records, usually in abbreviation, so that each chronicle tells the history of the world “from the very beginning,” as in, “ The Tale of Bygone Years" begins with "where the Russian land came from."
The authorship of the “Tale of Bygone Years,” created at the beginning of the 12th century, still raises some doubts: his name was definitely Nestor, but the question of identifying Nestor the chronicler and Nestor the hagiographer, the author of “The Life of Boris and Gleb” and “The Life of Theodosius of Pechersk” is still controversial.
Like most chronicles, the Tale is a collection that includes processing and retelling of many previous chronicles, literary, journalistic, and folklore sources.
Nestor begins his chronicle with the division of the lands by the children of Noah, that is, from the time of the Flood: he lists the lands in detail, as in the Byzantine chronicles. Despite the fact that Rus' was not mentioned in those chronicles, Nestor, of course, introduces it after mentioning Ilyuric (Illyria - the eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea or the people who lived there), he adds the word “Slavs”. Then, in the description of the lands that Japheth inherited, the chronicle mentions the Dnieper, Desna, Pripyat, Dvina, Volkhov, Volga - Russian rivers. In the “part” of Japheth, it is said in the “Tale”, live “Rus, Chud and all the languages: Merya, Muroma, all ...” - this is followed by a list of tribes that inhabited the East European Plain.
The story of the Varangians is a fiction, a legend. Suffice it to mention that the oldest Russian monuments trace the dynasty of the Kyiv princes to Igor, and not to Rurik, and that Oleg’s “regency” lasted under the “young” Igor for no less than 33 years, and that in the Initial Code Oleg is not called a prince , and the governor...
Nevertheless, this legend was one of the cornerstones of ancient Russian historiography. It corresponded primarily to the medieval historiographical tradition, where the ruling clan was often elevated to a foreigner: this eliminated the possibility of rivalry between local clans.
The defeat of the Russian princes in the battle with the Polovtsians at Trepol in 1052 is also seen as God’s punishment, and then leads sad picture defeats: the Polovtsians lead away captured Russian captives, and those, hungry, suffering from thirst, undressed and barefoot, “the feet of the possessor are eaten with thorns,” answered with tears to each other, saying: “I am the beg of this city,” and others: “I am the sow.” “all the taxes ask with tears, telling their family and lifting their eyes up to the sky to the highest, who knows the secret.”
In describing the Polovtsian raid of 1096, the chronicler again has no choice but to promise the suffering Christians the kingdom of heaven for their torment. However, here is also an extract from the apocryphal word of Methodius of Patara, which tells about the origin of different peoples, in particular, about the legendary “unclean peoples” who were driven by Alexander the Great to the north, imprisoned in the mountains, but who “come out” from there “towards the end of the century” - on the eve of the destruction of the world.
To achieve greater authenticity and a greater impression from the story, descriptions of small details are introduced into the narrative: how the tinder was attached to the legs of the birds, various buildings are listed that were “ignited” by the sparrows and pigeons who returned to their nests and under the eaves (again a specific detail).
Among other records there are plot stories, written on the basis of historical, rather than legendary events: a message about an uprising in the Rostov land, led by the Magi, a story about how a certain Novgorodian told fortunes to a magician (both in article 1071), a description of the transfer of the relics of Theodosius of Pechersk in article 1091 ., a story about the blinding of Vasilko Terebovlsky in article 1097.
In The Tale of Bygone Years, like in no other chronicle, plot stories are frequent (we are not talking about inserted stories in the chronicles of the 15th-16th centuries). If we take the chronicles of the XI-XVI centuries. in general, then the chronicle as a genre is characterized by a certain literary principle, developed already in the XI-XIII centuries. and received from D.S., who examined it. Likhachev's name is the “style of monumental historicism” - a style characteristic of all art of this period, and not just literature.
Almost all chronicle collections of subsequent centuries began with the “Tale”, although, of course, in the abbreviated collections of the 15th-16th centuries. or in local chroniclers the ancient history of Rus' was presented in the form of brief selections about major events.
The lives written by Nestor - “Reading about the life and destruction” of Boris and Gleb and “The Life of Theodosius of Pechersk” represent two hagiographic types - the life-martyrium (the story of the martyrdom of the saint) and the monastic life, which tells about the entire life path of the righteous, his piety, asceticism and the miracles he performed. Nestor, of course, took into account the requirements of the Byzantine hagiographic canon and knew the translated Byzantine lives. But at the same time, he showed such artistic independence, such extraordinary talent that the creation of these two masterpieces makes him one of the outstanding ancient Russian writers, regardless of whether he was also the compiler of The Tale of Bygone Years.
To summarize, it should be noted that the genre diversity of sources determined the richness and expressiveness of the language. They contain valuable material on the history of vocabulary. The chronicle reflects rich synonymy (for example, drevodli - carpenters, stage - verst, sulia - spear), contains military, church and administrative terminology, onomastic and toponymic vocabulary (many personal names, nicknames, geographical names, names of residents, churches, monasteries ), phraseology, borrowed words and calques from Greek are used. language (for example, autocratic, autocratic) When comparing the vocabulary of “The Tale of Bygone Years”, it is possible to trace the life of terms, in particular military terms, right up to their extinction and replacement by new ones.
So, the language of the chronicle is characterized by rather sharp contrasts: from the use of Old Church Slavonicisms and constructions inherent in bookish language(for example, independent dative, perfect with copula, dual number of names and verbs), to colloquial. elements (for example, the expression is not enough or tore up the wood) and syntactic constructions (for example, impersonal phrases - for the sake of shame, constructions without copula, participles in the predicative function - vеtav and speech). Distribution of this kind of contrasts in the story unevenly, in particular it depends on the genre.
Bibliography
source tale of bygone years
1.Aleshkovsky M.Kh. The Tale of Bygone Years: The Fate of a Literary Work in Ancient Rus'. M., 1971
2.Eremin I.P. “The Tale of Bygone Years”: Problems of its historical and literary study (1947). - In the book: Eremin
I.P. Literature of Ancient Rus': (Sketches and Characteristics). M. - L., 1966 Sukhomlinov M.I. About the ancient Russian chronicle as a literary monument. St. Petersburg, 1856
Likhachev D.S. Russian chronicles and their cultural and historical significance. M. - L., 1947
Nasonov A.N. History of Russian chronicles of the 11th - early 18th centuries. M., 1969
Rybakov B.A. Ancient Rus': legends, epics, chronicles. M. - L., 1963
Tvorogov O.V. Plot narration in the chronicles of the 11th-13th centuries. . - In the book: Origins of Russian fiction. L., 1970
Kuzmin A.G. The initial stages of ancient Russian chronicle writing. M., 1977
Likhachev D.S. Great legacy. “The Tale of Bygone Years” Selected works: In 3 vols., vol. 2. L., 1987.
Shaikin A.A. “Behold the Tale of Bygone Years”: From Kiya to Monomakh. M., 1989
Shakhmatov A.A. History of Russian chronicles. T. 1. The Tale of Bygone Years and the most ancient Russian chronicles. Book 2. Early Russian chronicles of the 11th-12th centuries - St. Petersburg, 2003.
Tutoring
Need help studying a topic?
Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
All historians of Russia and Ukraine always remember “The Tale of Bygone Years” with special trepidation. This is a kind of collection about the life and exploits of Russian princes, about the life of Kievan Rus... "The Tale of Bygone Years" was created on the basis of the Kiev-Pechersk chronicles (in 1097 they were combined into the Kiev-Pechersk information). It was on the basis of these chronicles that this world-famous chronicle appeared.
During 1113-1114, a famous work was created on the basis of all previous codes. He himself writes that he wants to talk about famous princes throughout Europe and their exploits. Taking as a basis the work of his predecessors, Nestor added his own sketch of the settlement of peoples after the flood; gave an outline of pre-Slavic history (bringing the Slavs out from beyond the Danube), Slavic settlement and the geography of Eastern Europe itself.
He dwelled in particular detail on ancient history Kyiv, because I wanted to immortalize my native one in history. The historical part of this chronicle begins in 852 and ends in 1110. Nestor calls the Russians a Varangian (Scandinavian) tribe, which was brought by the famous Rurik. According to Nestor, Rurik came to the call of the Slavs themselves and became the founder of the Russian princely dynasty. The Tale of Bygone Years ends with the year 1112.
Nestor was well acquainted with Greek historiography and most likely had access to the princely archive, from which he cites the text of treaties with the Greeks. Nestor’s work is noted for his great literary talent and is imbued with deep patriotism and pride for, which was famous throughout the world.
Subsequently, in 1116, the second edition of Nestor’s “Tale of Bygone Years” appeared, created by the abbot of the St. Michael’s Monastery in Kyiv, Sylvester. It is worth saying that this chronicle is the main source for the study of political, economic, cultural and partly social history Kievan Rus, as well as the history of Russian lands during the period of feudal fragmentation.
Using official annual records of events, foreign sources, mainly Byzantine, folk legends and traditions, the compilers of chronicles talked about events related to the life of secular and spiritual feudal lords. Chroniclers sought to show the history of Rus' in connection with the history of neighboring tribes and peoples of non-Slavic origin.
Also, the chronicles were significantly affected by the fact that they were written, the causes of events were explained by the intervention of divine forces. Due to the fact that the chronicle lists are the construction of a number of chronicles, their testimony is often contradictory.
I propose to discuss the issue of falsification of what was actually written by Nestor. Who has not heard of the “Tale of Bygone Years,” the main document that became the source of a centuries-old dispute about the calling of Rurik?
It’s funny to talk about this, but historians still completely misread the chronicle and distort the most important thing that it says about Rus'. For example, the absolutely ridiculous term “Rurik’s calling to Rus'” was put into circulation, although Nestor writes the exact opposite: Rurik came to lands that were not Russia, but became Russia only with his arrival.
A Tale of Bygone Years
“Radzivilov Chronicle, one of the most important monuments chronicles of the pre-Mongol era. The Radzivilov Chronicle is the oldest chronicle that has come down to us; its text ends with the first years of the 13th century,” historians write about it. And it is very strange that until 1989 the Radzivilov Chronicle did not have a full-fledged scientific publication.
Here's her story. Prince Radzivil of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania donated it to the Königsberg library in 1671 - apparently because it contained references to the pre-German Russian history of Prussia and its capital, the city of Krulevets (Königsberg among the Germans).
In 1711, Tsar Peter visited the royal library of Koenigsberg while passing through and ordered a copy of the chronicle to be made for his personal library. A copy was sent to Peter in 1711. Then, in 1758, during the Seven Years' War with Prussia (1756-1763), Koenigsberg fell into the hands of the Russians, and the chronicle came to Russia, to the library of the Academy of Sciences, where it is currently kept.
After the original arrived at the Library of the Academy of Sciences in 1761, history professor Schletser, who was called from Germany especially for this purpose, began to work on the manuscript. He prepared its edition, which was published in his German translation and with his explanations in Göttingen in 1802-1809. Allegedly, preparations were being made Russian edition chronicles, but for some reason everything didn’t work out with him. It remained unfinished and was destroyed during the Moscow fire of 1812.
Then, for some reason, the original Radzivilov Chronicle ended up in the personal use of Privy Councilor N.M. Muravyova. In 1814, after Muravyov’s death, the manuscript was in the possession of the famous archaeographer, director of the Imperial Public library A.N. Olenin, who, despite all the demands, refused under various pretexts to return it to the Academy of Sciences.
Let's look at the description of the manuscript:
“The manuscript consists of 32 notebooks, of which 28 are 8 sheets long, two are 6 sheets (sheets 1-6 and 242-247), one is 10 sheets (sheets 232-241) and one is 4 sheets (sheets 248-251).” One leaf has been torn out, perhaps three. One leaf therefore turned out to be unpaired. In the corner of the 8th sheet there is a note in the handwriting of the 19th-20th centuries. to the number “8” (to the sheet number): “Not 8 sheets, but 9 must be counted; because here in front of this there is a missing sheet, No. 3ri Ross Library. Historical Part 1. in S.P.B. 1767 p. 14 and p. 15″.
On the lost sheet (or sheets) is the most important thing for Russia: a description of the tribes that inhabited the territory of Muscovy. On the remaining sheet, a piece was torn out with a description of how Rurik was called up - again the most important thing for Russian ideologists. Moreover, postscripts were added here and there to the text by a later hand, completely changing the meaning of what was originally written.
Unpaired sheet 8 looks really unnatural, it has not lost its corners, as happens with all other old sheets of a book, but pieces have been torn out from above and smaller from below, and in order to hide these gaping holes, they have been chewed, but in to a lesser extent, and angles.
What did the vandals tear out?
At the top of the front page of sheet 8 there is a story about the Bulgarians, and perhaps there was no special sedition here. But reverse side Sheet 8 from the top is “successfully” crippled precisely in a very important phrase, THE ESSENCE OF THE DISPUTE ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF Rus', which has been going on for centuries, but is just as far from the truth as when it began, because it considers two absurd theories: Norman and internal Russian. Both are equally false.
Here is the text on the first page of the crippled sheet, where, after the story about the Bulgarians, Rurik’s theme begins (in the generally accepted interpretation, placing its own commas, which are not in the text):
“In Lt(o) 6367. To Imah, tribute was paid to the Varangians from Zamoria to Chudi, to the Slovenes, to the Meryas, and to all the Krivichs. And the Kozare Imahu was in the fields, and in Severa, and in Vyatichi, Imahu was more and more from the smoke.”
The meaning is clear: the overseas Varangians (the Swedes, their colony was located in Ladoga) took tribute from such and such tribes, the Khozars - from others, “from the smoke” - this is “from the hut”, “from the chimney”. In Tsarist Russia and the USSR, the term “and on all Krivichi” was incorrectly translated (unlike the Stil Translation Bureau) as “and from all Krivichi.” The word “vskh” in this case does not mean “all”, but the Finnish tribe all, which lived in what is now Estonia and the Pskov region. Moreover, further in the text, after the Krivichi, the entire Finnish tribe is listed.
I will add that in some other places in the chronicle “all” should also be interpreted as the name of the people (which the “translators” did not do), but in this passage the current interpretation seems absurd: why did the author highlight before the word “Krivichi” that it was from them ALL that they were collected tribute? This makes no sense and does not fit into the narrative: the author did not write about anyone else that “from all such and such” tribute was taken. For tribute can either be taken or not, and the word “from everyone” is inappropriate here.
Further on the page:
“In lit(o) 6368.
In lit(o) 6369.
In lt(o) 6370. Having been vyryags from overseas and not giving them tribute, and having gone to their own hands, and there was no truth in them, and generation after generation rose up, and there was strife among them, to fight according to...”.
On the next page the mangled text reads:
“[...the cup is upon us, and we speak to ourselves: “Let us look for a prince who would [rule us and] rule by right.” And I went overseas to the Varangians, to the Russians. Sitsa These are called Varangians Rus(s), as they are called Druzii, Druzii Urmyani, Inglyans, Druzii and Gote Tako and Si Rus, and Slovenians, and Krivichi, and all: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no decoration in it. Let us come and live among the princes.”
What is in square brackets are pieces of torn paper, and what is written in brackets was thought up by German historians. This is not in the chronicle. Everyone can see this for themselves by looking at the original (see photo 1). Where did the interpretation come from, “[the cup is on itself, and it’s in itself: “Let’s look for a prince for ourselves”? I can equally well assume that it was written there: “let’s take a Polabian prince.” Or a Porussian (Prussian) prince.
In Russian history, the USSR and now in the Russian Federation, this most important passage is traditionally “translated” in a conjectural and distorted form, with a completely different meaning.
Here is my interpretation of the text, everyone can compare it with the original in the photo:
“...why would I be in... [that’s how I read these letters]...ranked rightfully. And I went overseas to Varangian Rus' [there is no comma or preposition “to” in the text]. Sitsa bo tii is called Varyazi Rus'. As if these friends are called [s(ya) is not in the text, this is again speculation] svie [the comma that the Russian-Soviet interpreters made here is also not] druzii and urmyani, inglyane, druzii and goth. Tako and si rysha of Rus' [in the text “Rsha” is with a small letter and is not separated by a dot from “Tako and si”, this is one phrase, and here the falsifiers distort the text, creating a completely different meaning!!!] Chud, and Slovenes, and Krivichi , and all: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no decoration in it. Let us become princes and lords.”
I repeat once again, everyone can compare what they have been telling us for 250 years and what is actually written in the PVL.
The real and correct “translation” into modern language is:
“...there is no reason for... ...to rule by right. And they went overseas to the Varangians of Rus', since they were called Varangians-Rus. What do their neighbors the Swedes call themselves, their neighbors the Norwegians, the Angles, the neighbors the Goths. Rus' (finally) accepted the request. Chud, and the Slovenes, and the Krivichi, and everyone (in response) said: “Our land is great and rich, but there is no order in it. Come reign with us and rule."
As we can see, Nestor’s meaning is completely different from what the falsifiers put in it. His request was addressed to Rus', and not “from Rus'.”
“And I chose the 3rd brother from my generations, and girded all of Russia, and came to the Slavs first, and cut down the city of Ladoga, and the old Rurik went to Ladoz, and the other sat with us on Belozer, and the third Truvor in Izborsk. And about those Varangians, the Russian land of Novgorod was nicknamed, these people of Novgorod are from the Varezh family, formerly there was a word."
Now let's take a look at the page itself. It is written differently. It ends like this: “previously b” EVERYTHING! This is all! On the next page another text begins. In this case, there are NO torn out pieces with the supposedly missing part “for there were Slavs”! There is nowhere for these words to fit; the line rests against the binding. Why on earth should one think out something that is not written on paper and not torn from paper?
And this is because this phrase is very seditious. I will translate: “And from those Varangians the land of Novgorod was nicknamed Russian, since the people of Novgorod from the Varangian family before [were].”
This is what the author of the chronicle wrote. And the German interpreter of the author CORRECTS, adding NON-EXISTENT words (part of the word “bysha” - “sha” and “sloven”), radically changing the meaning of the phrase in the chronicle: “since people are Novgorodians from the Varangian family, for before they were Slavs.”
Yes, Nestor didn’t write this! But until now, almost all historians go along with this falsification, and even fool the population. Let me give you at least one example.
“Where does it generally follow that the Varangians are Scandinavians? Indeed, in the famous fragment of the Initial Chronicle about the calling of Rurik and his brothers, it is stated only that the Varangians were called Rus in the sense of ethnic and linguistic affiliation and from them came the name of Rus' as a state (“from those Varangians they were nicknamed the Russian Land”). And not a word about Scandinavian roots (the fact that the Varangians are “from overseas” or from overseas can be interpreted in different ways, more on that later).
But the Nestor Chronicle energetically emphasizes: the Russian language is Slavic, and the Novgorod Slavs trace their ancestry back to the Varangians (“they are the people of Nougorod from the Varangian clan, before there were Slovenes”). This is extremely important evidence, but for some reason historians do not pay attention to it. But in vain! Here it is written in black and white: the Varangian clan was originally Slavic and the Varangians, together with the Novgorodians, spoke Russian (Slavic) language!
Because otherwise it turns out that the population of Veliky Novgorod (they are “from the Varangian family”), before the calling of Rurik, and in the future, it must be assumed, used one of the Scandinavian languages (if, of course, we adhere to the dead-end formula “Varangians = Scandinavians”) . Absurd? In fact, there’s no other word for it!”
Absurdities are in the minds of those who try to build their concepts on falsifications, without bothering to look at the original source. Nestor did not write any “bo besha sloveni”. Moreover, with such an addition, his phrase itself generally loses any meaning: “And from those Varangians the Russian land was nicknamed Novgorod, since the people of Novgorod are from the Varangian family, for before they were Slavs.”
It's a bullshit. Nestor wrote something simple and clear: the contemporary chronicler’s Novgorod land became Russia because it was founded by Varangian settlers, whose Rus' he listed above. Simple, precise and clear. But someone didn’t like it, and they began to add something that Nestor had not written: that, they say, “from the Varangian family, before being Slovenian.” No! Nestor has something else: “from the Varangian family before”, without commas and without additions, and “bo b” among the interpreters is actually the word “BE.”
What we have before us is a fundamental falsification of not even history, but only a “TRANSLATION” into Russian of a document on which the entire concept of the past of the Russian Empire, the USSR and now the Russian Federation is built. What was written in the torn out sheet of PVL and in the SPECIALLY torn out piece of sheet about the “call of Rurik” - one can only guess. This was a “cleansing of the historical field.” But even without this “cleansing”, any reader of the original PVL will easily be convinced that the current “translations” do not correspond to the original and distort not just the text, but the very meaning that Nestor wanted to convey to subsequent generations.
He wrote about one thing, but we can’t even read it and believe that he wrote something completely different.
I can't find the words. Nightmare…
Tale of Bygone Years Chronicle- An ancient Russian chronicle created in the 1110s. Chronicles are historical works in which events are presented according to the so-called yearly principle, combined into annual, or “yearly” articles (they are also called weather records). “Yearly articles,” which combined information about events that occurred during one year, begin with the words “In the summer of such and such...” (“summer” in Old Russian means “year”). In this regard, the chronicles, including The Tale of Bygone Years, are fundamentally different from the Byzantine chronicles known in Ancient Rus', from which Russian compilers borrowed numerous information from world history. In the translated Byzantine chronicles, events were distributed not by years, but by the reigns of the emperors.
The earliest list extant Tales of Bygone Years dates back to the 14th century. It got the name Laurentian Chronicle named after the scribe, monk Lawrence, and was compiled in 1377. Another ancient list Tales of Bygone Years preserved as part of the so-called Ipatiev Chronicle(mid 15th century).
The Tale of Bygone Years- the first chronicle, the text of which has reached us almost in its original form. Thanks to careful textual analysis Tales of Bygone Years researchers have discovered traces of earlier works included in it. Probably the oldest chronicles were created in the 11th century. The hypothesis of A.A. Shakhmatov (1864–1920), which explains the emergence and describes the history of Russian chronicles of the 11th–early 12th centuries, received the greatest recognition. He resorted to the comparative method, comparing the surviving chronicles and finding out their relationships. According to A.A. Shakhmatov, approx. 1037, but no later than 1044, was compiled The most ancient Kyiv chronicle code, which told about the beginning of history and the baptism of Rus'. Around 1073, in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, probably the monk Nikon completed the first Kiev-Pechersk Chronicle Code. In it, new news and legends were combined with the text The most ancient arch and with borrowings from Novgorod Chronicle mid 11th century In 1093–1095, it was here, based on the Nikon code, that the second Kiev-Pechersk vault; it is also commonly called Beginners. (The name is explained by the fact that A.A. Shakhmatov initially considered this particular chronicle to be the earliest.) It condemned the foolishness and weakness of the current princes, who were contrasted with the former wise and powerful rulers of Rus'.
The first edition (version) was completed in 1110–1113 Tales of Bygone Years- a lengthy chronicle collection that has absorbed numerous information on the history of Rus': about the Russian wars with Byzantine Empire, about the calling of the Scandinavians Rurik, Truvor and Sineus to reign in Rus', about the history of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, about princely crimes. The probable author of this chronicle is the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor. This edition has not been preserved in its original form.
First edition Tales of Bygone Years the political interests of the then Kyiv prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavich were reflected. In 1113 Svyatopolk died, and Prince Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh ascended the Kiev throne. In 1116 by the monk Sylvester (in the Promonomakhian spirit) and in 1117–1118 by an unknown scribe from the entourage of Prince Mstislav Vladimirovich (son of Vladimir Monomakh) text Tales of Bygone Years has been redesigned. This is how the second and third editions arose Tales of Bygone Years; the oldest list of the second edition has reached us as part of Lavrentievskaya, and the earliest list of the third is in the composition Ipatiev Chronicle.
Almost all Russian chronicles are vaults - a combination of several texts or news from other sources of an earlier time. Old Russian chronicles of the 14th–16th centuries. open with text Tales of Bygone Years.
Name The Tale of Bygone Years(more precisely, Tales of Bygone Years– in the Old Russian text the word “story” is used in the plural) is usually translated as Tale of yesteryear, but there are other interpretations: A story in which the narrative is distributed by year or Narration within a time frame, A Narrative of the End Times- telling about the events on the eve of the end of the world and the Last Judgment.
Narration in Tales of Bygone Years begins with a story about the settlement of the sons of Noah on earth - Shem, Ham and Japheth - along with their families (in the Byzantine chronicles the starting point was the creation of the world). This story is taken from the Bible. The Russians considered themselves descendants of Japheth. Thus, Russian history was included in world history. Goals Tales of Bygone Years there was an explanation of the origin of the Russians (Eastern Slavs), the origin of princely power (which for the chronicler is identical to the origin of the princely dynasty) and a description of baptism and the spread of Christianity in Rus'. Narration of Russian events in Tales of Bygone Years opens with a description of the life of East Slavic (Old Russian) tribes and two legends. This is a story about the reign in Kyiv of Prince Kiy, his brothers Shchek, Khoriv and sister Lybid; about the calling of the three Scandinavians (Varangians) Rurik, Truvor and Sineus by the warring northern Russian tribes, so that they would become princes and establish order in the Russian land. The story about the Varangian brothers has an exact date - 862. Thus, in the historiosophical concept Tales of Bygone Years two sources of power are established in Rus' - local (Kiy and his brothers) and foreign (Varangians). The rise of ruling dynasties to foreign families is traditional for the medieval historical consciousness; Similar stories are found in Western European chronicles. Thus, the ruling dynasty was given greater nobility and dignity.
Main events in Tales of Bygone Years- wars (external and internecine), the founding of churches and monasteries, the death of princes and metropolitans - the heads of the Russian Church.
Chronicles, including Tale…, - Not works of art in the strict sense of the word, and not the work of a historian. Part Tales of Bygone Years included agreements between the Russian princes Oleg the Prophet, Igor Rurikovich and Svyatoslav Igorevich with Byzantium. The chronicles themselves apparently had the meaning of a legal document. Some scientists (for example, I.N. Danilevsky) believe that the chronicles and, in particular, The Tale of Bygone Years, were compiled not for people, but for Last Judgment, in which God will decide the fate of people at the end of the world: therefore, the sins and merits of the rulers and people were listed in the chronicles.
The chronicler usually does not interpret events, does not look for their remote causes, but simply describes them. In relation to the explanation of what is happening, the chroniclers are guided by providentialism - everything that happens is explained by the will of God and is viewed in the light of the coming end of the world and the Last Judgment. Attention to the cause-and-effect relationships of events and their pragmatic rather than providential interpretation is insignificant.
For chroniclers, the principle of analogy, the overlap between the events of the past and the present is important: the present is thought of as an “echo” of events and deeds of the past, especially the deeds and deeds described in the Bible. The chronicler presents the murder of Boris and Gleb by Svyatopolk as a repetition and renewal of the first murder committed by Cain (legend Tales of Bygone Years under 1015). Vladimir Svyatoslavich - the baptizer of Rus' - is compared with Saint Constantine the Great, who made Christianity the official religion in the Roman Empire (the legend of the baptism of Rus' in 988).
Tales of Bygone Years unity of style is alien, it is an “open” genre. The simplest element in a chronicle text is a brief weather record that only reports an event, but does not describe it.
Part Tales of Bygone Years traditions are also included. For example, a story about the origin of the name of the city of Kyiv on behalf of Prince Kiy; tales of the Prophetic Oleg, who defeated the Greeks and died from the bite of a snake hidden in the skull of a deceased princely horse; about Princess Olga, cunningly and cruelly taking revenge on the Drevlyan tribe for the murder of her husband. The chronicler is invariably interested in news about the past of the Russian land, about the founding of cities, hills, rivers and the reasons why they received these names. Legends also report this. IN Tales of Bygone Years the share of legends is very large, since the initial events of ancient Russian history described in it are separated from the time of work of the first chroniclers by many decades and even centuries. In later chronicles telling about modern events, the number of legends is small, and they are also usually found in the part of the chronicle dedicated to the distant past.
Part Tales of Bygone Years stories about saints written in a special hagiographic style are also included. This is the story about the brother-princes Boris and Gleb under 1015, who, imitating the humility and non-resistance of Christ, meekly accepted death at the hands of their half-brother Svyatopolk, and the story about the holy Pechersk monks under 1074.
A significant part of the text in Tales of Bygone Years occupied by narratives of battles, written in the so-called military style, and princely obituaries.
Editions: Monuments of literature of Ancient Rus'. XI – first half of the XII century. M., 1978; The Tale of Bygone Years. 2nd ed., add. and corr. St. Petersburg, 1996, series “Literary monuments”; Library of Literature of Ancient Rus', vol. 1. XI – beginning of the XII century. St. Petersburg, 1997.
Andrey Ranchin
Literature:
Sukhomlinov M.I. About the ancient Russian chronicle as a literary monument. St. Petersburg, 1856
Istrin V.M. Notes on the beginning of Russian chronicles. – News of the Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences, vol. 26, 1921; v. 27, 1922
Likhachev D.S. Russian chronicles and their cultural and historical significance. M. – L., 1947
Rybakov B.A. Ancient Rus': legends, epics, chronicles. M. – L., 1963
Eremin I.P. “The Tale of Bygone Years”: Problems of its historical and literary study(1947
). – In the book: Eremin I.P. Literature of Ancient Rus': (Sketches and Characteristics). M. – L., 1966
Nasonov A.N. History of Russian chronicles of the 11th – early 18th centuries. M., 1969
Tvorogov O.V. Plot narration in chronicles of the 11th–13th centuries.. – In the book: Origins of Russian fiction .
L., 1970
Aleshkovsky M.Kh. The Tale of Bygone Years: The Fate of a Literary Work in Ancient Rus'. M., 1971
Kuzmin A.G. The initial stages of ancient Russian chronicles. M., 1977
Likhachev D.S. Great legacy. "The Tale of Bygone Years"(1975). – Likhachev D.S. Selected works: In 3 vols., vol. 2. L., 1987
Shaikin A.A. “Behold the Tale of Bygone Years”: From Kiya to Monomakh. M., 1989
Danilevsky I.N. Biblicalisms "The Tale of Bygone Years". - In the book: Hermeneutics of Old Russian Literature. M., 1993. Issue. 3.
Danilevsky I.N. The Bible and the Tale of Bygone Years(On the problem of interpreting chronicle texts). – Domestic History, 1993, No. 1
Trubetskoy N.S. Lectures on Old Russian literature (translated from German by M.A. Zhurinskaya). – In the book: Trubetskoy N.S. Story. Culture. Language. M., 1995
Priselkov M.D. History of Russian chronicles of the 11th–15th centuries. (1940). 2nd ed. M., 1996
Ranchin A. M. Articles about Old Russian literature. M., 1999
Gippius A.A. “The Tale of Bygone Years”: about the possible origin and meaning of the name. - In the book: From the history of Russian culture, vol. 1 (Ancient Rus'). M., 2000
Shakhmatov A.A. 1) Research on the most ancient Russian chronicles(1908). – In the book: Shakhmatov A.A. Research about Russian chronicles. M. – Zhukovsky, 2001
Zhivov V.M. On the ethnic and religious consciousness of Nestor the Chronicler(1998). – In the book: Zhivov V.M. Research in the field of history and prehistory of Russian culture. M., 2002
Shakhmatov A.A. History of Russian chronicles, vol. 1. St. Petersburg, 2002
Shakhmatov A.A. . Book 1 2) The Tale of Bygone Years (1916). – In the book: Shakhmatov A.A. History of Russian chronicles. T. 1. The Tale of Bygone Years and the most ancient Russian chronicles. Book 2. Early Russian chronicles of the 11th–12th centuries. St. Petersburg, 2003
