The oldest chronicle. Tale of Bygone Years

Introduction

1. The concept of the chronicle

3. Methods of studying the annals

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Chronicles, historical works of the XI-XVII centuries, in which the narration was carried out over the years. The story of the events of each year in the annals usually began with the words: "in the summer" - hence the name - chronicle. The words "chronicle" and "chronicler" are equivalent, but the compiler of such a work could also be called a chronicler. Chronicles are the most important historical sources, the most significant monuments of social thought and culture of Ancient Rus. Usually, the chronicles set out Russian history from its beginning, sometimes the chronicles were opened with biblical history and continued with ancient, Byzantine and Russian. The chronicles played an important role in the ideological substantiation of the princely power in Ancient Rus and in the propaganda of the unity of the Russian lands. The chronicles contain significant material about the origin of the Eastern Slavs, about their state power, about the political relationships of the Eastern Slavs among themselves and with other peoples and countries.

Purpose of the study- study of the annals as a historical source, methods of their study.

Research objectives:

1) to reveal the concept of the chronicle;

2) consider the content of the chronicle;

3) identify methods of studying the chronicle.

1. The concept of the chronicle

In Kiev in the XII century. chronicle writing was carried out in the Kiev-Pechersky and Vydubitsky Mikhailovsky monasteries, as well as at the prince's court. Galicia-Volyn chronicle in the XII century. concentrated at the courts of the Galicia-Volyn princes and bishops. The South Russian chronicle was preserved in the Ipatiev Chronicle, which consists of the Tale of Bygone Years, continued mainly by the Kiev news (ending 1200), and the Galicia-Volyn Chronicle (ending 1289-92). In the Vladimir-Suzdal land, the main centers of chronicle writing were Vladimir, Suzdal, Rostov and Pereyaslavl. The monument of this chronicle is the Laurentian Chronicle, which begins with the “Tale of Bygone Years”, continued by the Vladimir-Suzdal news until 1305, as well as the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl-Suzdal (ed. 1851) and the Radziwill Chronicle, decorated big amount drawings. Chronicle writing was greatly developed in Novgorod at the court of the archbishop, at monasteries and churches.

The Mongol-Tatar invasion caused a temporary decline in the annals. In the XIV-XV centuries. it develops again. The largest centers of chronicle writing were Novgorod, Pskov, Rostov, Tver, Moscow. Ch. events of local importance (the birth and death of princes, elections of mayors and thousand in Novgorod and Pskov, military campaigns, battles, etc.), church events (the establishment and death of bishops, abbots of monasteries, the construction of churches, etc.), crop failure and famine , epidemics, remarkable natural phenomena, etc. Events that go beyond local interests are poorly reflected in such annals. Novgorod Chronicle XII-XV centuries. most fully represented by the Novgorod First Chronicle of the older and younger versions. The older, or earlier, edition has been preserved in the only Synodal parchment (harate) copy of the 13th-14th centuries; the younger edition reached the 15th century lists. In Pskov, chronicle writing was associated with the mayor and the state chancellery at the Trinity Cathedral. In Tver, chronicle writing developed at the court of Tver princes and bishops. The Tver collection and the Rogozhsky chronicler give an idea of ​​it. In Rostov, chronicle writing was carried out at the court of bishops, and the chronicles created in Rostov are reflected in a number of vaults, incl. in the Ermola Chronicle of the end of the 15th century.

New phenomena in the annals are noted in the 15th century, when the Russian state was taking shape with its center in Moscow. The policy of the Moscow leaders. princes found its reflection in the all-Russian annalistic vaults. The Trinity Chronicle of N.N. XV century. (disappeared in a fire in 1812) and the Simeon Chronicle in the list of the 16th century. The Trinity Chronicle ends in 1409. Various sources were involved in compiling it: Novgorod, Tver, Pskov, Smolensk, etc. The origin and political orientation of this chronicle is emphasized by the predominance of Moscow news and a general favorable assessment of the activities of Moscow princes and metropolitans. The all-Russian annals compiled in Smolensk in the late 15th century was the so-called. Chronicle of Abraham; Another set is the Suzdal Chronicle (late 15th century).

The annalistic collection, based on the rich Novgorodian writing, "Sophia time", appeared in Novgorod. A large collection of chronicles appeared in Moscow in the late 15th - early 20th century. XVI centuries. Especially famous is the Resurrection Chronicle, ending in 1541 (the compilation of the main part of the chronicle dates back to 1534-37). It includes many official records. The same official records were included in the extensive Lviv Chronicle, which included “The Chronicler of the Beginning of the Kingdom of the Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich,” up to 1560. At the court of Ivan the Terrible in the 1540s and 60s, the Facial Chronicle Code was created. chronicle, including figures corresponding to the text. The first 3 volumes of the Facial Set are devoted to world history(compiled on the basis of "Chronograph" and other works), the next 7 volumes - Russian history from 1114 to 1567. The last volume The obverse vault, dedicated to the reign of Ivan the Terrible, was named “The Royal Book”. The text of the Observatory is based on the earlier Nikon Chronicle, which was a huge compilation of various chronicle news, stories, lives, etc. In the 16th century. chronicle writing continued to develop not only in Moscow, but also in other cities. The most famous is the Vologda-Perm Chronicle. Chronicles were also kept in Novgorod and Pskov, in the Pechersky Monastery near Pskov. In the XVI century. new species appeared historical narration, already departing from the annalistic form - "The book of the power of the royal genealogy" and "The history of the Kazan kingdom".

In the XVII century. there was a gradual withering away of the chronicle form of narration. At this time, local chronicles appeared, of which the Siberian chronicles are the most interesting. The beginning of their compilation refers to the 1st floor. XVII century Of these, the Stroganov Chronicle and the Esipov Chronicle are better known. In the end of the XVII century. the Tobolsk son of boyar S.U. Remezov compiled “Siberian History”. In the XVII century. chronicles are included in the composition of the books of power and chronographs. The word “chronicle” continues to be used traditionally, even for such works that faintly resemble the Chronicles of the previous time. Such is the New Chronicler, who tells about the events of the end of the XVI - n. XVII centuries. (Polish-Swedish intervention and peasant war), and "Chronicle of many revolts."

A characteristic feature of the Chronicle is the faith of the chroniclers in the intervention of divine forces. New Chronicles were usually compiled as collections of previous Chronicles and various materials (historical stories, lives, epistles, etc.) and were concluded with records of events contemporary to the chronicler. Literary works were also used in the Chronicle as sources. Traditions, epics, treaties, legislative acts, documents of the princely and church archives were also woven by the chronicler into the fabric of the narrative. Rewriting the materials included in the Chronicle, he strove to create a single narrative, subordinating it historical concept, which corresponded to the interests of the political center where he wrote (the prince's court, the chancellery of the metropolitan, bishop, monastery, posadnichya hut, etc.). However, along with the official ideology, the Chronicle reflected the views of their direct compilers, sometimes very democratically progressive. In general, the Chronicles testify to the high patriotic consciousness of the Russian people in the 11th-17th centuries. Great importance was attached to the compilation of the Chronicle; they were consulted in political disputes, during diplomatic negotiations. The mastery of historical narration has reached a high level of perfection in the Chronicle. The Chronicle lists at least 1,500. Many works of Old Russian literature have survived in the Chronicle: The Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh, The Legend of the Mamayev Massacre, Afanasy Nikitin's Walking Beyond the Three Seas, etc. Ancient Chronicles of the 11th-12th centuries. survived only in later copies. The most famous of the earliest chronicle compilations that has come down to our time is "The Tale of Bygone Years". Its creator is considered to be Nestor, a monk of the Pechersk monastery in Kiev, who wrote his work around 1113.

Feudal fragmentation of the XII-XIV centuries. reflected in the annals: the vaults of this time express local political interests. In Kiev in the XII century. chronicle writing was carried out in the Pechersky and Vydubitsky monasteries, as well as at the prince's court. Galicia-Volyn chronicle in the XIII century. (see. Galicia-Volyn Chronicle) is concentrated at the courts of Galicia-Volyn princes and bishops. The South Russian chronicle was preserved in the Ipatiev Chronicle, which consists of the "Tale of Bygone Years", continued mainly by Kiev news (ending 1200), and the Galicia-Volyn Chronicle (ending 1289-92) (PSRL, vol. 2, Chronicle according to the Ipatiev list). In the Vladimir-Suzdal land, the main centers of chronicle writing were Vladimir, Suzdal, Rostov and Pereyaslavl. A monument of this chronicle is the Laurentian Chronicle, which begins with the "Tale of Bygone Years", continued by the Vladimir-Suzdal news until 1305 (PSRL, vol. 1, Chronicle according to the Laurentian list), as well as the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl-Suzdal (edition 1851) and the Radziwill Chronicle, a large number of drawings. Chronicle writing was greatly developed in Novgorod at the court of the archbishop, at monasteries and churches.

The Mongol-Tatar invasion caused a temporary decline in the annals. In the XIV-XV centuries. it develops again. The largest centers of chronicle writing were Novgorod, Pskov, Rostov, Tver, Moscow. The annals mainly reflected events of local importance (the birth and death of princes, elections of mayors and thousand people in Novgorod and Pskov, military campaigns, battles, etc.), church events (the establishment and death of bishops, abbots of monasteries, the construction of churches, etc.). ), crop failure and famine, epidemics, remarkable natural phenomena, etc. Events that go beyond local interests are poorly reflected in such Chronicles. Novgorod Chronicle XII-XV centuries. most fully represented by the Novgorod First Chronicle of the older and younger versions (see Novgorod Chronicles). The older, or earlier, edition has been preserved in the only Synodal parchment (harate) copy of the 13th-14th centuries; the younger edition reached the 15th century lists. (Novgorodskaya Pervaya Chronicle senior and junior edition, PSRL, vol. 3). In Pskov, chronicle writing was associated with the mayor and the state chancellery at the Trinity Cathedral (PSRL, v. 4-5; Pskov Chronicle, v. 1-2, 1941-55). In Tver, chronicle writing developed at the court of Tver princes and bishops. An idea of ​​him is given by the Tver collection (PSRL, vol. 15) and the Rogozhsky chronicler (PSRL, vol. 15, v. 1). In Rostov, chronicle writing was carried out at the court of bishops, and the Chronicles created in Rostov are reflected in a number of vaults, including the Ermolinskaya chronicle con. XV century.

The annalistic collection, based on the rich Novgorodian writing, "Sophia Vremennik", appeared in Novgorod. A large collection of chronicles appeared in Moscow at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries. Especially famous is the Resurrection Chronicle, ending in 1541 (the compilation of the main part of the Chronicle dates back to 1534-37). It includes many official records. The same official records were included in the extensive Lviv Chronicle, which included "The Chronicler of the Beginning of the Kingdom of the Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich" until 1560. At the court of Ivan the Terrible in the 40-60s. XVI century the Facial chronicle collection was created, that is, the chronicle, including figures corresponding to the text. The first 3 volumes of the obverse are devoted to world history (based on the Chronograph and other works), the next 7 volumes are devoted to Russian history from 1114 to 1567. The last volume of the obverse, dedicated to the reign of Ivan the Terrible, was named The Royal Book. The text of the obverse is based on the earlier Nikon Chronicle, which was a huge compilation of various chronicles, stories, lives, etc. In the 16th century. chronicle writing continued to develop not only in Moscow, but also in other cities. The most famous is the Vologda-Perm Chronicle. Chronicles were also kept in Novgorod and Pskov, in the Pechersky Monastery near Pskov. In the XVI century. there were also new types of historical narration, already departing from the chronicle form - "The book of the power of the royal genealogy" and "History of the Kazan kingdom".

In the XVII century. there was a gradual withering away of the chronicle form of narration. At this time, local Chronicles appeared, of which the Siberian Chronicles are the most interesting. The beginning of their compilation dates back to the 1st half of the 17th century. Of these, the Stroganov Chronicle and the Esipovskaya Chronicle are better known. At the end of the 17th century. The Tobolsk boyar son S.U. Remezov compiled "History of Siberia" ("Siberian Chronicles", 1907). In the XVII century. chronicles are included in the composition of the books of power and chronographs. The word "Chronicle" continues to be used according to tradition, even for such works that faintly resemble the Chronicles of the previous time. Such is the New Chronicler, who tells about the events of the late 16th - early 17th centuries. (Polish-Swedish intervention and peasant war), and Chronicle of Many Rebellions.

Chronicle writing, which has received significant development in Russia, was developed to a lesser extent in Belarus and Ukraine, which were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Most interesting piece this chronicle of the beginning of the XVI century. is the "Concise Kiev Chronicle", containing the Novgorod and Kiev abridged Chronicle (1836). Ancient history Russia is presented in this Chronicle on the basis of earlier chronicle compilations, and the events of the late 15th - early 16th centuries. described by a contemporary. Chronicle writing also developed in Smolensk and Polotsk in the 15th-16th centuries. The Belarusian and Smolensk Chronicles formed the basis of some Chronicles on the history of Lithuania. Sometimes Chronicles also name some Ukrainian historical works of the 18th century. (Chronicle of the Samovidts, etc.). Chronicle writing was also carried out in Moldavia, Siberia, Bashkiria.

Chronicles serve as the main source for the study of history Kievan Rus, as well as Russia, Ukraine, Belarus in the XIII-XVII centuries, although they mainly reflected the class interests of the feudal lords. Only the Chronicle has preserved such sources as the treaties of Russia with the Greeks of the 10th century, Russkaya Pravda in a short edition, etc. The Chronicles are of great importance for the study of Russian writing, language and literature. The chronicles also contain valuable material on the history of other peoples of the USSR.

The study and publication of the Chronicle in Russia and the USSR has been going on for more than two hundred years: in 1767, the chronicle text was published in the "Library of the Russian Historical, containing ancient chronicles and all sorts of notes", and from 1841 to 1973 it was published Complete collection Russian chronicles.

V.N. Tatishchev and M.M. Shcherbatov laid the foundation for the study of the Chronicle Forty years were devoted to the study of the "Tale of Bygone Years" A. Chronicle Schletser, clearing the chronicle of errors and omissions, explaining the "dark" places. P.M. Stroyev viewed the chronicles as collections or "collections" of previous material. Using the method of Schletser and Stroyev, M.P. Pogodin and I. I. Sreznevsky enriched science with many facts that facilitated the study of the history of the Russian Chronicle

I. D. Belyaev classified the Chronicles into state, family, monastery and chronicle collections and indicated that the position of the chronicler was determined by his territorial and estate status. M.I. Sukhomlinov in the book "On the ancient Russian chronicle as a literary monument" (1856) tried to establish literary sources of the initial Russian chronicle. KN Bestuzhev-Ryumin in his work "On the composition of Russian chronicles until the end of the XIV century." (1868) for the first time decomposed the annalistic text into annual records and legends. A genuine revolution in the study of the Chronicle was made by Acad. A. A. Shakhmatov. He used a comparison of various lists, subtly and deeply analyzing the material, and made this method the main one in his work on the study of the Chronicle of Shakhmatov, attached great importance to clarifying all the circumstances of the creation of the Chronicle, each list and set, paid attention to the study of various chronological indications found in the Chronicle, specifying the time of their compilation and correcting factual inaccuracies. Shakhmatov extracted a lot of data from the analysis of errors, language errors, dialectisms. He was the first to recreate a complete picture of Russian chronicle writing, presenting it as a genealogy of almost all lists and, at the same time, as the history of Russian social consciousness. Shakhmatov's method was developed in the works of M.D. Priselkov, who strengthened its historical side. A significant contribution to the study of the Russian Chronicle was made by Shakhmatov's followers N.F. Lavrov, A.N. Nasonov, Chronicle V. Cherepnin, D.S. Likhachev, S.V. Bakhrushin, A.I. Andreev, M.N. Tikhomirov, N.K. Nikolsky, V.M. Istrin and others. The study of the history of annals is one of the most difficult sections of source study and philological science.

3. Methods of studying the annals

The methods of studying the history of annals used by Shakhmatov formed the basis of modern textual criticism.

The restoration of the annals preceding the "Tale of Bygone Years" belongs to fascinating pages philological science.

So, for example, at the beginning of the lists of the Novgorod first chronicle (except for the first Novgorod according to the Synod list, where the beginning of the manuscript has been lost) reads a text that is partially similar and partially different from the "Tale of Bygone Years."

Studying this text, A.A. Shakhmatov came to the conclusion that it contains fragments of an older chronicle than The Tale of Bygone Years. Among the evidences A.A. Shakhmatov also cites the places noted above where insertions are found in the text of The Tale of Bygone Years. So, under 946 in the Novgorod First Chronicle, there is no story about Olga's fourth revenge and the narrative unfolds logically: “and the victory of the Drevlyans and imposing a heavy tribute on them,” that is exactly how, according to A.A. Shakhmatova, was read in the annals preceding the Tale of Bygone Years.

Likewise, the Novgorod Chronicle also lacks the contract of Svyatoslav with the Greeks, who, as mentioned above, tore up the phrase: “And more:“ I’ll go to Russia and bring more squads; and go in boats. "

Based on these and many other considerations, A.A. Shakhmatov came to the conclusion that the basis of the initial part of the Novgorod First Chronicle is a collection of chronicles older than the Tale of Bygone Years. The chronicler who compiled the "Tale of Bygone Years" expanded it with new materials, various written and oral sources, documents (treaties with the Greeks), extracts from the Greek chronicles and brought the application to its time.

However, the code that preceded the "Tale of Bygone Years" is only partially restored from the Novgorod First Chronicle, for example, it does not contain an account of the events of 1016-1052. and 1074 - 1093. The code that formed the basis for both The Tale of Bygone Years and the Novgorod First Chronicle was named by A. A. Shakhmatov “Primary”, assuming that it was with him that Russian chronicle writing began.

Step by step in various studies of A.A. Shakhmatov managed to restore its entire composition, establish the time of its compilation (1093-1095) and show in what political situation it arose.

The initial collection was compiled under the fresh impression of the terrible Polovtsian invasion of 1093. It ended with a description of this invasion, and it began with reflections on the causes of the misfortunes of the Russian people. In the introduction to the Primary Code, the chronicler wrote that God would execute the Russian land for the "insufficiency" of modern princes and warriors. To them, greedy and self-interested, the chronicler opposes the ancient princes and warriors who did not ruin the people with judicial extortions, themselves kept themselves prey in distant campaigns, cared about the glory of the Russian land and its princes.

Calling this code the Initial, A.A. Shakhmatov did not expect that this name would soon turn out to be inaccurate. Further research by A. A. Shakhmatov showed that the Primary Vault also contains various layers and insertions. A.A. Shakhmatov succeeded in uncovering two even more ancient vaults at the base of the Primary Vault.

Thus, the history of the most ancient Russian chronicle is presented by A.A. Shakhmatov in the following form.

In 1037-1039. the first Russian chronicle was compiled - the most ancient Kiev vault.

Since the beginning of the 60s. XI century the abbot of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nikon continued to keep the chronicles and by 1073 he compiled the second collection of chronicles.

In 1093-1095. in the same Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, the third collection of chronicles was compiled, conventionally called the Primary. Finally, at the beginning of the 12th century, not immediately, but in several stages, the Tale of Bygone Years, which has come down to us, was compiled.

A.A. Shakhmatov did not stop at finding out key facts history of the initial Russian annals. He strove to restore the text itself of each of the above codes. In "Investigations about the most ancient Russian chronicle vaults" (1908) A.A. Shakhmatov gave the text of the oldest code he restored in the edition of 1073 - that is, the text of Nikon's code of 1073, with the selection in it, using a special font, of those parts that were included in it from the Ancient Code of 1037-1039. In his later work "The Tale of Bygone Years" (v. 1, 1916) A.A. Shakhmatov gave the text of The Tale of Bygone Years, in which he highlighted in large print those parts of it that date back to the Primary Code of 1093-1095.

It should be noted that in his extremely bold attempt to visually present the entire history of Russian chronicle writing, to restore the long-lost texts of A.A. Shakhmatov was faced with a number of questions for the solution of which sufficient material could not be found.

Therefore, in this last part of the work of A.A. Shakhmatova - where he involuntarily had to, while reconstructing the text, solve all the questions - even those to which it was almost impossible to answer - his conclusions were only tentative.

Along with the greatest advantages of A.A. Shakhmatova, however, have significant drawbacks. These shortcomings are primarily of a methodological nature. For its time common understanding A.A. Shakhmatov's history of Russian chronicle writing was distinguished by progressive features. A.A. Shakhmatov was the first to introduce a historical approach to a subtle but formal philological analysis of bourgeois philology. He drew attention to the politically sharp and by no means dispassionate character of the chronicles, to their connection with the feudal struggle of his time.

Only on these premises did A.A. Shakhmatov was able to create a history of chronicle writing. However, the historical approach of A.A. Shakhmatova was not always correct. In particular, A.A. Shakhmatov did not study the chronicle as a literary monument, did not notice purely genre changes in it. The genre of the chronicle, the methods of its maintenance were presented by A.A. Shakhmatov are unchanged, always the same.

Following A.A. Shakhmatov, we would have to assume that already the first Russian chronicle combined all the features of the Russian chronicle: the manner of compiling new records by year, the peculiarities of the language, the widespread use of folklore data for the restoration of Russian history, the very understanding of Russian history, its main milestones. We should also assume that the chronicle stood outside the social struggle of its time.

It goes without saying that such a beginning of chronicle writing is unlikely. In fact, as we will see below, the chronicle, her literary form and its ideological content grew gradually, changing under the influence of the ideas and trends of its time, reflecting the internal, social struggle of the feudalizing state.

In fact, insertions, alterations, additions, connections of heterogeneous ideologically and stylistically material characterize the most ancient annalistic code even in the form in which it is reconstructed by A.A. Shakhmatov.

Conclusion

So, having studied the work of A.A. Shakhmatov, it should be noted that in his extremely bold attempt to visually present the entire history of Russian chronicle writing, to restore the long-lost texts of A.A. Chess has achieved significant success.

However, at the same time, he was faced with a number of issues, for the solution of which sufficient material could not be found.

Along with the greatest advantages of A.A. Shakhmatova, however, have significant drawbacks. These shortcomings are primarily of a methodological nature. For its time, the general understanding of A.A. Shakhmatov's history of Russian chronicle writing was distinguished by progressive features. A.A. Shakhmatov was the first to introduce a historical approach to a subtle but formal philological analysis of bourgeois philology.

He drew attention to the politically sharp and by no means dispassionate character of the chronicles, to their connection with the feudal struggle of his time.

Only on these premises did A.A. Shakhmatov was able to create a history of chronicle writing. However, the historical approach of A.A. Shakhmatova was not always correct.

In particular, A.A. Shakhmatov did not study the chronicle as a literary monument, did not notice purely genre changes in it. The genre of the chronicle, the methods of its maintenance were presented by A.A. Shakhmatov are unchanged, always the same.

Bibliography

1. Danilevsky I.N. and others. Source study. - M., 2005 .-- 445 p.

2. Danilets A.V. Source study // History and politics. - 2009. - No. 5. - P.78-85.

3. Kovalchenko ID Methods of historical research. - M., 2003 .-- 438 p.

4. Likhachev D.S. Russian chronicles // Sat. Literature and art. - M .: Nauka, 1997 .-- 340 p.

5. Medushevskaya OM Theoretical problems source study. - M., 2005 .-- 86 p.

6. The Tale of Bygone Years. - M .: Academy. 1987 .-- 540 p.

7. Priselkov M. D. History of Russian chronicle writing XI - XV centuries. - L .: Education, 1990 .-- 188 p.

Priselkov M. D. History of Russian chronicle writing of the XI-XV centuries. - L .: Education, 1990 .-- S. 95.

Tutoring

Need help exploring a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Send a request with the indication of the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

The methodology of textual research, as we have already seen, largely depends on how the ancient Russian scribe worked. The features of the textual study of the chronicles also, to a certain extent, depend on how the ancient Russian chronicler worked.

In the literature on the Old Russian chronicle, there was a lot of controversy about how the chronicles were kept. Some of the researchers saw in the compilers of the summer letters simple, unwise and objective statements of facts. Others, like A. A. Shakhmatov and M. D. Priselkov, suggested on the basis of textual data that the chroniclers were very knowledgeable sources of various material previous annals from the point of view of certain political and historical concepts. The latter are certainly right. It was their representations that made it possible to unravel complex composition chronicle vaults and build general scheme history of Russian annals. The application of these views to the textual analysis of the annals turned out to be practically fruitful.

Let us turn to the statements and statements of the chroniclers themselves and take a closer look at their work.

First of all, we note that the nature of the text of the chronicles was largely determined by their acute political orientation.

The chronicle was intimately connected with the class and intra-class struggle of its time, with the struggle between individual feudal centers. In 1241, the Galician prince Daniel ordered his printer Cyril to “write off the plunder of the wicked boyars,” and this report of Cyril made up the bulk of the princely chronicle of Daniel. In another case (1289), Prince Mstislav Danilovich ordered to record the sedition of the inhabitants of Berestye in the chronicle.

The way the chronicler himself looked at his work is shown by the following characteristic entry in the burnt-out Trinity Chronicle. By 1392, bitter reproaches to the Novgorodians for their disobedience to the great princes were read in it: “Besha more people are harsh, unruly, obstinate, unstoppable ... who is not angry from the prince, or who please them from the prince? If and great Alexander Yaroslavich [Nevsky] did not suit them! " As proof, the chronicler refers to the Moscow chronicle: “And if you want to scatter it, disperse the book The Chronicler of the Great Rus - and read it from the Great Yaroslav to this present prince”.

Indeed, the Moscow chronicle is full of political attacks against the people of Novgorod, Tver, Suzdal, Ryazan, as well as the Ryazan, Tver, Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod chronicles - against the Muscovites. In the annals we meet angry denunciations of the boyars (in Galician, Vladimir, Moscow), the democratic lower classes (in Novgorod), the sharp defense of the "black people" from the living people and the boyars (in some Pskov chronicles), anti-princely attacks of the boyars themselves (in the annals Novgorodian XII century), protection of the foundations of the grand-ducal "monocracy" (in the chronicles of the Tver mid-15th century and in Moscow at the end of the 15th-16th centuries), etc.

The prefaces to the annals also speak of the purely "worldly" political tasks that the chroniclers set themselves. Few of these prefaces have survived, since in all cases of later revisions of the chronicles they were destroyed, as they did not correspond to the new tasks of the chronicle compilations that included them. But even those prefaces that have survived speak quite clearly about the specific political goals that the chroniclers set themselves.

D.S. Likhachev. Textology - St. Petersburg, 2001

Procedural Years ”was written at a time when one social order was replaced by another: the outgoing patriarchal-communal new, feudal one. Two historical consciousnesses are connected with this - the epic and the chronicle. "" Was created as a work of writing, but, in essence, reflects oral folk art. Based on the oral tradition of its time, The Tale of Bygone Years creates a written literary language, written history of Russia.

Oral sources provided mainly material, content and ideas for the construction of Russian history, partly its stylistic design - language. ( This material will help you to write competently and on the topic What is the Russian chronicle and its features. The summary does not make it possible to understand the whole meaning of the work, therefore this material will be useful for a deep understanding of the work of writers and poets, as well as their novels, stories, stories, plays, poems.) The traditions of writing introduced all this material into the compositional framework customary for medieval bookism. The chroniclers worked with the usual techniques of medieval scribes. The "Tale of Bygone Years" reflected the skills of handling material typical of medieval writers and not at all similar to the writing skills of modern times.

A medieval Russian book outwardly, in its composition, differs sharply from the books of the new time - the XVIII-XX centuries. In medieval writing, it was rarely possible to find a work of one author or one work bound in a separate binding, highlighted in a separate independent book. It is impossible to imagine that on the bookshelf of a medieval lover of reading stood side by side in separate bindings "The Lay of Igor's Campaign", "The Prayer of Daniel the Imprisoned", "The Teaching of Monomakh", etc. Medieval Russian book - originally parchment (that is, written in a special fashioned leather), and at the end of the XIV century, paper, covered with wooden lids covered with leather, fastened with copper clasps, many-leaved and heavy - was most often a collection.

Indeed, a careful and thorough study of the numerous texts of the Russian chronicles shows that the chroniclers compiled the chronicles as collections - "collections" of previous chronicle materials with the addition of their records for last years... It is as a result of this kind of connections in the annals of the previous chronicle materials that sometimes it turns out that this or that chronicle twice, and sometimes three times, speaks of the same event: combining several previous chronicles into one, the chronicler might not notice that he repeated his story, "dubbed" the news on the basis of several sources.

So, the chronicle is a collection,. When compiling his collection, the chronicler first of all took care of getting his hands on the works of his predecessors - the same chroniclers, then historical documents - contracts, letters, wills of princes, historical stories, the lives of Russian saints, etc., etc. Having collected all the material available to him, sometimes numerous and varied, sometimes only two or three works, the chronicler put it together in a sequential presentation for several years. He combined the chronicles year with year. The document was placed under the year to which he referred, the life of the saint - under the year of the death of this saint, historical story if it spanned several years, he divided it by year and placed each part under its own year, etc. The construction of the chronicle presentation by year gave him a convenient network for adding more and more new works to it. This work was not mechanical: the chronicler sometimes had to eliminate contradictions, sometimes to carry out complex chronological research in order to place each event under its own year. Proceeding from his political ideas, the chronicler sometimes missed this or that news, made a tendentious selection of these news, occasionally accompanied them with his own brief political commentary, but at the same time did not compose new news. Having finished his work as a "broker", the chronicler supplemented this material with his own notes on the events of recent years.

Composed of pieces of different times, of works of different genres, the chronicle outwardly seems motley, complex, heterogeneous. However, on the whole, the chronicle is still one, like a single building, built of large, roughly hewn stones. There is even a special beauty in this - the beauty of strength, enormity, monumentality.

The unity of the annals, both historical and literary work, not in the smoothing of the seams and not in the destruction of traces of masonry, but in the integrity and harmony of the entire large chronicle building as a whole, in a single thought that revives the entire composition. The chronicle is a work of monumental art, it is mosaic. Seen up close, point-blank, it gives the impression of a random collection of pieces of precious smalt, but when looked at in its entirety, it amazes us with the strict thoughtfulness of the entire composition, the consistency of the narrative, the unity and grandeur of the idea, the all-pervading patriotism of the content.

"A Tale of Time Years"(Continuation)

Now we have to consider the written foundations of the "Tale of Bygone Years" - its roots in Russian writing of the 11th - early 12th centuries. The Tale of Bygone Years stands on the verge of two social structures - the already departed patriarchal-communal and the new, feudal, two historical consciousness - the epic and the chronicle; it stands on the verge of two literatures - oral and written, being essentially a written work, reflecting mainly the initial historical consciousness and belonging to the era of feudalism. From the past, "The Tale of Bygone Years" retains only the best, creatively reworking it into a work of modern times. On the basis of the oral tradition of its time, The Tale of Bygone Years creates a written literary language, a written history of Russia. Oral sources provided mainly material, content and ideas for the construction of Russian history, partly its stylistic design, language. The traditions of writing, however, introduced all this material into the compositional framework customary for medieval bookism. The chroniclers worked with the usual techniques of medieval scribes. The "Tale of Bygone Years" reflected the skills of handling material typical of medieval writers and not at all similar to the writing skills of modern times. A medieval Russian book outwardly, in its composition, differed sharply from the books of the modern era of the 18th-20th centuries. In medieval writing, it was rarely possible to find a work of one author or one work bound in a separate binding, highlighted in a separate independent book. It is impossible to imagine that on the bookshelf of a medieval lover of reading stood side by side in separate bindings "The Word about Igor's Campaign", "The Prayer of Daniel the Imprisoned", "The Teaching of Vladimir Monomakh", etc. v. - paper, covered with wooden lids, covered with leather, fastened with copper clasps, many-leafed and heavy - was most often a collection. Of course, church books, liturgical books, and theological translations were not collections. Collections predominantly collected works intended for personal reading. In their composition, the collections reflected the tastes of the readers, their choice, their interests. The reader and the scribe (and these two categories of book lovers of Ancient Rus were much more united than in modern times), left to their own interests, as soon as they felt more or less free from the tutelage of the church, rewrote, altered and combined into collections especially liked them works. The reader became a co-author, while the co-author was also a "book maker" - its copyist. The Middle Ages did not know "copyright", copyright property in our sense of the word. The author was dominated by the reader - he is also sometimes the copyist of the book. The readership of this scribe of the book was stronger than any copyright. Unless the author was a church authority, the "father of the church", his rights were not considered, his name was often not mentioned, his work was altered in correspondence. The reader turned into a co-editor, and sometimes into a co-author. Hence the constant additions, build-ups, inserts and alterations of works; hence the plurality of editions and revisions of the same work. That is why the historical works of Ancient Rus in most cases did not come down to us in a single and integral author's text: the same chronicle or the same chronograph has been preserved in different editions and different editions. Moreover, very often "author" in the modern sense of the word in medieval historical writings absent. Both in the annals, and in chronographs, and often in stories, lives, patericons, we are faced with a kind of "collective author", diverse, socially heterogeneous, belonging to several centuries at once, and sometimes even to several nationalities (if we are dealing with Russian alterations translated works). It would be an unacceptable modernization to consider the texts of the chronicles (including The Tale of Bygone Years) as single texts belonging to a single author. Attempts to restore the original "author's" text of the "Tale of Bygone Years" (A. Shletser) or to find a single author for the chronicle of the Kiev XII century. (Tatishchev, Schletzer, Miller) and Novgorod XI century. (Tatishchev, Miller) have long been abandoned by science. In fact, even P.M.Stroyev drew attention to the fact that the chronicles are a kind of collections of works of different times and dissimilarity - collections of previous material and a new text. This concept of a "set" was later concretized and refined as applied to the chronicle in the works of M.P. Pogodin, I.I.Sreznevsky, I.D.Belyaev, K.N. Shakhmatov, who drew attention to the fact that the creation of these collections by no means can be regarded as a matter of chance, that their creation is based not on the mechanical selection of random material, but on the conscious will of their compiler. Indeed, a careful and careful study of the numerous texts of the Russian chronicles, sometimes similar, sometimes different from each other in separate parts and in general, varying news, shortening each other or expanding the news of others, shows that all these complex relationships between the chronicles resulted from the fact that chroniclers compiled their chronicles as collections - collections of previous chronicle materials with the addition of their records in recent years. It is as a result of this kind of connections in the annals of previous chronicle materials that it turns out that this or that chronicle speaks twice, and sometimes three times, about the same event: combining several previous chronicles into one, the chronicler might not notice that he repeated his story , "Dubbed" the news on the basis of several sources. The "consolidated" character of the Russian chronicles is not only ascertained by careful and painstaking comparison of lists that make it possible to find out from which sources a particular chronicle was compiled, but sometimes it is directly stated by the chronicler himself. The compiler of the Synodal List of the Pskov Chronicle in the very first lines refers to some "this book." The reference to the "old chroniclers" is in the chronicle of Abraham under 1421. In the Sofia first chronicle there are references to the "Kiev chronicler" in the margins. The compiler of the collection of the Tver prince Boris Alexandrovich also indicates his sources. This character of the vaults is possessed not only by the Russian chronicles, but also by other historical works of Ancient Rus. The same vaults, like the chronicle, are chronographs (Yellin chroniclers of all kinds, Russian chronographs of all editions), palei - chronographic, explanatory, historical, patericons, lives. In the vaults, many Russian stories of a historical character are sometimes grouped according to local, local characteristics. The cycle of Ryazan legends about the icon of Nikola Zarazsky combines in its composition the military tale of the ruin of Ryazan by Batu, the reworking of the epic about Yevpatiy Kolovrat, the church legend about the transfer of the icon of Nikola from Korsun, a number of inserted episodes of the XIV-XVI centuries, the story of the miracle from the icon in Kolomna, the genealogy of the "ministers" of this icon, etc. Separate local vaults are also made up of Murom stories, Novgorod stories, Chinese legends, etc. The character of the vaults, which ancient Russian historical works have, is not only a feature of their form. The very form of the vaults in which ancient Russian historical works were clothed was closely connected with the special historical consciousness of their authors. Medieval vaults of previous historical material were compiled primarily for the sake of preserving their original text as a kind of document in a new work. The medieval reader appreciated in historical works, first of all, their documentary nature. The Old Russian reader in literary works was looking for what was "in reality", he was interested not in the realism of the image, but in reality itself, not in the plot, but in the events themselves, although in assessing and understanding historical events he was often alien to realism, taking for real former stories about miracles, signs, phenomena, etc. In this regard, the ancient Russian historian gave his new author's text mainly about the events of his day, about those which he could be a witness or about which he could know from witnesses. We can rarely indicate in ancient Russian literature historical work , the original text of which would have been written a century or more after the events described. About a more or less distant past, medieval authors did not write new works, they preferred to combine and rework old works, compile collections, preserve the entire old factual basis, appreciating document and authenticity in old works. No matter how much work the chronicler put into compiling his chronicle collection, the chronicler's personal, author's text will cover only the last part of this collection. The chronicle works were constantly supplemented and expanded with new entries. History up to the 16th century. did not have finished periods for the Russian people, but always continued with modernity. Each chronicler always strove to bring the chronicle records “to the present prince,” to his time. And in these final records of the chroniclers, there is usually especially valuable historical material: here the chronicler writes not with excerpts from other people's works, but in his own words. This is why the chronicle has virtually no end; its end in a constantly elusive and ongoing present. The present as a continuation of history, as a living and eternally continuing result - this kind of historical perception also affected the very form of the vaults that unite old, documentary valuable material and continue it with new recordings up to contemporary events for the chronicler. So, the chronicle is a collection. When compiling his collection, the chronicler first of all cared about getting his hands on the works of his predecessors - the same chroniclers, then historical documents - contracts, letters, wills of princes, historical stories, lives of Russian saints, etc., etc. After collecting all the material available to him, sometimes numerous and varied, sometimes only two or three works, the chronicler put it together in a weather presentation. He combined the annals year with the year, trying to avoid repetitions, he placed the document under the year to which he belonged, the life of the saint - under the year of the death of this saint, the historical story, if it covered several years, divided by year and placed each part under its own year and etc. The construction of the chronicle presentation over the years gave him a convenient network for spreading more and more new works into it. This work was not mechanical: the chronicler sometimes had to eliminate contradictions, sometimes to carry out complex chronological research in order to place each event under its own year. Proceeding from his political ideas, the chronicler sometimes missed this or that news, made a tendentious selection of these news, occasionally accompanied them with his own brief political commentary, but at the same time did not compose new news. Having finished his work as a broker, the chronicler supplemented this material with his own notes on the events of recent years. Composed of pieces of different times, of works of different genres, the chronicle outwardly seems motley, complex, heterogeneous. However, the diversity and complexity of the monuments of chronicle that have come down to us is explained not only by the fact that they are vaults. V scientific literature repeatedly pointed to stylistic cliches in Russian medieval writing ("military formulas" - Academician A. S. Orlov, hagiographic templates - V. O. Klyuchevsky). These stylistic stencils are manifestations of a kind of medieval writing etiquette. A medieval writer, committed to the etiquette of feudal society, strives to write about each kind of facts in his own manner intended only for this group of facts: about a saint - only in hagiographic stamps (stencil expressions describe the childhood of a saint, exploits in the desert, death, dying words, etc.) .); about military operations - only in military formulas (the enemy is advancing "in heavy force", arrows fly "like rain", blood flows "along the udols"); the deceased prince is presented with a stereotyped obituary praise, etc. One should not think that military stencils are used only in military stories, hagiographic templates only in the lives of saints, etc. This is not a matter of genre templates, as some researchers of ancient Russian literature thought (A S. Orlov, V.O. Klyuchevsky), namely, in etiquette: each kind of facts should be described in only his own manner, in expressions intended for him. That is why, in the lives of the saints, military actions are depicted not in hagiographic expressions, but in military ones; in military tales, the image of a saint is subordinated to hagiographic patterns. That is why all the manners of presentation are used in the annals, depending on what is being discussed. And the point here again lies not only in the form of presentation, but also in the essence of the presentation, since all these stylistic stencils, all this "etiquette" of the writing craft was associated with the ideological ideas of the Middle Ages about the saint, about the villain, about the ideal type of the prince, about the motives for which the enemies attack the Russian land, about the causes of natural disasters (pestilence, drought, etc.), also depicted in their etiquette expressions. As well as the consolidated character of the chronicles, this "stringing" of various types of stylistic stencils in the same chronicle leads us to a different, deeply different from the modern concept and about the author's text (the unity of which was not at all obligatory), and about the author's point of view on events ... Chronicles are vaults, and not only vaults of previous works, not only vaults of various stencils of writer's "etiquette", but also vaults of ideas. Various ideologies are reflected in them. Indeed, it has long been undeniably established that "the hand of the chronicler was ruled by political passions and worldly interests." The chroniclers themselves repeatedly declare the political purposefulness of their chronicles. In 1241, the Galician prince Daniel ordered his printer Cyril to “write off the plunder of the wicked boyars,” and this report of Cyril made up the bulk of the princely chronicle of Daniel. In another case (1289), Prince Mstislav Danilovich ordered to record the sedition of the inhabitants of Berestye in the chronicle. In the Trinity Chronicle burned down in 1812 at the beginning of the 15th century. under 1392, according to N.M. Karamzin, bitter reproaches were read to the Novgorodians about their disobedience to the great princes of Moscow: “Besha more people are harsh, disobedient, stubborn, unstoppable ... ? Ashe and the great Alexander Yaroslavich (Nevsky. - D. L.) I didn’t fit them ”. As proof, the chronicler refers to the Moscow chronicle: "And if you want to scatter, rot the book: the Chronicler of the Great Rus - and read from the great Yaroslav to this present prince." Indeed, the Moscow chronicle is full of political attacks against the people of Novgorod, Tver, Suzdal, Ryazan, as well as the Ryazan, Tver, Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod chronicles - against the Muscovites. In the annals we will meet angry denunciations of the boyars (in Galician, Vladimir, Moscow), verbose protests against the democratic lower classes (in Novgorod), the defense of "black people" from "living people" and the boyars (in some Pskov), anti-princely attacks of the boyars (in the annals Novgorod XII century), protection of the foundations of the grand-princely "monocracy" (in the annals of the Vladimir XII century, in the chronicles of the Tver mid-XV century and in the Moscow end of the XV-XVI centuries), etc. About purely "worldly" - political - The tasks that the chroniclers set themselves are also mentioned in the prefaces to the chronicles. The compiler of the "Chronicler of the reign of the Tferian noble grand dukes of Tfer" (the collection of the Tver prince Boris Alexandrovich) writes in the preface to his work that he fulfilled it at the behest of the "piety of the driver" of Prince Boris Alexandrovich, that he devotes his work to the glorification of "the honor of the all-wise Michael, God-loving Prince ", that is, Mikhail Alexandrovich Tverskoy. However, many of the researchers of the chronicles, and first of all academician A. A. Shakhmatov, considered the "ideological" side of the chronicle only in connection with the political concepts of one or another feudal center where the chronicle was compiled. From the point of view of A. A. Shakhmatov, the chronicle reflected the political concepts of Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod, later - Moscow, Tver, Nizhny Novgorod and so on. Meanwhile, the chronicle reflects not only the ideology of certain feudal centers, but also the ideology of class and estate. We saw above that the "Tale of Bygone Years" reflects the stories of old warriors - Vyshata Ostromirich and Yan Vyshatich. Together with them, elements of the retinue ideology penetrated into the "Tale of Bygone Years". This druzhina ideology is reflected not only in the stories of Vyshata and Yan. So, for example, under 1075, in the story of the arrival of the German embassy in Kiev, the idea was carried out that the squad was more valuable than any wealth. “There’s nothing in it, it’s to lie dead,” the ambassadors say about the wealth of Svyatoslav. - This is the essence of the kmetie (brave) ray. Men are afraid to search for more than this. " Vladimir Svyatoslavich also said in similar expressions in the annals, when the murmur of his squad reached him: I will climb silver and gold with my squad, as my grandfather and my father are looking for gold and silver with my squad ”(in the Tale of Bygone Years under 996). Especially vividly the opposition of the squad to wealth is felt in the story "The Tale of Bygone Years" under 971 about the gifts of Tzimiskes to Svyatoslav: Svyatoslav did not even look at the gold and pavoloks, but took up arms and welcomed them. The same opposition is noticeable in the story under 1073 about the flight of Izyaslav to Poland “with a lot of property”, about which Izyaslav, deceiving, thought: “I’ll climb up here.” Finally, the same opposition of gold to the squad sounds in the "Preface" of the Primary Codex of the Tale of Bygone Years, and in the words of Yaroslav the Wise in the Primary Code, addressed to his squad, near 1016: “My beloved and honest squad, Yesterday in my madness, do not repay them with gold first. The question naturally arises: how could the squad point of view on political events of its time? The answer to this question, again, lies in the consolidated, compiled nature of The Tale of Bygone Years. The chronicle is not only a collection of previous historical materials, not only a collection of various stylistic devices required by the "etiquette" of the craft of writing, but sometimes a set of different ideologies. It should be noted that the sharpness and purposefulness of the chronicler's political point of view is not contradicted by his desire to preserve more or less similar points of view in his chronicle - similar in their direction, although sometimes different in their initial positions. The ideology of the "old squad" at the end of the 11th century. was directed against the new policy of the princes, and it makes itself felt in the annals of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, which was in a quarrel with Svyatopolk, and later these same squad reproaches to the princes through the Kiev-Pechersk Primary Code are transferred to Novgorod and are used here in a completely different social environment in the purposes of the boyar anti-princely propaganda. For the chronicler, it is often not important from what position the princely power is criticized: the criticism itself is important to him; that is why the druzhina argumentation against the new policy of the princes is used for anti-princely purposes both in the monastery and in the boyar republic. The same should be said not only about the political ideology of the chronicler, but also about his worldview in general. It is customary to talk about the providentialism of the chronicler, about his religious worldview. It should be noted, however, that the chronicler is not at all consistent in this religious point of view of events. The course of the chronicler's narrative, his concrete historical ideas very often go beyond the limits of religious thinking and are of a purely pragmatic nature. To a large extent, the chronicler receives his providentialism in a finished form, and does not reach him himself, he is not for him a consequence of the peculiarities of his thinking. Their religious beliefs the chronicler receives all their details from outside; from this they can largely disagree with his personal experience , with his practical activities as a historian. Russian political thought found expression in close connection with the real relations of its time. She relied specifically on the facts of modern history. It is not characterized by independent abstract constructions of Christian thought, which led the chronicler away from the earthly world to the abstract issues of the upcoming break with earthly existence and the arrangement of the other world. That is why, fortunately for the historical knowledge of Ancient Russia, the chronicler was not so often guided by his philosophy of history, did not subordinate his entire narrative to it. It is important to note that in the choice of the moments about which the chronicler found it necessary to give religious and didactic comments, the same medieval "etiquette" of the writing craft, which we spoke about above, affected. The chronicler's religious and didactic comments always evoked the same phenomena of the life he described: crop failures, pestilences, fires, devastation from enemies, sudden death or heavenly "signs." So, the religious moment did not permeate the entire chronicle exposition. This inconsistency of the chronicler is the value of the chronicle, since only thanks to it experience, direct observation, elements of realism, political topicality - everything that is so rich and so valuable for the Russian chronicle is imperiously invaded into the exposition. If a chronicle is a collection of previous historical material, a collection of various stylistic passages, a collection of political ideologies, and if the chronicle does not even reflect a single, integral worldview of the chronicler, then why does it appear before us as a work of its own kind, integral and complete? The unity of the chronicle as a historical and literary work is not in the smoothing of the seams and not in the destruction of traces of masonry, but in the integrity and harmony of the entire large chronicle building as a whole, in a single thought that revives the entire composition. The chronicle is a work of monumental art, it is mosaic. Seen up close, point-blank, it gives the impression of a random collection of pieces of precious smalt, but when looked at in its entirety, it amazes us with the strict thoughtfulness of the entire composition, the consistency of the narrative, the unity and grandeur of the idea, the all-pervading patriotism of the content. The chronicler unfolds before us a picture of Russian history - always from its beginning, over several centuries, without being embarrassed by the size of his narrative. He gives this picture in the contradictions of his own worldview and the worldview of his predecessors. These contradictions are vital and natural for his era. His ideas about perspective are different from ours, but they are, and they fit into the framework of his own medieval system. Chronicle - as a work of murals of the XI-XII centuries, where one human figure is larger, the other is smaller, buildings are placed in the background and reduced to the height of a human shoulder, the horizon is higher in one place, in another - lower, objects closest to the viewer are reduced, the distant ones are enlarged, but on the whole the whole composition is made thoughtfully and clearly: the most important is enlarged, the secondary is reduced. As in ancient Russian pictorial images, it is shown what should be revealed precisely from above (for example, a table with objects lying on it), from below is shown what we usually see from below, each object is taken not from a random point of view, but from the one from which it can be shown to the viewer best and most fully in its essence. A contradictory, non-integral and mosaic chronicle will seem to us only as long as we proceed from the idea that it was created from beginning to end by one author. Such an author will then be deprived of the strict unity of stylistic style, worldview, political views, etc. But as soon as we start from the idea that there was no single author of the chronicle, that the epoch that created it was the true author of the chronicle, that we are not facing a system ideas, but the dynamics of ideas - the chronicle will appear before us in its true unity - a unity that is determined not by the author's individuality, but by reality, life, in a unity that reflects all life contradictions in itself. The vast expanses of the ever-flowing content of the chronicle will then be included in the broad, but nevertheless powerfully subordinating movement of the chronicle text, the channel of Russian reality. Like any chronicle, The Tale of Bygone Years is a collection. Indeed, in The Tale of Bygone Years we are by no means dealing with a single author's text belonging to one author. It is clear, for example, that the texts of treaties between Russians and Greeks under 907, 912, 945 and 971. not invented by the chronicler, that these are documents only included by the chronicler in his chronicle. The translated sources stand out quite clearly in The Tale of Bygone Years. The chroniclers used various translated works as historical sources, made selections from them, painstakingly, on the basis of documents, recreating the historical past of Russia. These translations have come down to us in full; therefore, it is not difficult to establish where, from what place of this or that work, the chronicler took some text and how it was reworked for inclusion in the chronicle. From the translated sources of the chronicler's historical information, let us point out, first of all, the Chronicle of George Amartolus (that is, the “sinner”) and its unknown Greek successor by name. The chronicler himself refers to this Chronicle: "To say George in the annals ..." The chronicler also refers to the Chronograph (under 1114), from which he also cites extracts in different places"Tale of Bygone Years". This Chronograph was probably of the same type as the Russian Yellinsky and Roman chroniclers, compiled on the basis of the translated chronicles of Amartolus and John Malala. In any case, excerpts from the Chronicle of George Amartol are given in the Tale of Bygone Years in a number of places in the same combination with passages from the Chronicle of John Malala as in this Greek and Roman chronicler. He uses the chronicler as a historical source and "Chronicler soon" of the Patriarch of Constantinople Nicephorus, from where he borrows a chronological calculation under 852. From the translated Greek "Life" of Basil the New, the chronicler gives under 941 a description of Igor's military operations near Constantinople. The chronicler also refers to the authority of the "Revelation" of Methodius, Bishop of Patara under 1096 ("Methodius testifies about them ..." - about the Polovtsy; "as if Methodius of Pataria would say about them, verb ..."). The chronicler gives long extracts from Methodius of Patarsky. Undoubtedly, the great Legend of the beginning of the Slavic literacy under the year 898 was also not invented by the chronicler, but cited by him from some West Slavic sources. It is more difficult to determine the individual Russian legends that were included in the "Tale of Bygone Years": about the baptism and death of Olga, about the first Varangian martyrs, about the baptism of Russia with the "speech of the philosopher", about Boris and Gleb, etc. It is even more difficult to determine those preceding " Tale of Bygone Years ”of the chronicle, which was used by its compiler and his predecessors. What was the composition of these chronicles preceding the "Tale of Bygone Years"? Which of the extra-annular historical sources took advantage of each of the chroniclers? When were these annals compiled? It is not easy to answer all these questions, here for the most part only assumptions are possible - some are more convincing, others less, but it is necessary to answer these questions, since the degree of reliability of the information they provide depends on this. Close observation of the text of the Tale immediately reveals individual parts that could not have been written by the author of the 12th century. Chronicler of the XII century. could not know that the defeat of Vsevolod by the Polovtsians in 1061 happened exactly on February 2, that Rostislav Tmutorokansky died on February 3, 1066, that in 1065 fishermen caught a freak in Setoml with a net of a freak, that on March 3, 1067 there was a battle on Nemiga and much more. In addition, in the "Tale of Bygone Years" there are obvious insertions that destroy the logical development of the story. So, for example, having told about Olga's threefold revenge against the Drevlyans for the murder of her husband - Igor, the chronicler concludes: "and the victory of the Drevlyans." It would seem that after these words one should expect information about the tribute that Olga placed on the defeated. But it turns out that not everything is over with the Drevlyans: the Drevlyans shut themselves up in their cities, after which the chronicler tells about Olga's second victory - about her fourth revenge; and only after that do the words follow: "I put a heavy tribute on nya." It is clear that the story of Olga's fourth revenge against the Drevlyans is artificially inserted into the chronicle text. Or another example of an insert: in 971, seeing a decrease in his squad, Svyatoslav decides to return from the Byzantine borders for a new army: "I will go to Russia," he says, "I will bring more squads." And he really fulfills his decision: "go in boats to the threshold." But between the story about the decision and the story about the implementation of this decision there is a story about the conclusion of peace with the Greeks by Svyatoslav and an extensive text of the treaty. It is clear that here too we are dealing with an insert. Insertions in the text of the "Tale of Bygone Years" have been discovered by various researchers. A. A. Shakhmatov paid special attention to them. The presence of these inserts testifies to the fact that the "Tale of Bygone Years" is based on an even more ancient chronicle. Obviously, the compiler of the "Tale of Bygone Years" used the work of his predecessor, the chronicler, expanding it with these very inserts and continuing the presentation of events until his time. The restoration of the annals that preceded the "Tale of Bygone Years" belongs to the most fascinating pages of philological science. Here are just some of the considerations that make it possible to restore the work of the predecessors of the compiler of the Tale of Bygone Years. At the beginning of the lists of the first Novgorod chronicle (except for the first Novgorod according to the Synod list, where the beginning of the manuscript has been lost), a text is read that is partially similar and partially different from the Tale of Bygone Years. Investigating this text, A. A. Shakhmatov came to the conclusion that it contains fragments of an older chronicle than the Tale of Bygone Years. Among the proofs, A. A. Shakhmatov also cites the above-mentioned places where insertions are found in the text of The Tale of Bygone Years. So, under 946 in the Novgorod First Chronicle, there is no story about Olga's fourth revenge and the narrative unfolds logically: “and the victory of the Drevlyans and imposing a heavy tribute on them,” that is exactly how, according to A. A. Shakhmatov's assumption, it was read in the annals preceding the "Tale of Bygone Years". Likewise, the Novgorod Chronicle also lacks the contract of Svyatoslav with the Greeks, who, as mentioned above, tore up the phrase: “And more:“ I will go to Russia and bring more squads ”; and go in boats. " The idea that among the sources of the Novgorod First Chronicle was a collection of chronicles more ancient than the "Tale of Bygone Years" finds confirmation in the following considerations. The first Novgorod chronicle could not be a simple abbreviation of the Tale of Bygone Years. It does not contain a single extract directly from the Greek Chronicle of Amartolus, not a single treaty with the Greeks, etc. The ancient chroniclers could not systematically shorten it, and why should the chronicler set himself the goal of omitting in his work all excerpts from the Greek Chronicle of Amartolus, all four treaties with the Greeks, etc.? But, in addition, between the Novgorod First Chronicle and the "Tale of Bygone Years" there are significant differences in substance. These discrepancies, again, can be explained only by the assumption that the text underlying the Novgorod First Chronicle is older than the Tale of Bygone Years. So, for example, in the Novgorod first chronicle it is said that with the death of Rurik, his son Igor, who had a voivode Oleg, ascended the princely throne. In the Tale of Bygone Years, it is said that after the death of Rurik, Igor was a minor and it was not the governor who ruled for him, but Prince Oleg. This difference will become quite clear to us if we proceed from the assumption that the "Tale of Bygone Years" was compiled later than the initial part of the Novgorod First Chronicle. Obviously, the compiler of The Tale of Bygone Years, including the 911 agreement between Oleg and the Greeks, drew attention to the fact that Oleg is a completely independent prince in him, and accordingly rebuilt the story of the previous chronicle. If we assume, on the contrary, that the "Tale of Bygone Years" was compiled earlier than the initial part of the Novgorod first and that the compiler of the latter simply abbreviated the "Tale of Bygone Years", then it will be completely incomprehensible why, having thrown out the treaties with the Greeks, the chronicler "translated" Oleg from the princes to the governor. On the basis of these and many other considerations, A. A. Shakhmatov came to the conclusion that the basis of the initial part of the Novgorod First Chronicle is a collection of chronicles older than the Tale of Bygone Years. The chronicler who compiled the "Tale of Bygone Years" expanded it with new materials, various written and oral sources, documents (treaties with the Greeks), extracts from Greek chronicles, and brought the exposition to its time. However, the code that preceded the "Tale of Bygone Years" is only partially restored from the Novgorod First Chronicle, for example, it lacks a description of the events of 1016-1052. and 1074-1093. The code that formed the basis for both The Tale of Bygone Years and the Novgorod First Chronicle was named by A. A. Shakhmatov “Primary”, assuming that it was with him that Russian chronicle writing began. Step by step in various studies, A. A. Shakhmatov managed to fully restore its composition, establish the time of its compilation (1093-1095) and show in what political situation it arose. The initial collection was compiled under the fresh impression of the terrible Polovtsian invasion of 1093. It ended with a description of this invasion, and it began with reflections on the causes of the misfortunes of the Russian people. In the introduction to the Primary Code, the chronicler wrote that God would execute the Russian land for the "insufficiency" of modern princes and warriors. To them, greedy and self-interested, the chronicler opposes the ancient princes and warriors who did not ruin the people with judicial extortions, themselves kept themselves prey in distant campaigns, cared about the glory of the Russian land and its princes. Having called this collection the Initial, A. A. Shakhmatov did not expect that this name would soon turn out to be inaccurate. Further research by A. A. Shakhmatov showed that the Primary Vault also contains various layers and insertions. A. A. Shakhmatov succeeded in uncovering two even more ancient vaults at the base of the Primary Vault. One of the main arguments on the basis of which the presence of more ancient chronicles in the Primary Code is proved is drawn from the analysis of the Primary Code's story about the baptism of Prince Vladimir. The Primary Code, followed by the Tale of Bygone Years, is told under the year 986. how representatives of different faiths came to Vladimir and persuaded him to accept their faith. The last to speak was the Greek "philosopher" who made an extensive speech. He expounded Christian doctrine in detail, ending by showing Vladimir the "zapona" - a canvas depicting the Last Judgment. One gets the impression that the chronicler is bringing the reader to the expected end - Vladimir's consent to be baptized. However, to the question of the "philosopher" about his consent to be baptized, Vladimir answers somewhat unexpectedly: "I will wait a little more, although I will try about all the faiths." Under the next year, 987, it is told how the people chosen by Vladimir travel around all countries and return with the same conclusion that the Greek faith is the best. But even in this case, Vladimir does not get baptized, but asks the boyars a strange question about where to be baptized. The boyars answer this question evasively: “Where are you like”. Under the next, in 988, the chronicle contains a story about the baptism of Vladimir in Korsun: regardless of the persuasion of the "philosopher", Vladimir accepts the Greek faith only because the Byzantine emperor agrees to give him his sister in marriage under the only condition - the baptism of Vladimir. One gets the impression that two stories have been merged in the chronicle: one of them spoke about the baptism of Vladimir in Kiev, as a result of the "test of faith", and the other - about baptism in Korsun as a condition for Vladimir's marriage to the emperor's sister, and last story was inserted into the first one. Indeed, traces of this insertion are clearly perceptible in the annals. To find out the nature and origin of both stories, A.A. Shakhmatov turned to the study of all the lives of Vladimir, lists of the church charter of Vladimir, and especially the so-called "Life of Vladimir of a special composition" (in the Pliginsky collection of the Library of the Academy of Sciences). As a result, A. A. Shakhmatov came to the conclusion that the story about the baptism of Vladimir in Korsun existed originally in the form of a special work and that the most ancient chronicle, preceding the Primary Code, told that Vladimir was baptized in Kiev, immediately after the speech of the "philosopher" in 986; the campaign to Korsun was made by Vladimir already a Christian in 989. It was this sequence of events that was found in those brief extracts from some very ancient chronicle, which are found in "In memory and praise to the Russian prince Volodymer, as he was baptized ...". A number of observations help to determine the time of compilation of this ancient chronicle, which preceded the Primary Code. Among them we will cite such. Under 977, it is said that Oleg Svyatoslavich was buried near the city of Vruchiy (modern Ovruch) and that his grave is “and to this day at Vruchiy”. But later the chronicler says that the "bones" of Oleg Svyatoslavich and his brother Yaropolk Svyatoslavich were dug out in 1044 from the graves and buried in the Kiev Church of the Mother of God (Desyatinnaya). Hence it is clear: the chronicler who wrote that Oleg Svyatoslavich was buried at Vruchey's, where his grave is “to this day,” worked until 1044; otherwise he would have stipulated such an important circumstance as the absence of Oleg's body in the grave. Let's pay attention to the extensive record that refers to 1037: under this year, the construction activity of Yaroslav is described in detail and a lengthy praise to him is placed; nevertheless, subsequent records of 1037-1044. are in the nature of short postscripts. It is possible that the oldest, first annals ended with this entry in 1037 with the glorification of Yaroslav and his activities. However, between the first collection of chronicles and the Initial collection of 1093-1095. you can see the existence of another set, the circumstances of the compilation of which and the compiler himself can be ascertained with almost complete certainty. This is Abbot Nikon. Thus, the history of the most ancient Russian chronicle is presented to A. A. Shakhmatov in the following form. In 1037-1039. the first Russian chronicle was compiled - the most ancient Kiev vault. Since the beginning of the 60s. XI century the abbot of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nikon continued to keep the chronicles and by 1073 he compiled the second collection of chronicles. In 1093-1095. in the same Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, the third collection of chronicles was compiled, conventionally called the Primary. Finally, at the beginning of the 12th century, not immediately, but in several stages, the Tale of Bygone Years, which has come down to us, was compiled (we will return to the history of its creation). This scheme of the history of the most ancient chronicle writing, in general, is well substantiated by many considerations, and should be accepted, despite the fact that already after the death of A. A. Shakhmatov, objections were made to him by academicians V. M. Istrin and N. K. Nikolsky. The objections of V. M. Istrin and N. K. Nikolsky proceeded from an incomplete number of facts and did not take into account the entire argumentation of A. A. Shakhmatov as a whole. Meanwhile, recreating the picture of the most ancient Russian chronicle writing, A. A. Shakhmatov used all the surviving lists of Russian chronicles, coordinated his provisions with the entire history of Russian chronicle writing as a whole, with which it turned out to be most closely connected. A. A. Shakhmatov did not stop at elucidating the most important facts of the history of the initial Russian chronicle writing. He strove to restore the text itself of each of the above codes. In "Investigations about the oldest Russian annalistic collections" (1908) A. A. Shakhmatov gave the text of the most ancient collection in the edition of 1073, which he restored, - that is, the text of Nikon's collection of 1073, with the emphasis in it using a special font of those parts that entered it from the oldest vault 1037-1039. In his later work "The Tale of Bygone Years" (vol. I, 1916) A. A. Shakhmatov gave the text of "The Tale of Bygone Years", in which he highlighted in large print those parts of it that date back to the Primary Code of 1093-1095. It should be noted that in his extremely bold attempt to visually present the entire history of Russian chronicle writing, to restore long-lost texts, A. A. Shakhmatov faced a number of issues for the solution of which sufficient material could not be found. Therefore, in this last part of A. A. Shakhmatov's work - where he involuntarily had to, reconstructing the text, solve all the questions - even those to which it was almost impossible to answer - his conclusions were only tentative. Along with the major advantages of A. A. Shakhmatov's research, however, they have significant disadvantages. These shortcomings are primarily of a methodological nature. For his time, A. A. Shakhmatov's general understanding of the history of Russian annals was distinguished by progressive features. A. A. Shakhmatov was the first to introduce a historical approach to a subtle but formal philological analysis of bourgeois philology. He drew attention to the politically sharp and by no means dispassionate character of the chronicles, to their connection with the feudal struggle of his time. It was only on these premises that A. A. Shakhmatov was able to create the history of chronicle writing. However, the historical approach of A. A. Shakhmatov was not always correct. In particular, A. A. Shakhmatov did not study the chronicle as a literary monument, did not notice purely genre changes in it. The genre of the chronicle, the ways of keeping it, seemed to A. A. Shakhmatov unchanged, always the same. Following A.A. Shakhmatov, we would have to assume that already the first Russian chronicle combined all the features of the Russian chronicle: the manner of compiling new records by year, the peculiarities of the language, the widespread use of folklore data for the restoration of Russian history, the very understanding of Russian history, its major milestones. We should also assume that the chronicle stood outside the social struggle of its time. It goes without saying that such a beginning of chronicle writing is unlikely. In fact, as we will see below, the chronicle, its literary form and its ideological content grew gradually, changing under the influence of the ideas and trends of its time, reflecting the internal, social struggle of the feudalizing state.

The Monk Nestor came to the famous Kiev-Pechersk monastery as a seventeen-year-old youth. The holy monastery lived according to the strict Studios ustav, which was introduced into it by the Monk Theodosius, having borrowed it from Byzantine books. According to this statute, before taking monastic vows, a candidate had to go through a long preparatory stage... The newcomers first had to wear worldly clothes until they learned well the rules of monastic life. After that, the candidates were allowed to put on the monastic attire and proceed to the tests, that is, to show themselves in work at various obediences. Anyone who passed these tests successfully accepted tonsure, but the test did not end there - the last stage of admission to the monastery was tonsure into the great schema, which not everyone was awarded.

The Monk Nestor went all the way from a simple novice to a schema monk in just four years, and also received the dignity of deacon. A significant role in this was played, in addition to obedience and virtue, his education and outstanding literary talent.

The Kievo-Pechersk Monastery was a unique phenomenon in the spiritual life of Kievan Rus. The number of the brethren reached one hundred people, which was a rarity even for Byzantium itself. The severity of the communal charter found in the archives of Constantinople had no analogues. The monastery flourished in material terms, although its governors did not care about collecting earthly riches. They listened to the voice of the monastery strongest of the world this, he had a real political and, most importantly, spiritual influence on society.

The young Russian Church at that time was actively assimilating the richest material of Byzantine church books. She was faced with the task of creating original Russian texts in which the national image of Russian holiness would be revealed.

The first hagiographic (hagiography is a theological discipline that studies the lives of saints, theological and historical and church aspects of holiness. - Ed.) Work of the Monk Nestor - "Reading about the life and destruction of the blessed passion-bearers Boris and Gleb" - is dedicated to the memory of the first Russian saints. The chronicler, apparently, responded to the expected all-Russian church celebration - the consecration of a stone church over the relics of Saints Boris and Gleb.

The work of the Monk Nestor was not the first among the works devoted to this topic. However, he did not set out the history of the brothers according to the ready-made chronicle legend, but created a text that was deeply original in form and content. The author of "Reading on the Life ..." creatively reworked the best examples of Byzantine hagiographic literature and was able to express ideas that were very important for the Russian church and state consciousness. As the researcher of ancient Russian church culture Georgy Fedotov writes, "the memory of Saints Boris and Gleb was the voice of conscience in inter-princely specific accounts, not regulated by law, but only vaguely limited by the idea of ​​clan seniority."

The Monk Nestor did not have a large amount of data about the death of his brothers, but as a subtle artist he was able to recreate a psychologically reliable image of true Christians who resignedly accept death. The truly Christian death of the sons of the baptist of the Russian people, Prince Vladimir, is inscribed by the chronicler in the panorama of the global historical process, which he understands as the arena of the universal struggle between good and evil.

Father of Russian monasticism

Second life work The Monk Nestor is dedicated to the life of one of the founders of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery - the Monk Theodosius. He wrote this work in the 1080s, just a few years after the death of the ascetic, in the hope of an early canonization of the monk. This hope, however, was not destined to come true. The Monk Theodosius was canonized only in 1108.

Internal appearance The Monk Theodosius of the Caves has a special meaning for us. As Georgy Fedotov writes, “in the person of Saint Theodosius, Ancient Russia found its ideal of a saint, to whom it remained faithful for many centuries. The Monk Theodosius is the father of Russian monasticism. All Russian monks are his children, bearing his family features. " And Nestor the Chronicler was the person who preserved for us his unique appearance and created on Russian soil the ideal type of life story of the monk. As the same Fedotov writes, “Nestor's work forms the basis of all Russian hagiography, inspiring heroism, pointing out the normal, Russian way of working and, on the other hand, filling in the gaps of biographical tradition with common necessary features.<…>All this informs Nestorov's life of exceptional significance for the Russian type of ascetic holiness. " The chronicler did not witness the life and exploits of the Monk Theodosius. Nevertheless, at the heart of his hagiographic story is the testimony of eyewitnesses, which he was able to combine into a coherent, vivid and memorable story.

Of course, in order to create a full-fledged literary life, it is necessary to rely on a developed literary tradition, which has not yet been in Russia. Therefore, the Monk Nestor borrows much from Greek sources, sometimes making long verbatim extracts. However, they practically do not affect the biographical basis of his story.

Memory of the unity of the people

The main feat of the life of the Monk Nestor was the compilation of the "Tale of Bygone Years" by the years 1112-1113. This work is separated from the first two literary works of the Monk Nestor known to us by a quarter of a century and belongs to another literary genre- chronicles. Unfortunately, the set of "Tale ..." has not reached us in its entirety. It was processed by Sylvester, a monk of the Vydubitsky monastery.

The Tale of Bygone Years is based on the chronicle work of Hegumen John, who made the first attempt at a systematic presentation of Russian history since ancient times. He brought his story to 1093. Earlier chronicle records are fragmentary accounts of disparate events. It is interesting that these records contain a legend about Kie and his brothers, briefly informs about the reign of Varangian Oleg in Novgorod, about the destruction of Askold and Dir, and a legend about the death of Prophetic Oleg. The story of Kiev itself begins with the reign of "old Igor", the origin of which is silent.

Hegumen John, dissatisfied with the inaccuracy and fabulousness of the chronicle, restores the years, relying on the Greek and Novgorod chronicles. It was he who first presented "old Igor" as the son of Rurik. Askold and Dir appear here for the first time as Rurik's boyars, and Oleg as his voivode.

It was the vault of Hegumen John that became the basis for the work of the Monk Nestor. He underwent the greatest processing of the initial part of the annals. The original edition of the chronicle was supplemented with legends, monastery records, Byzantine chronicles of John Malala and George Amartol. Saint Nestor attached great importance to oral testimony - the stories of the elder boyar Yan Vyshatich, merchants, soldiers, travelers.

In his main work, Nestor the Chronicler acts as a scientist-historian, and as a writer, and as religious thinker, giving a theological understanding of national history, which is an integral part of the history of the salvation of the human race.

For the Monk Nestor, the history of Russia is the history of the perception of Christian preaching. Therefore, he records in his chronicle the first mention of the Slavs in church sources - 866, tells in detail about the activities of the saints Equal to the Apostles Cyril and Methodius, about baptism Equal to the Apostles Olga in Constantinople. It is this ascetic who introduces into the chronicle the story of the first Orthodox church in Kiev, about the preaching feat of the Varangian martyrs Theodore Varyag and his son John.

Despite the huge amount of heterogeneous information, the chronicle of St. Nestor has become a true masterpiece of ancient Russian and world literature.

In the years of fragmentation, when almost nothing was reminded of the former unity of Kievan Rus, The Tale of Bygone Years remained the monument that awakened in all corners of crumbling Rus the memory of its former unity.

The Monk Nestor died about 1114, having bequeathed the continuation of his great work to the monastic chroniclers of the Caves.

Newspaper " Orthodox faith"No. 21 (545)