Book review by N.I.

08.03.2020

Characteristics of the hero from the comedy "Minor" D

Pyotr Andreevich Grinev, the main character of the story

The image and characteristics of svidrigailov in the novel crime and punishment dostoevsky composition

The image and characteristics of Mitrofanushka in Fonvizin's "The Minor": the description of Mitrofan Prostakov

Recently, M. Yu. Paramonova, assessing the direction of the works devoted to the veneration of princes-martyrs Boris and Gleb, summed up: “The study of the cult of Boris and Gleb enjoyed priority attention in Russian medieval studies, partly due to the peculiarities of the corresponding hagiographic sources. The cult was the earliest instance of the officially established veneration of saints of Russian origin and gave rise to a vast and rich literary tradition. The most prominent Russian philologists, textual critics and historians were involved in discussions about the sources of texts belonging to the Borisoglebsk cycle. For a long time, the problem of the origin of the cult usually boiled down to the question of the origin, dating and authorship of individual texts.

It was only in recent decades that the cult began to be viewed as a complex phenomenon that developed in a system of various and intertwined (intricate) factors, including the Christian practice of venerating saints, pre-Christian (or non-Christian) beliefs and practices, interaction between ecclesiastical and secular societies ) and the broader context of European dynastic and royal cults. In connection with the specific historical context in which the cult of the two holy princes arose in Kievan Rus, the question of possible external influences on this process is also being raised. " These lines very accurately indicate the main trends and lines of development in the study of both the veneration of the holy brothers and the texts dedicated to them.

Ranchin Andrey Mikhailovich - Monuments of the Borisoglebsk cycle: textual criticism, poetics, religious and cultural context

Moscow: Russian Foundation for the Promotion of Education and Science, 2017.512 p.

ISBN 978-5-91244-205-6

Ranchin Andrey Mikhailovich - Monuments of the Borisoglebsk cycle: textual criticism, poetics, religious and cultural context - Contents

Foreword

Chapter one. On the question of the textual criticism of the Borisoglebsk cycle
Chapter two. To the question of the history of the text of the chronicle story about Boris and Gleb
Chapter three. The Legend and Reading about Boris and Gleb as part of the Great Menaus Chetikh Metropolitan Macarius
Chapter four. Spatial structure in the annals of 1015 and 1019. and in the lives of saints Boris and Gleb
Chapter five. Poetics of Antitheses and Repetitions in the Legend of Boris and Gleb
Chapter six. To the interpretation of the historical and theological introduction to the Reading about Boris and Gleb of St. Nestor: the semantic archetype of the lives of Boris and Gleb and samples for veneration
Chapter seven. Some observations on the functions of reminiscences from Holy Scripture in the monuments of the Borisoglebsk cycle
Chapter Eight. Biblical quotation-topos in the Legend of Boris and Gleb: traditional and individual in Old Russian literature
Chapter nine. One strange comparison in the Legend of Boris and Gleb
Chapter ten. Formation of the cult of the holy princes Boris and Gleb: motives of canonization
Chapter eleven. Monuments of the Borisoglebsk cycle in the Slavic and Western European context: an invariant plot of the assassination of an innocent ruler
Chapter twelve. Holiness of Boris and Gleb against the background of cults of passion-bearer rulers: pagan relics and Christian interpretation

ANNEXES

1. Svyatopolk the Damned: establishing paternity
2. To questions about the formation of the veneration of Saints Boris and Gleb, about the time of their canonization and about the reliability of the texts dedicated to them

Instead of an afterword

List of abbreviations

Bibliography

Index of names

Ranchin Andrey Mikhailovich - Monuments of the Borisoglebsk cycle: textual criticism, poetics, religious and cultural context - Instead of an afterword

As Lermontov noted in the preface to the second edition of A Hero of Our Time: “In every book, the preface is the first and at the same time the last thing; it serves as an explanation of the purpose of the composition, or as a justification and response to criticism. But usually readers do not care about the moral goal and before the magazine attacks, and therefore they do not read the prefaces. "

In my case, it is not the preface that is superfluous, but the afterword: everything that the author wanted to say is contained in the chapters of the book. To draw any general conclusions is not only superfluous, but also premature, because the study of the monuments of the Borisoglebsk cycle continues, and many of the conclusions of the author of the book are more likely to have the character of conscious hypotheses than claim to be an indisputable truth. Nevertheless, I will nevertheless express some general considerations.

The textual study of the monuments of the Borisoglebsk cycle leads me (not me first) to the conclusion that the relationship between the works dedicated to the holy brothers is much more complicated than the simple influence of one (one) on others (another). It can be assumed that the history of the composition of these monuments was more whimsical and intriguing than is usually thought. What were the reasons for this? It can be hypothesized that this is explained, for example, by some political reasons, a kind of censorship caused, for example, by references to the designation of Boris by his father that initially existed in works that have not come down to us, and possibly some other news, unfavorable for Yaroslav the Wise. (But certainly not news of Yaroslav's involvement in this tragedy; such news simply could not be - the version about him as the murderer of one or both brothers is untenable.)

The glorification of Boris and Gleb, apparently, refers to the reign of Yaroslav the Wise, and it is possible that by a time somewhat earlier than 1039, the veneration of Boris and Gleb was not formed as a "political" cult, religious motives proper were dominant. At the same time, the idea of "free sacrifice" in imitation of Christ was layered on a rich pre-Christian basis, as was the case with the cults of other rulers or representatives of ruling dynasties who were victims in the struggle for power.

Boris and Gleb, undoubtedly, do not embody some purely Russian holiness - such saints are numerous in newly baptized Christian countries. However, in their veneration and in their hagiographic images, there is a special emphasis on meekness and willingness to forgive their enemies with love. Church veneration and interpretation of the brothers' deeds in their lives are comprehended through numerous analogies from the Old Testament and, of course, in the light of the Christlikeness of the saints. The feat of Boris and Gleb was perceived in Russia as an exceptional event, equal in importance to the events of Sacred history.

At the same time, the annalistic and hagiographic monuments about the martyr brothers form a single tradition; in the Latin West, where the veneration of innocent kings and kings was formed, the historiographic (chronicles and sagas) and hagiographic lines did not always converge, sometimes they radically diverged in assessments and interpretations. The impact of both the baptism and the passion-suffering of Boris and Gleb on the consciousness of the ancient Russian ruling stratum turned out to be immeasurably deeper than similar events in the Frankish state or in Scandinavia: in Kievan Rus, the murders of rivals in the struggle for power by princes after 1015 came to naught. These are some preliminary results - conclusions that partially coincided with what was written before me.

Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State University. 2013. No. 16 (307).

Philology. Art criticism. Issue 78.S. 110-114.

ROLE OF MOTIVES OF "TALES OF PRINCE CRIMES"

IN THE COMPOSITION “READING ABOUT BORIS AND GLEB”:

TO THE PROBLEM OF INTERGENRE RELATIONS

The genre-compositional analysis of "Reading about Boris and Gleb" is carried out, which is considered by scientists as a typical example of the hagiographic genre. The study showed that in the text of "Reading" a number of motives inherent in the genre of the chronicle historical story can be distinguished. The article also provides a definition of the term "tales of princely crimes" and lists the motives characteristic of this type of tales.

Key words: Old Russian literature, chronicle writing, hagiography, historical

news, "tales of the prince's crimes", genre-compositional analysis.

"Reading about the life and destruction of the blessed passion-bearer Boris and Gleb" (hereinafter - "Reading") is included in the cycle of literary monuments dedicated to the description of the death of the brothers Boris and Gleb, along with the chronicle story "About the assassination of Borisov" in 1015 and "Legend and passion and praise to the holy martyr Boris and Gleb "(hereinafter -" Legend "). This death was interpreted by the Russian Church as a martyr's death, and Boris and Gleb were the first officially canonized Russian saints. Their cult was of great political importance for its time.

The term "tales of princely crimes" was introduced by DS Likhachev to characterize a special kind of historical story as part of the Russian chronicle of the XI-XIII centuries. ... Currently, the use of this term is controversial, since its content is still not clearly defined. A. M. Ranchin considers this term to be generally unsuccessful: “... crimes of the prince, but crimes against the prince are described. " ... In our work, we will adhere to the concept of D. S. Likhachev. However, at the same time, we believe that a broader understanding of the term is possible.

The genre-compositional analysis of works traditionally attributed to this genre type allows us to conclude that "tales of princely crimes" are historical chronicles,

genre, composition, genre-forming motive,

the main motives of the plot of which are the crimes committed against the Russian princes, as well as the Russian princes against each other and against the Russian land during the internecine wars of the 10th-13th centuries. The main idea of the "tales of princely crimes" turns out to be consonant with the general moralistic idea of the chronicle - the idea of a moral judgment, the responsibility of Russian princes for the fate of their land before God.

Arguing about the church-dogmatic foundations of the canonization of Boris and Gleb, the famous religious philosopher G. P. Fedotov writes: “Princes Boris and Gleb were the first saints canonized by the Russian Church. Saints Boris and Gleb created in Russia a special, not quite liturgically revealed order of "martyrs" - the most paradoxical order of Russian saints. " ...

The problem of the correlation of the monuments of the Boryso-Gleb cycle has long attracted the attention of researchers. So, A. A. Shakhmatov, L. Muller, date "Reading" 80-ies.

XI century and believe that its author had the goal of creating a text that would meet the requirements of the hagiographic genre itself. Nestor, the author of "Reading", had the same range of sources as the author of the "Tale". S. A. Bugoslavsky, who is responsible for the most detailed study of the monuments of the Boris-Gleb cycle, considers the "Chronicle Tale" to be the original written text about Boris and Gleb, but in more

an ancient form than in the surviving lists of chronicles. "Reading", says Bugoslavsky, was written between 1108-1115, and Nestor used the text of the Legend.

IP Eremin addressed the study of the works of the Boris-Gleb cycle in his works. Comparison of "Tale" and "Reading" allowed him to identify the difference between these texts. So, "The Legend of Boris and Gleb", in his opinion, is overly documented, overloaded with facts, "historicity", and the images created in the work are too material, insufficiently spiritualized. "Reading", on the other hand, satisfies "the strictest requirements of classical living." IP Eremin, analyzing the structure of "Reading", singled out an introduction and a story about posthumous miracles, which correspond to the hagiographic canon. He postulates the generalization of the images of Boris and Gleb created by Nestor as the correspondence of "Reading" to the hagiographic canon.

AM Ranchin addresses the question of the correlation between the texts of the Boris and Gleb cycle in his works. He comes to the conclusion about the existence of two non-extant works about Boris and Gleb: the most ancient compilation of chronicles (A. A. Shakhmatov points to it) and the Life - a text unknown to us (the hypothesis of the existence of which is put forward by A. M. Ranchin). A.M. Ranchin notes the importance of works about Boris and Gleb for Old Russian literature as the sources of hagiographic texts dedicated to the prince-sufferers.

A. N. Uzhankov addresses the question of dating "Reading" and "Tale" about Boris and Gleb. He points to a direct connection between the date of writing the lives of the saints and the time of their canonization. The researcher concludes that The Reading was written by Nestor between 1086-1088. to the official canonization of the saints, which came during the reign of Vsevolod Yaroslavich in Kiev (1078-1093).

The purpose of this article is to study the genre-compositional originality of "Reading" in connection with the reflection in its text of the characteristic motives of the genre "stories of princely crimes". The representativeness of the goal is based on the close relationship of "Reading" with the genre-heterogeneous anonymous "The Tale of Boris and

Gleb "and the chronicle tale" About the murder of Borisov ", which, in turn, is traditionally referred to the genre of" tales of princely crimes. "

Let's turn, first of all, to the composition of the work. In the text of the Reading, four parts can be distinguished: the introduction, the main part, the conclusion and the story of posthumous miracles. The introduction is structured according to the traditional hagiographic scheme. An important element of the introduction is the history of the baptism of the Russian land and contemporary events for the author. Actively using quotations from Scripture, parallels with the heroes of the biblical story, references to the parable of the winegrower, Nestor creates images of Boris and Gleb in the tradition of hagiography. Both the created images and the posthumous miracles of the saints correspond to the hagiographic tradition.

In the main part of the work, one can single out the motives characteristic of the genres of secular literature, in particular, for "tales of princely crimes."

Analysis of works traditionally attributed by researchers to the genre of "tales of princely crimes" (the chronicle tales "The murder of Borisov" in 1015, the tales of the blindness of Vasilko Terebovlsky in 1097, the tales of the assassination of Igor Olgovich in 1147, the tales of the perjury of Vladimirka Galitsky 1152 , the story "On the assassination of Andrei Bogolyubsky" 1175), led to the conclusion that it is possible to single out a number of genre-forming motives in this genre. These include the motive of the conspiracy, the motive of the murderer's fear of crime, the motive of warning the prince about danger, the murder of the prince, the murder of the prince's favorite, the treatment of the body of the murdered prince, the motive of the resistance of the prince to the murderers. These motives are reflected in "Reading".

A conspiracy motive characterized by the combination of elements of the historical story and hagiography. The crime was committed against the prince with the aim of seizing his power in the internecine war of the 10th-13th centuries. But at the same time, in all works of this genre type, there is always a mention of the devil, at whose instigation the conspiracy takes place. For example, in “The Tale of the Blinding of Vasilko of Terebovl”: “... Iprid Svyatopolk with Dave Ky-ev, and for the sake of all people are all: but only the devil is sad about this love. And a soton got into the heart of some husband ... ".

In Reading, the interpretation of the conspiracy motive also has a pronounced hagiographic character: “... Be blessed (Boris) is humble and humble. The same can not be tolerated by the enemy (devil). but as before rekokh. into the heart of his brother. like no old. his name is Svyatopolk. Start thinking about the righteous. Ho-tyashe will destroy the whole country and the children are united ... ". As you can see, the thought of killing his brother arises in Svyatopolk not only at the instigation of the devil, who wants to destroy the faithful Prince Boris, but also out of a completely worldly desire to own the entire Russian land alone, that is, the hagiographic aspect is combined with the historical one. After Svyatopolk learns about the murder of Boris, he also calmly sends the assassins to Gleb.

The motive of the murderer's fear of crime. In the "Reading" the murderers, being near the tent of Prince Boris, do not attack until he utters the prayer to the end: "... Wickedness. like walking. not daring to attack the righteous. God forbid him until the end of Matins ... ". At the same time, this behavior of the murderers, like the murder of the prince in several stages, can be explained by the fact that the description of the crime is largely conditional ("etiquette").

The motive for warning the prince of danger. The princes know about a conspiracy being prepared against them, but either do not believe or do not resist death. This motive is repeated several times in the "Reading" text. For the first time Boris receives a warning shortly after he learns about his father's death: “Isa nezii. came to the blessed one. vzvestisha. as if your brothers want to destroy thee ... ". Then Boris is warned once again about the danger, but after he has let go of his squad.

The murder of the prince. Usually it happens in several stages: first, the murderers wound the prince, while they think that they have completed their crime, and he has time to say a prayer; then the murderers realize that they have not completely done their job and finish off the prince. It also happens in the "Reading": "And they are the same beast divi attacking n. And going down to your promises ... Imnev the blessed one is dead, being izidosha von. Blessed waxes. in the shock of the former. fromide from the tent. and enter the sky with a hand. praying ... Behold, I ask him. one ot the destroyer hit the heart

his. Itako blessed and Boris betray his soul in the hand of God. The month of July is on the 24th day ... ".

The death of Gleb is also described in detail in "Reading". It is characteristic that the killers sent by Svyatopolk do not commit murder themselves, but order the cook Gleb to stab their master. Such a form of murder for the ancient Russian author, apparently, was especially symbolic, because it is no coincidence that this cook is compared with Judas, and Gleb with the immaculate lamb: “... Okannyi cook is not jealous of him. who did not fall on Saint Boris. but be like Yuda. traitor ... ".

The motive for the murder of the prince's favorite (the servant, trying to protect his prince, himself dies at the hands of the murderers). This motif in "Reading" is presented in a slightly different variation than in the chronicle "The Tale of the Murder of Borisov" in 1015 and in the anonymous "Tale of Boris and Gleb". The "Reading" talks about the murder of a servant, but does not specify, as in other texts, his name, does not tell about the fact that he was a prince's favorite and how the golden chain was removed from him. "Reading": " They also permeated that ... ". Wed "Legend": "... Byashe is the mother of the ugrin, the same is the name of George. And I put some gold on my hryvnia, and love Boris more than myry. And pierced the same ... ".

Treatment of the body of a murdered prince (usually the body of a murdered prince is treated disrespectfully, and only after some time has passed the prince is buried with honors). The body of the murdered Gleb was thrown in a deserted place under the log, it lay there until Prince Yaroslav ordered to find him: “... Okan-nii you will wear out the body of the saint. plunged into the desert under the treasure ... ". The murdered Boris was laid in the church of St. Basil in Vyshgorod.

The motive of the prince's resistance to murderers, characteristic of many historical chronicle stories about princely crimes, is absent in all the works of the Boris and Gleb cycle, since it contradicts the genre tradition of martyria, which the author follows in this case. This behavior of the princes should have strengthened their aura of martyrdom, because they voluntarily go to death, completely relying on the will of God, thereby violating neither Christian nor worldly laws.

This halo of martyrdom also reinforces the fact that the princes-brothers had the opportunity to change the course of events, that is, they are tempted to save their lives, but they overcome it in themselves. So, Boris's soldiers tell him about their loyalty and offer to bring him into the city; but Boris rejects this possibility and lets the soldiers go, taking care of their souls: “... Not my brother. no father. Do not so anger my brother's gentlemen. food kako on you sedition move. But there is only one oum-reti for me. rather than a bit of a shower ... ".

Analyzing the interpretation by the authors of the Boris and Gleb cycle of the motive of "non-resistance" of the martyr princes, one must not forget that "Reading", the anonymous "Tale" and the chronicle "Tale" were the first monuments of ancient Russian literature in which political murder received such a wide resonance and was interpreted not only as a moral crime against a person, but also as a crime against the Russian land. To quote G.P. Fedotov: “It is easy and tempting to get carried away by the closest moral and political idea that all sources suggest to us: the idea of obedience to the elder brother ... ... Prince Vladimir violated it. St. Boris was the first to formulate it in the pages of our chronicle. Perhaps he is not so much inspired by tradition as he conceives it, transferring personal family feelings into the sphere of political relations. It is quite clear that the voluntary death of Vladimir's two sons could not be their political duty. "

The study allows us to talk about the relationship between the chronicle Tale of 1015, the anonymous "Tale" and "Reading", but it is difficult to determine the nature of these relationships, and this is confirmed by a large number of hypotheses expressed by scientists. Nevertheless, the study shows that in "Reading" one can distinguish a number of motives characteristic not for hagiography, but for the genre of "tales of princely crimes": the motive of the conspiracy, the motive for warning the prince about danger, the motive for the murder of the prince, the motive for the murder of the prince's favorite, the motive for treating the body of the prince. Of course, in "Reading", in contrast to the chronicle Tale, proceeding from the task facing its author, these motives are "smoothed", acquire a hagiographic interpretation.

This can be explained by the fact that the works dedicated to the description of the death of the holy brothers were the first works in which, as G.P. Fedotov noted, "traditions were conceived." We can talk about the tradition that was realized in composition, a set of motives, speech cliches, hagiographic stylistics of other "tales of princely crimes". So, both in the story of the murder of Igor Olgovich in 1147, and in the story “About the murder of Andrei Bogolyubsky” in 1175, details will arise that are associated precisely with the works of the Boris and Gleb cycle. An example is the "sword of St. Boris", which the conspirators steal from the bedroom of Andrei Bogolyubsky. And in "Reading" another tradition was formed - the tradition of the princely life. The coexistence of genres with each other was one of the main features of the genre system of Old Russian literature. The genres of Old Russian literature were in a relationship of close interconnection and hierarchical interdependence, which allows us to speak about a system of genres, the elements of which are interdependent on each other.

Bibliography

1. Danilevsky, IN The Tale of Bygone Years: Hermeneutic Foundations of Studying Chronicle Texts. M., 2004.383 p.

2. Eremin, IP Lectures and articles on the history of ancient Russian literature. 2nd ed., Add. L., 1987.327 p.

3. Eremin, IP Literature of Ancient Rus. Sketches and characteristics. M .; L., 1966.364 p.

4. Likhachev, DS Russian chronicles and their cultural and historical significance. M.; L., 1947.479 p.

5. Mineeva, S. V. History of Old Russian Literature: textbook. allowance. Kurgan, 2002.115 p.

6. Mineeva, SV Problems of a comprehensive analysis of the ancient Russian hagiographic text. Kurgan, 1999.356 p.

7. The Tale of Bygone Years. The Legend of Boris and Gleb // Literary Monuments of Ancient Rus: the beginning of Russian literature. XI - the beginning

XII century M., 1978.S. 248-254; 278-303.

8. Ranchin, AM Vertograd Zlatoslovny: Old Russian bookishness in interpretations, analyzes and comments. M., 2007.576 p.

9. Ranchin, AM Articles about Old Russian Literature: Sat. Art. M., 1999.195 p.

10. The Legend of Boris and Gleb // Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Russia. Issue I (XI - lane half of the XIV century) / hole. ed. D.S.Likhachev. L., 1987.S. 398-408.

11. Sochneva, N. A. Genre-forming motives of "tales of princely crimes" as part of the Old Russian chronicle // Collection of scientific works of graduate students and applicants for Kurgan State University. Issue XII. Kurgan, 2010.S. 81-83.

12. Uzhankov, A. N. Holy Passion-bearers Boris and Gleb: on the history of canonization and writing of lives // Ancient Russia. Questions of medieval studies. 2000. No. 2 (2). S. 28-50.

13. Fedotov, G. P. Saints of Ancient Russia. M., 1997.S. 35-47.

14.Giorgetta Revelli. Monumenti literary su Boris e Gleb. Roma, 1993. P. 601-691.

The tragic fact of Russian history - the murder of brothers Boris and Gleb by Svyatopolk the Damned - had a wide resonance in ancient Russian society and led to the creation of a number of literary monuments on this topic. Despite the journalistic orientation of the works about the princes-martyrs, which were created, as the researchers proved, in the interests of Yaroslav the Wise, these works have preserved valuable historical evidence: their authors mention the circumstances, time and place of death of Boris and Gleb, give the names of the prince's servants and hired killers.

In the "Tale of Bygone Years" under 1015, it was reported that after the death of Prince Vladimir, one of his sons, the Pinsk (or Turov) prince Svyatopolk, seized the Kiev table and cruelly dealt with other possible contenders for the grand ducal power. His victims were the Rostov prince Boris and the Murom prince Gleb, as well as his other brother, Svyatoslav. When Prince Vladimir died, Boris, who was "loved by his father more than all" sons, was not in Kiev. He was returning from a campaign against the Pechenegs, and the news of his father's death found him on the Alta River. "Take away" the squad was ready to get the Kiev table for the young prince by force, but Boris refused to go to war against his elder brother. Abandoned by the squad (only a small detachment of loyal "youths" remained with him), Boris was killed on the orders of Svyatopolk. The "Russian Cain" sent a messenger to Gleb with a request to arrive in Kiev as soon as possible, where his seriously ill father was supposedly waiting for him. On the way, Gleb learns the terrible truth: his father is dead, his brother is killed, and he himself will soon die. And indeed, near Smolensk, the princely ship is attacked by hired killers, on whose orders the cook, "take out the knife, zarѣza Glѣba, like a lamb blameless." Yaroslav rises to fight the fratricide, in a battle with which Svyatopolk is defeated. With the help of the Polish king Boleslav, he briefly manages to return Kiev. In 1019 Svyatopolk, who came to Russia with the Pechenegs "in strength", was finally defeated, fled abroad and soon died.

It is possible that already under Yaroslav the Wise, local veneration for Boris and Gleb in Vyshgorod, where the brothers were buried, arose. The transfer of the relics of the princes-martyrs to the new church by the sons of Yaroslav in 1072 is associated by scientists with the all-Russian canonization of the saints.

Researcher's opinion

In the scientific literature there is a point of view that at first the saints were venerated in the princely environment and, possibly, separately. According to the hypothesis of V. Bilenkin (USA), there was even a separate life of Gleb, and the cult itself was Gleb-Borisovsky, for the first miracles are associated with the name of the youngest of the brothers. If at first the saints were revered as "the source of Tsѣlbam without scarcity", then later, by the end of the 11th - the beginning of the 12th centuries, the cult of brothers-healers was transformed into the cult of warriors-defenders of the Russian land and became Boris-Gleb, bringing to the fore the elder brother, especially revered in the genus of Vladimir Monomakh. The repeated transfer of the relics of the saints in 1115 consolidates this particular form of worship. Boris and Gleb now become the most authoritative national saints. To them, as to heavenly patrons, Russian princes invariably turn for help in battles. It was they who helped to defeat the knights of the army of Alexander Nevsky, warning of the approach of the enemy.

A whole cycle of works of Old Russian literature is dedicated to Boris and Gleb. In addition to the chronicle stories, it includes "Reading about the life and destruction" of Boris and Gleb written by Nestor, anonymous "Legend and passion and praise" to the saints, to which in the Assumption collection of the XII-XIII centuries. adjoins the "Tale of Miracles", which arose on the basis of records compiled at different times in the Vyshegorodskaya church. Saints Boris and Gleb are also dedicated to the short stories in the Prologue and the "readings" included in the liturgical books - the Pareminic and the Service Menaion.

Scientific discussion

The question of the relationship and chronology of individual works that make up the Boris-Gleb cycle is very difficult. Currently, there are several versions in science about the order of its formation. According to the concept, which was adhered to, in particular, by S. A. Bugoslavsky and I. P. Eremin, "The Tale" arose in the last years of the reign of Yaroslav the Wise, i.e. in the middle of the 11th century; later the "Legend of Miracles" was added to it, compiled by various authors during 1089-1115, and on this basis, around 1108, Nestor wrote "Reading" about Boris and Gleb. A different point of view was defended in their works by AA Shakhmatov, DI Abramovich, NN Voronin, who believed that "Reading" is primary in relation to the "Tale"; it originated in the 1080s. and together with the chronicle story served as a source for the author of the "Tale", which originally included stories about the miracles of the saints and was created after 1115.

"Legend" and "Reading" about Boris and Gleb by their type are the lives of the martyrs, however, the conflict in them is not so much a religious as a political one. Boris and Gleb do not perish at the hands of pagans or infidels; they are killed on the orders of a Christian brother, possessed by a criminal plan: "I will beat all my brothers and take over the Russian power alone." The younger sons of Prince Vladimir preferred death to the fight against Svyatopolk. Thus, works about Boris and Gleb asserted an important political the idea of clan seniority in the system of princely inheritance, thereby speaking in favor of strengthening the state rule of law. This thought permeates the testament of Yaroslav the Wise to his sons, placed in the "Tale of Bygone Years" under 1054: "Behold, I entrust my old son, your brother, Izyaslav - Kyev, this one, listen to me, as if you will listen to me." The theme of vassal loyalty was revealed in the lives of Boris and Gleb, both on the example of the tragic fate of the brothers, and through the description of the feat of the servant Boris, who covered the prince with his body, exclaiming: and I'll be ready to kill my belly with you! "

Experts believe that the most perfect literary monument of the Borisoglebsk cycle is the anonymous "Legend and Suffering and Praise to the Martyrs Saints Boris and Gleb", the author of which, unlike the chronicler, focused on the spiritual side of this historical drama. The task of the hagiographer is to depict the sufferings of the saints and show the greatness of their spirit in the face of imminent death. If in the chronicle story Boris does not immediately learn about Svyatopolk's plan, then in the Legend, having received news of his father's death, he foresees that Svyatopolk “think about his beating”. Boris is placed by the hagiographer in a situation of moral choice: to go to "fight Kiev" and kill Svyatopolk together with his squad, as his father, Prince Vladimir, once did in the struggle for power, having dealt with his brother Yaropolk, or by his own death to start a new tradition in inter-princes relations - traditions of Christian humility and unconditional obedience to the elder of the family. The hero concentrated all his spiritual powers on a worthy martyrdom. In this decision, he is strengthened by examples from hagiography, when a righteous man was killed by his loved ones. Boris recalls "the torment and passion" of Saints Nikita and Vyacheslav of the Czechs "and how the holy Barbarian was able to fight his murderer."

Although Boris goes to his death voluntarily and deliberately, his soul is full of anguish and confusion; the last dream of the prince is heavy and terrible; notes of pain and resentment against his brother break through in Boris's death prayer when he calls on God to become a judge between him and Svyatopolk. From the author's commentary on Boris's actions, it is clear that conflicting feelings are struggling in the hero: with a "broken heart", crying, he expects murderers, at the same time "rejoicing in his soul" that he has been awarded a martyr's crown from God. The psychological complexity of the characterization of Boris makes the picture of his death vital and truly tragic.

To enhance the emotional impact on the reader, the author of "The Tale" repeats the scene of the murder of the prince three times. First, Putsha, Talets, Elovich and Lyashko pierce him with spears in the tent. Then, when the wounded prince "in shock" runs out of the tent, the murderers urge each other to "end the command." Finally, Boris's body, wrapped in a tent, is being carried on a cart, but Svyatopolk thinks that the enemy is still alive and raises his head; seized with horror, he sends the Vikings, and they pierce Boris in the heart with a sword.

Scenes of the prince's martyrdom are now and then interrupted by the hero's lengthy prayers, forcing the murderers with a weapon raised over the victim to wait patiently for him to finish praying: “The artificiality of such collisions, of course, was understood by the readers,” writes O. V. Tvorogov, “but it was also accepted by them. as a part of a hagiographic ritual. And the more wordy and inspired the righteous man prayed in his dying moments, the more persistently he asked God to forgive his destroyers for their sin, the brighter the holiness of the martyr shone and the more vividly the godless cruelty of the torturers was seen. "

The expressive-emotional element that dominates in The Tale is created through the use of primary lyric genres. These, in addition to prayers and psalms, include the weeping and inner monologues of the heroes, who now and then “speak in their hearts”, “thinking in their minds”. Boris's cry for his deceased father is full of deep sorrow. Rising to the tradition of oral folk lore according to the deceased, he gives rise to sympathy for the orphaned. Crying is constructed as an alternation of sentences of the same type in structure using anaphora, repetition of the first word. It is full of rhetorical exclamations and questions-appeals: "Alas for me, the light of my eyes, the radiance and dawn of my face! .. Alas for me, my father and my lord! To whom will I come, to whom will I take?"<...>To burn my heart, my souls embarrass me and not to whom to turn and to whom to spread this bitter sorrow? "Upon learning of his brother's death, Gleb cries, bitterly lamenting his loneliness. Exclamation" Alas, me! If only you would die ... "sounds in his cry like a cry of despair. The strength of crying doubles as Gleb mourns both his brother and father." Bitter sighs "and" plaintive laments "of Boris's faithful servants, for whom he was like" a guide to the blind, clothing to the naked, a staff to the elders, a mentor to the unreasonable, "merge into a chorus and form a collective lamentation for the prince," the merciful and blessed. " used by the author - the symbolism of water and a ship associated with the ancient funeral rite, and a number of omens: under Gleb, who, at the call of Svyatopolk, hurries to Kiev, a horse stumbles, as if warning the owner of the danger.

The Skazania tends to individualization of the hagiographic hero, which contradicted the canon, but corresponded to the truth of life. The portrayal of the younger of the martyr princes did not duplicate the characteristics of the older. Gleb is more inexperienced than his brother, therefore he has full confidence in Svyatopolk and goes to Kiev at his call, not suspecting anything bad, while Boris is tormented by dark forebodings and suspicions. Later, Gleb ns can suppress the fear of death in himself, believes in the possibility of pitying hired killers, begging for mercy: "Do not touch me, my dear and dear brothers! Do not touch me, who has not caused you any harm! Spare, my brothers and my masters, spare • What offense have I done to my brother and to you, my brothers and my masters?<...>Do not ruin me, in the life of a young man, do not reap an ear that has not yet ripened, poured with the juice of good-naturedness! Do not cut off a vine that has not yet grown, but has fruit! I beg you and surrender to your mercy. "The hero utters these words with a" gentle gaze "," bursting into tears and weakened in body "," sighing tremblingly "" in heartbreak. "An unknown hagiographer created one of the first in Russian literature psychological portraits, rich in subtle emotional experiences of the hero, for whom the crown of the martyr is heavy and premature. The author deliberately strengthened the motive of Gleb's defenseless youth, the childishness of his actions and words. Drawing a verbal portrait of Boris, he emphasized the youth and beauty of the hero, seeing in this a reflection of the purity and beauty of the spiritual: Boris is "blushed, high", with his soul "truthful and generous, quiet, krtk, smurren". In fact, the brothers were not so young: they were born from a "Bulgarian", one of the wives of a pagan Vladimir, and about 28 years passed from the baptism of the prince to his death.

The image in the "Tale" is psychologically reliable hagiographic antihero, in the role of which is Prince Svyatopolk. He is possessed by exorbitant envy and pride, a lust for power and hatred of his brothers. The appearance of the name of Svyatopolk in the text is accompanied by the constant epithets "accursed", "damned", "nasty", "evil", etc. The medieval writer explained his actions and thoughts not only by the enslavement of Svyatopolk by the devil, but also by real facts from the biography of the antihero. Svyatopolk is the embodiment of evil, since its origin is sinful. His mother, a maiden, was cut and married by Yaropolk; after the murder of her husband by Prince Vladimir, she, being "not idle" (pregnant), became the wife of the latter, thus Svyatopolk is the son of two fathers at once, who are brothers. The "ancestral sin" that turned Svyatopolk into "the second Cain" reveals the real origins of his hatred for his brothers.

For the crime committed, Svyatopolk bears a worthy punishment. Frustrated in the "evil" by Yaroslav the Wise, he flees from the battlefield, but "his bones are weakened, as if he does not have power to ride on horses, and carry him on his bearers." The stomp of Yaroslav's cavalry pursues the weakened Svyatopolk, and he hurries: "We run on, chase! Woe is me!" For fear of retaliation, he cannot stay anywhere for a long time and dies, "running from no one knows whom," in a deserted place in a foreign land, somewhere between the Czech Republic and Poland. The name of Svyatopolk the Damned becomes a common noun in ancient Russian literature, denoting a villain.

In the "Legend" Svyatopolk is opposed not only to the "earthly angels" Boris and Gleb, but also to Yaroslav the Wise, who became the instrument of divine retribution for the murderer and the ideal ruler, who put an end to "sedition" and "strife" in Russia. It is symbolic that he won a victory over Svyatopolk on the Alta River, where Boris was once killed. In some of the chronicle editions of the "Legend" angels help Yaroslav to defeat Svyatopolk, and nature itself brings down lightning, thunder and "great rain" on the fratricide.

In order to surround the heroes with an aura of holiness, the author of The Tale cites their posthumous miracles at the end of the work, and in the final words of praise puts Boris and Gleb on a par with the authoritative leaders of the Christian Church. For example, he compares them, "defenders of the fatherland", with Dimitri of Thessaloniki: "You are more and more weapons, the land of Rus has taken away and the approval of both the sword is sharp, and we are degrading the foulness of the trash and trampling on the devil of swaying into the earth."

Unlike the traditional life, "The Tale" does not describe the lives of the heroes from birth to death, but gives a close-up view of only one episode - the villainous murder of the brothers. The author's attitude to the "historicism" of the narrative also hindered the recognition of the "Tale" as a life itself, therefore, according to IP Eremin, a need arose for a work about Boris and Gleb, where the hagiographic principle would be strengthened. This is how it appeared "Reading about the life and destruction of the blessed passion-bearers Boris and Gleb" by Nestor, created in full accordance with the church canon.

The Life opened with a lengthy rhetorical introduction, where the author turned to God with a request to enlighten his mind, and to the reader - to forgive his rudeness. Outlining world history from Adam and Eve to the baptism of Russia, Nestor talked about the eternal struggle between the forces of good and evil. The publicistic mood of the preface to the life, where the Christianization of Rus was regarded as a turning point in national history, echoed Metropolitan Hilarion's "Word of Law and Grace". Further, guided by the genre tradition, Nestor talked about the childhood of the saints and their early piety. He likened the heroes to two bright stars in a dark sky. Boris and Gleb, as befits saints, surprised everyone with mercy and meekness, prayed a lot and tearfully, read the lives of the holy martyrs, as if anticipating that they were destined to repeat their feat. The princes accepted death without hesitation, being champions of the Christian ideals of humility and brotherly love. In the conclusion, miracles were cited that were performed at the tomb of the saints.

As noted by IP Eremin, in "Reading about Boris and Gleb" the images of the heroes are "drier, stricter, more schematic"; and if in the "Legend" they are imbued with "warm sentimental lyricism", then in Nestor - "solemn, almost liturgical pathos". "Reading" did not become widespread in ancient Russian writing, while the "Tale" was very popular and has come down to us in a large number of copies.

"The Legend of Boris and Gleb" - just a collection of facts, fascinating stories, or a particularly sensitive vision of the world surrounding the author? Let's talk about this in the article!

The Legend of Boris and Gleb: About Dry Factography

First of all, we will try to squeeze dry facts from chronicles and other sources. What do we know for sure about Boris and Gleb? Very little.

We know that they were the sons of Vladimir Svyatoslavich, presumably the elders, that is, among the applicants in the queue for the Grand Ducal throne, they took the first places. Apparently, precisely because of the feud that broke out between the brothers after the death of their father, they were the first to die.

Or maybe they died simply because, unlike other brothers, they did not fight for power and did not offer resistance. While their brother Yaroslav (the future Yaroslav the Wise), according to The Tale of Bygone Years, was much more militant and, defending the right not to pay tribute to Kiev, in 1015 he was going to fight even with his own father.

In general, it must be said that we do not know the exact years of birth of any of the sons of Vladimir, however, the inheritances owned by Boris and Gleb - Rostov and Murom, respectively - indicate that they were rather younger.

The Kiev Chronicle also mentions that Boris was born "of a Bulgarian". In a later tradition, the "Bulgarian woman" is piously identified with the Christian wife of Vladimir, Princess Anna, the sister of Vasily II, the Bulgarians. However, this identification is a stretch: ancient Russian monuments mention Boris and Gleb among the sons of Vladimir from pagan wives. But the Tale of Bygone Years does not know the descendants of the prince from Anna at all. And why give the descendant of baptized Greeks the pagan name Gleb (the name Boris by that time was included in the Bulgarian calendar)?

Perhaps Vladimir's pagan polygamy largely determined the strained relations between his offspring. The system of succession to the throne in ancient Russia in the first centuries was clan, when the father's property was divided into all sons by seniority, while the father's throne went to the elder brother.

In the case of the sons of Vladimir, in fact, several independent dynastic branches were formed at once. One of them - Polotsk Izyaslavichi or Rogvolodovichi - immediately became isolated, others began a struggle for power among themselves.

According to most sources, Boris and Gleb were killed in 1015 by Svyatopolk, the actual son of Yaropolk, Vladimir's older brother, whose pregnant wife Vladimir married.

A little later, another son of Vladimir, Svyatoslav, was killed by Svyatopolk. Then Yaroslav Vladimirovich began to take revenge for the death of the brothers, who in 1019 killed Svyatopolk in the Battle of Alta. However, some researchers suggest that the relationship between the parties to the conflict was more complicated.

On the importance of canonizing Boris and Gleb

The death of Boris and Gleb, who refused to violate the principle of obedience to the elder, - after all, after the death of Vladimir Svyatopolk took the place of his father - was perceived as martyrdom. Moreover, the brothers, apparently, became the first Russian saints, whose canonization was officially recognized by Constantinople.

They were not the first in terms of the feat (Theodore the Varyag and his son the youth John, who perished in Kiev during the times of Vladimir's paganism, are considered as such), nor the first in status (however, Constantinople did not recognize the Equal-to-the-Apostles Olga and Vladimir, since their own saints of such rank would have raised too much the diocese of yesterday's pagans). The significance of Boris and Gleb is different - they actually laid the foundation for the East Slavic calendar.

The presence of their own saints strengthened the status of the diocese, the presence of canonized relatives - the status of the Rurik dynasty. Hence, it is logical to assume that the Rurikovichs contributed in every way to the canonization of the holy brothers. True, since Saints Boris and Gleb are not mentioned in the "Word of Law and Grace" by Metropolitan Hilarion, their veneration most likely began not under Yaroslav himself, but under the Yaroslavichs, that is, in the 1060s.

About such important saints as Boris and Gleb, in Ancient Russia several works were composed almost simultaneously: "Reading about the life and destruction of Boris and Gleb", a chronicle story that was included in the "Tale of Bygone Years". Later, numerous legends, paremic readings, words of praise and church services arose. However, the most famous of the Old Russian works about the holy brothers is The Legend of Boris and Gleb.

What did the author want to say?

We are approaching, perhaps, the most interesting question - is it worth considering the works of ancient Russian authors as a simple collection of facts? No. Is it worth, in this case, to consider them as "bikes"? Also no. Old Russian works reflected the world as the ancient authors understood it. This is how a kind of writing technique arose, which Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev called "literary etiquette."

According to the famous scientist, the ancient scribes imagined the world as a certain unchanging order established by God. Accordingly, all the characters in it could be divided into several roles: righteous or sinner, saint, military leader, worthy exemplary prince or unworthy prince-traitor - this is a list of only the most frequent.

Accordingly, the author of the Old Russian work did not try to simply display the facts (although he did not resort to outright fiction. The fictional characters familiar to us from the literature of the New Time will appear in the literature of Ancient Russia in the 17th century). The ancient Russian author assessed each hero and portrayed the character in his role.

And it doesn't matter if sometimes you had to borrow, for example, the actions of one saint and attribute them to another, or highlight similar features in different characters where the author of the New Time would be interested, on the contrary, different. After all, each hero, in the opinion of the ancient scribe, fulfilled his life task, and the reader's ability to learn from a story a lesson was more important than the truth of life in little things.

So, in Ancient Russia, the idea was more important than the fact and the type was more important than the hero. But even with this understanding of the role of bookishness, the writer still had at his disposal many literary techniques - for example, the interpretation of the hero's actions, and also allusions, when in certain historical events the reader recognized one or another “eternal” plot - biblical or mythological. However, the scribe did not ignore the facts either, but simply selected what fit into the scheme that was relevant to him.

It should be admitted that ancient literature is very difficult. We have a poor idea of the reading circle of the then scribes, we do not know how to recognize biblical stories with such freedom. Over time, the chronicles were rewritten into vaults, so it is difficult to say "whose" chronicler created this or that plot, but the current relationship with the chronicler's patron could also influence the hero's assessment. So, for example, in different ancient Russian chronicles there are two diametrically opposite descriptions of Prince Igor Svyatoslavich - the one who also became a character in the famous "Lay of Igor's Campaign." In addition, the level of skill of the ancient authors and the specific set of techniques used by them varied greatly from era to era.

So, in many ways, ancient texts are a puzzle, the key to which has been lost, and only those researchers whose book experience and horizons will be partly comparable to the authors of past centuries can try to restore it. And after all, the hidden imagery of ancient Russian monuments is only one of the directions for research.

"The Legend of Boris and Gleb" - the psychology of the righteous. Prince Boris

The genre model for the author of The Legend of Boris and Gleb was obviously a special type of Greek life - martyries. That is why the author does not tell about the whole life of his heroes from birth, but creates a story only about their death.

Another distinctive feature of the "Tale" is deep psychologism. There are a lot of emotions here, and the heroes constantly utter lengthy internal monologues. Perhaps, Russian literature will again turn to the hero's inner state in such detail in the 18th century. True, in the case of The Tale, we must admit: the monologues of the heroes here are fictionalized by the author, because he could not reliably know what the princes were thinking. But what ideal princes were supposed to think about, I quite imagined.

The two images of The Tale clearly contrast with each other. The elder Boris is here, although he is crying, thinking about his future death (which he seems to know about in advance), but his thoughts are more reminiscent of teachings with biblical quotations. Boris also rejects the offer of the squad, which expresses its readiness to go to Kiev and get the father's throne for his sovereign.

The murderers find the prince, who has released the squad, alone at night in a tent; Boris is praying. Further, apparently, wanting to emphasize the prince's trust for the reader and make them empathize with what is happening even more, the author admits an obvious incongruity. While the murderers walk around the prince's tent, not daring to go inside and fulfill their plans, Boris manages to read the matins and the canon. Many centuries later, such a literary device with time dilation will be called retardation.

But even the most tense moment of the narrative, the author obviously wants to prolong it, so Boris is stabbed three times in his story. In addition, the story of this incredibly prolonged murder is interrupted either by the heartfelt speech of the victim to the attackers, or by a retreat about the sad fate of the prince's youth George, or by a brief remark about the fate of the squad.

The compilers of the martyries believed that empathy for the saints would make readers think about the eternal.

Adolescent psychology. Gleb

Gleb portrays Gleb in a completely different way. Despite the fact that by the time of the described events the Murom ruler could not have been less than twenty-eight years old (and for Ancient Rus it was a very respectable age), the Legend characterizes the prince rather as a young, spontaneous, and even somewhat naive and inexperienced person.

So, unlike his reasonable brother, the news of the death of his father and the treachery of Svyatopolk Gleb receives from his brother Yaroslav; moreover, having learned all this, he, in comparison with Boris, cries much more and even “groans”, and “drenches” the earth with tears.

Seeing the murderers sailing towards him, the prince for some reason decides that they want to greet him, and having figured out what the matter is, he begins to beg them not to touch him and even - a thing unthinkable for the Middle Ages - invites these princely mercenaries to be his masters, declaring willingness to become their slave. In a conversation with them, Gleb emphasizes that “he is still an infant in age”.

Only later, convinced of the inevitability of what is happening, the prince will come to his senses a little, humility and regularity will appear in his speech, as well as a sure sign of the author's interference - extensive biblical quotes.

Healing a blind man at the tomb of princes. The relics of the princes are transferred to the temple. Sylvester collection

A life for yesterday's pagans

Another feature of the "Tale" researchers believe that the author's goal here was to glorify not only his heroes - Saints Boris and Gleb - but also the entire family of ruling princes - the descendants of Vladimir. It is no coincidence that the scribe begins his story with the biblical dictum that "the race of the righteous will be blessed."

Another feature of the "Tale", perhaps, is that the author was guided by his readers - recent pagans. Hence - some pagan categories of thinking that can be seen in his reasoning.

For example, the "accursed" Svyatopolk was named as such from the very beginning of the story, even before he began to do something unseemly. It can be assumed that the reason for this was the birth of the prince, whom the author calls "the son of two fathers." Moreover, such an origin of Svyatopolk could cast a shadow on the entire family of Vladimir.

In the future, the prince justifies his nickname by committing fratricide. And here again it is interesting to trace how various arguments are combined in the author's reasoning. The author emphasizes: the fratricide not only "became the second Cain", but also "defiled himself with blood." This means that the death of Boris and Gleb could be perceived, among other things, as a cleansing sacrifice. And there are signs of such a perception in the author's narration.

Talking with his future murderers, begging them not to kill him, Gleb, apparently, does not accidentally use the images of an unfit victim. “Do not reap an ear that is not yet ripe, and a vine that is not fully grown,” says the prince. This is followed by a very strange argument: "Behold, there is no murder, but raw cutting!" In modern translations, the last word is usually replaced by "slaughter", but is it not about an illiterate sacrifice?

There is another strange circumstance in the murder of Gleb - for some reason the author does not forget to mention that the young prince was stabbed to death by his cook. And here murder is again likened to sacrifice: "He slain him like a lamb blameless and innocent."

We have no evidence that the ancient text was perceived in this way. The only strange thing is that images, united by a common theme, are found here too often, allowing the construction of a scientific hypothesis.

So "The Legend of Boris and Gleb" allows us to trace the range of problems that researchers face - when facts need to be separated from images, and the latter, if possible, also try to interpret.

You read the article "The Legend of Boris and Gleb": what the author had in mind? Read also.

The origin of Svyatopolk the Damned since the middle of the last century has been a subject of debate among historians, although the Tale of Bygone Years seems to call Yaropolk's father Svyatopolk, and not Vladimir, who took Yaropolkov's wife on his bed after the murder of her husband, and the Legend of the murder of Boris and Gleb reports Yaropolk's paternity is already obvious. And only in one ancient Russian monument - Reading about Boris and Gleb Nestor, which also contains detailed information about the "second Cain", nothing is said about Yaropolk's paternity, and Vladimir is named the parent of the killer of Boris and Gleb. Nevertheless, S.M. Soloviev considered Svyatopolk to be Vladimir's own son. Textual arguments in favor of the version of the inaccuracy of the news of the Tale of Bygone Years about Yaropolk and his wife - a cut-off Greek monk not as about Svyatopolk's parents - were given about a hundred years later by N.N. Ilyin. He noticed that these news, contained in articles under 6485 and 6488, are interpolations that violate the coherence of the chronicle text. Recently, L. Müller acknowledged these messages as inserts. L. Müller believed that the ancient Russian chronicler - the author of the insert about Svyatopolk and his father and mother - mixed the Russian prince with his Polish namesake, the prince Sventepulk, whose mother was, in fact, a stripped nun - the daughter of Margrave Tidrich. (Sventepulk and Svyatopolk belonged to the property, since Sventepulk's half-brother Boleslav was the father-in-law of the Russian prince.) Accordingly, Svyatopolk, as born of a nun who broke a vow, appeared to be a devil of sin - the origins of the fratricide committed by Svyatopolk were revealed as if in the circumstances associated with his conception and birth. However, this bold assumption is unprovable. The historian SM Mikheev convincingly showed that the news of the Tale of Bygone Years under 6488 about the pregnancy of Svyatopolk's mother should be understood rather as an indication of the paternity of Vladimir, and not Yaropolk; in the old Russian original it is written: “Volodimer is still with his brother Grekin's wife. and bѣ is not celebrated ”, this statement literally means:“ Vladimir began to sleep with his brother’s wife, a Greek woman, and she became pregnant ”6. The author of the Legend of the Murder of Boris and Gleb understood this chronicle phrase as an indication of the paternity of Yaropolk, and not Vladimir, and therefore wrote that Vladimir took Yaropolkov's wife, already pregnant with Svyatopolk. The author of the Legend "was profitable to whitewash Vladimir, not recognizing him as the father of the accursed Svyatopolk." The idea that the origin of Svyatopolk from Yaropolk (“from two fathers” and from a mother who broke her monastic vow) was “nothing more than a hagiographic motive” designed to discredit the “second Cain” and break the “discrediting” relationship between him and the Baptist of Russia, was was also expressed by the Polish historian A. Poppé. But in contrast to SM Mikheev, A. Poppa considers the hagiographic text of the news of the birth of Svyatopolk from Yaropolk to be primary in relation to the chronicle. Both L. Müller, and S. M. Mikheev, and A. Poppé also discerned the birth of Svyatopolk by a Greek woman - a former nun, suggesting that in reality she was a "Chekhina" - one of Vladimir's wives, named in the chronicle article under 6488 (in the version of this article known to us, the "Chekhin" is credited with the birth of only one son from Vladimir - Vysheslav). Let me first dwell on the textual arguments of the supporters of the version of Vladimir's paternity. The news about Yaropolk's wife really breaks the whole text of the chronicle article about the strife between the Svyatoslavichs: “And the cellar Ѡlga on the site of the city of Vruchoga. and there is a grave of Him and to this day, Ouh Handy. and accepting the power of Yaropolk. oh Yaropolk's wife Grekini bѣ. and more was a blue woman. bѣ bo brought ѡ͠ts ϵgo S͠toslav. and vda for Yaropolk beauty for the sake of her face. Hearing Volodymyr in Novgorodѣ. like Yaropolk oubi Olga. Oboyavshis bѣzha across the sea. and Yaropolk posadniki planted their own in Novgorodѣ. and bѣ Volodya ϵdin in Russia ". The message about a Greek woman in this passage is clearly inappropriate.