The Tale of Bygone Years as a Historical Source
Abakan, 2012
1. Characteristics of time in the "Tale of Bygone Years"
Researchers conducting source analysis and synthesis are well aware of the complexity of the intellectual space in which cognition is carried out. It is important for him to determine the measure of real knowledge available to him. The Tale of Bygone Years is an outstanding historical and literary monument reflecting the formation of the ancient Russian state, its political and cultural flourishing, as well as the beginning of the process of feudal fragmentation. Created in the first decades of the 12th century, it has come down to us as part of the chronicles of a later time. In this regard, the importance of its presence in the history of writing chronicles is quite great.
The research objectives are to consider the characteristics of time as such, as well as the perception of the concept of time in the annals.
The Tale of Bygone Years is an ancient Russian chronicle created in the 1110s. Chronicles are historical writings in which events are described according to the so-called year-by-year principle, combined by annual, or "year-by-year", articles (they are also called weather records).
"Weather articles", which combined information about the events that occurred during one year, begin with the words "In summer such and such ..." ("summer" in Old Russian means "year"). In this regard, the chronicles, including the Tale of Bygone Years, are fundamentally different from the Byzantine chronicles known in Ancient Rus, from which Russian compilers borrowed numerous information from world history. In the translated Byzantine chronicles, the events were distributed not over the years, but over the reigns of the emperors.
The Tale of Bygone Years is the first chronicle, the text of which has come down to us almost in its original form. Thanks to a thorough textual analysis of the Tale of Bygone Years, researchers have discovered traces of earlier works that were included in its composition. Probably, the oldest chronicles were created in the 11th century. The hypothesis of A.A. Shakhmatova (1864-1920), explaining the emergence and describing the history of Russian chronicle writing in the 11th and early 12th centuries. He resorted to the comparative method, comparing the surviving chronicles and finding out their relationship. According to A.A. Shakhmatov, around 1037, but no later than 1044, the Kiev Chronicle was compiled, which told about the beginning of history and the baptism of Rus. Around 1073 in the Kiev-Pechersk monastery, probably the monk Nikon completed the first Kiev-Pechersk chronicle collection. In it, new news and legends were combined with the text of the Most Ancient Code and with borrowings from the Novgorod Chronicle of the mid-11th century. In 1093-1095, it condemned the foolishness and weakness of the current princes, who were opposed to the former wise and powerful rulers of Russia.
The unity of style is alien to the tale of bygone years, it is an "open" genre. The simplest element in the annalistic text is a short weather record that only informs about the event, but does not describe it.
Calendar units of time in the Tale
The study of the time of the calculus systems of the initial Russian chronicle writing is one of the most urgent tasks of Russian historical chronology. However, the results obtained in this direction over the past decades clearly do not correspond to the significance of the issues being addressed.
The point, apparently, is not only (and even not so much) in the “ingratitude” of such work and its predominantly “rough” character. A much more serious obstacle, in our opinion, is a number of fundamental discrepancies in the perception of time and units of its measurement by modern scientists and ancient Russian chroniclers.
The same applies to chronological material. Any chronicle record (including a date - annual, calendar, geortological) is of interest, first of all, as a “reliable” story about what happened, when and how.
At the same time, preliminary textological and source research should insure the scientist against the use of substandard information about the event of interest that got into the text under study from unreliable or unverified sources. Solving the questions “when, how and why this record was formed”, “determining the original form of the record and studying its subsequent changes in the chronicle tradition” seemed to reliably cleanse the original text of later layers, both factual and ideological. Thus, in the hands of the historian (ideally), it was "protocol" accurate information. From this corpus of information the historian with a pure heart "arbitrarily chooses: the records he needs, as if from a fund prepared for him on purpose," against which, in fact, all the procedures of preliminary criticism of the text were directed.
Meanwhile, as has already been noted many times, the idea of \u200b\u200bauthenticity for a person in Ancient Rus was primarily associated with collective experience and social traditions. It was they who became the main filter in the chronicle for the selection of material, its assessment and the form in which it was recorded by the chronicler.
There were no exceptions in this regard, and direct temporary instructions accompanying the presentation. The researchers have already paid attention to the fact that direct dates in the chronicle could have, like any other fragment of the text, in addition to literal and symbolic meaning. Such remarks, however, concerned mainly the calendar part of dates and were of a sporadic nature.
The appearance of direct dating indications in the chronicle text refers to the mid-60s - early 70s. This is associated with the name of Nikon the Great. Until that time, according to experts studying the ancient Russian annals, direct annual indications were a rare exception. More precisely, only 2-3 dates are usually mentioned, which got into the Tale from earlier written sources. An example is the date of death of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich - July 15, 1015. The rest of the dates - not only daily, but also annual - until the mid-60s of the 11th century, as most researchers believe, were calculated by Nikon.
However, the foundations of such calculations are difficult to reconstruct.
Another striking example of direct dating indications is the chronological calculation, placed in the Tale under the year 6360/852, immediately after the dated message about the beginning of the reign of the Byzantine emperor Michael III:
“In the same place, let us put the numbers, as from Adam to the flood of 2242 years; and from the flood to Ovram the years 1000 and 82, and from Abram to the end of Moses in the years 430; and from the procession of Moses to David years 600 and 1; and from David and from the beginning of the kingdom of Solomon until the captivity of Jerusalem, 448 years; and from captivity to Oleksandr, 318 years; and from Oleksandr to the Nativity of Christ years 333: But we will return to the former and say that we are here in the summer of this, as if we had missed the first summer by Michael, and put the numbers in a row ”.
The fact that almost any calendar date was considered in the context of its real or symbolic content can be judged even by the frequency of certain calendar references. So, in the Tale of Bygone Years, Monday and Tuesday are mentioned only once, Wednesday - twice, Thursday - three times, Friday - 5 times, Saturday - 9, and Sunday ("week") - as many as 17!
Methods for working with temporary information
When compiling the chronicle, the chronological method was used. However, contrary to the theory of probability, events are unevenly distributed both in relation to months and in relation to individual dates. For example, in the Pskov 1 chronicle there are calendar dates (05.01; 02.02; 20.07; 01.08; 18.08; 01.09; 01.10; 26.10), which account for from 6 to 8 events throughout the entire chronicle text. At the same time, a number of dates are not mentioned at all by the compiler of the code (03.01; 08.01; 19.01; 25.01; 01.02; 08.02; 14.02, etc.).
All such cases can be reasonably justified in terms of their eventful content, or a value relation to the calendar part of the date. As for the chronographic (annual) indications, they, from the standpoint of common sense, generally cannot have any other semantic meaning than the “external” designation of the number of the year of the event.
An example is the analysis of a fragment of a text carried out by A.A. Shakhmatov. the studied composition of the Old Russian annals. He applied a comparative textological analysis.
The main attention was focused on identifying the source that the chronicler used when calculating the years "from Adam". It turned out to be a text close to the Slavic translation of the Chronicler Soon by Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople, known in Russia since the beginning of the 12th century. A comparative textological analysis of the surviving copies of The Chronicler Soon did not allow, however, to reveal the original, which was directly used by the chronicler. At the same time, researchers have repeatedly emphasized that when compiling a chronological list in the Tale of Bygone Years, a number of errors were made when calculating periods.
They boiled down to the distortion of the digital part of the original text as a result of repeated "mechanical rewriting" or misreading of the original.
Their appearance and accumulation inevitably led to a distortion of the total number of years. In the lists that have come down to our time, from the Creation of the World to the Nativity of Christ, it is 5434 or, "after eliminating errors", 5453.
Grouping of terms in the text of the chronicle
The grouping of the dates given in this chronological list by the indicated periods gives a sequence of five time intervals of approximately 1000 years each (the first period is double). This result seems to be quite satisfactory, since millennial periods in the Christian tradition were often equated with one divine day (cf. “The Lord has one day as a thousand years” - Psalm 89.5; 2 Pet. 3.8-9, etc.) or one "Century" (Kirik Novgorodets). The existing deviations from the thousand-year term are not yet completely clear, but, apparently, they are also not devoid of meaning. In any case, there is every reason to believe that the calculation of the years under the year 6360, as it looks in the Tale of Bygone Years, leads the reader to an event that should complete the narration, as, incidentally, earthly history in general - the second coming of the Savior.
However, the fact that the proposed interpretation of the first part of the chronological calculation of 6360 has a right to exist is indicated, in our opinion, by the accompanying phrase: “We will also put numbers from now on, and we will put numbers in a row”. Traditionally, it is perceived as a "promise" of the chronicler to conduct further exposition in a strict chronological order.
For a medieval reader, it could carry an additional semantic load. The fact is that the word "number", in addition to the meanings usual for a modern person, was also understood in the Old Russian language as "measure, limit". The word "row" is defined as a row, order ("in a row" - one after another, sequentially, continuously), improvement, as well as, order, will, court, contract (in particular, "put a row" - to conclude an agreement) ...
The "new" title of the Tale, however, is not so unambiguous. The phrase "time years" is usually translated as "about the past years", "past years", "passing years". On this occasion, D.S. Likhachev wrote: “The definition of“ temporary ”refers not to the word“ story ”, but to the word“ years ”.
Summarizing the analysis of time in "The Tale of Bygone Years", it should be concluded that the very name of the chronicle, apparently, was in direct connection with the chronological calculation inserted in the second decade of the 12th century. in article 6360. This suggests that when analyzing direct time data, both in the calendar and in the chronographic part, it is necessary to take into account their semantic content, sometimes significantly exceeding, or even contradicting the literal meaning.
2.Historical sources in the "Tale of Bygone Years"
The historical significance of the sources of the chronicle is important. This is the historical aspect that makes it possible to saturate Russian historical and educational literature. It is not for nothing that all textbooks on Russian history are equipped with quotations from this ancient chronicle monument. From time to time, fragments are published that most clearly characterize the ancient Russian state and society of the 9-10th centuries. A historical source is a realized product of the human psyche, suitable for the study of facts with historical significance. The difference between sources and research. The historian uses not only sources, but also research. In this regard, it is important that research is a subjective concept of the main historical event. The author of the source directly describes the events, and the author of the study relies on already existing sources.
The main tasks in the consideration of historical sources are the analysis of the methods of using the chronicle by the author: phraseological, allegorical, symbolic, as the foundations of the moral perception of the world.
When writing the chronicle, documents from the prince's archives were used, which made it possible to preserve the texts of the Russian-Byzantine treaties 911, 944 and 971 to this day. Some of the information was taken from Byzantine sources.
How to use sources
The chronicle also presents a type of detailed record, recording not only the "deeds" of the prince, but also their results. For example: "In the summer of 6391. Pocha Oleg fought the derevlyans, and having tortured a, and imache a tribute to them on black kuna", etc. Both a short weather record, and a more detailed one are documentary. They do not have any tropes that decorate speech. It is simple , is clear and laconic, which gives it special significance, expressiveness and even majesty. The chronicler's attention is focused on the event - "what's here in the summer."
The reports of the military campaigns of the princes occupy more than half of the chronicle. They are followed by news of the death of the princes. Less often, the birth of children, their marriage is recorded. Then, information about the construction activities of the princes. Finally, there are reports of church affairs, which occupy a very modest place.
The chronicler uses the medieval system of chronology from the "creation of the world." To translate this system into the modern one, it is necessary to subtract 5508 from the chronicle date.
The connection of the chronicle with folklore and epic description
The chronicler draws material about the events of the distant past from the treasury of national memory. The appeal to the toponymic legend was dictated by the chronicler's desire to find out the origin of the names of the Slavic tribes, individual cities and the word "Rus" itself.
For example, the origin of the Slavic tribes Radimichi and Vyatichi is associated with the legendary descendants of the Poles - the brothers Radim and Vyatko. This legend arose among the Slavs, obviously, during the period of the disintegration of the clan system, when the isolated clan foreman, in order to substantiate his right to political dominance over the rest of the clan, creates a legend about his allegedly foreign origin. Close to this chronicle legend is the legend of the vocation of princes, placed in the annals under 6370 (862). At the invitation of the Novgorodians, three brothers-Varangians with their families: Rurik, Sineus, Truvor - come to reign and "volodate" the Russian land from across the sea.
The folklore of the legend confirms the presence of the epic number three - three brothers. The legend has a purely Novgorod, local origin, reflecting the practice of relations between the feudal city republic and the princes. In the life of Novgorod, there were frequent cases of the "calling" of the prince, who served as a military leader. Introduced into the Russian chronicle, this local legend acquired a certain political meaning. The legend about the calling of princes emphasized the absolute political independence of the princely power from the Byzantine Empire.
The chronicle news about the Slavic tribes, their customs, wedding and funeral rites are filled with echoes of ritual poetry from the times of the tribal system. The first Russian princes Oleg, Igor, Olga, Svyatoslav were characterized in the chronicles by the methods of oral folk epic. Oleg is, first of all, a courageous and wise warrior. Thanks to his military ingenuity, he defeats the Greeks, putting his ships on wheels, and putting them under sail on the ground. He cleverly unravels all the intricacies of his enemies, the Greeks, and concludes a peace treaty beneficial for Russia with Byzantium. As a sign of his victory, Oleg nails his shield at the gates of Constantinople, to the shame of his enemies and the glory of his homeland. The lucky warrior-prince is nicknamed by the people "prophetic", that is, a magician.
The chronicle news about Vladimir's marriage to the Polotsk princess Rogneda, about his abundant and generous feasts held in Kiev - the Korsun legend - goes back to folk legends. On the one hand, a pagan prince with his unbridled passions appears before us, on the other, an ideal Christian ruler endowed with all the virtues: meekness, humility, love for the poor, for the monastic and monastic rank, and so on. a pagan with a Christian prince, the chronicler sought to prove the superiority of the new Christian morality over the pagan.
Compilers of the chronicles of the 16th century drew attention to the inconsistency of the first part of the story, about the visit of the Apostle Andrew to Kiev, on the second, they replaced the everyday story with a pious tradition, according to which Andrew leaves his cross in the Novgorod land. Thus, most of the chronicle legends dedicated to the events of the 9th - the end of the 10th centuries are associated with oral folk art, its epic genres.
With the help of artistic descriptions and plot organization, the chronicler introduces the genre of storytelling, rather than simply recording information.
These examples show how the amusingness of the epic plot is built on the fact that the reader, together with the positive hero, deceives (often cruelly and insidiously, a medieval one) the enemy, who until the last moment is unaware of his disastrous fate.
The stories of folklore, epic origin also include the legend about the death of Oleg, which served as the basis for the plot for Pushkin's "Song of the Prophetic Oleg", the story of a young leatherman who defeated the Pechenezh hero, and some others.
Apocryphal texts in the Tale
The apocryphal is characterized by an abundance of miracles, fantasy. Apocrypha for people who think. Primitivization is characteristic. Apocrypha - books of forbidden indexes, although written on biblical and evangelical subjects. They were brighter, more specific, more interesting, and attracted attention. The Apocrypha are legendary and religious works. The Apocrypha were classified as non-canonical, as heretical literature. Heresy - opposition godchild movements.
The articles by A.A. Shakhmatov devoted to the analysis of the Explanatory Paleya and the Tale of Bygone Years, where he dealt with some apocryphal inserts. Very interesting and important is the attempt of the scientist to trace the path of the entry of the apocryphal kind of literature to Russia.
Here is an attempt to accurately establish the apocryphal source of the story of the chronicle about the division of lands by the sons of Noah by lot by direct comparison of the text. Accordingly, there is also the presence of the text of the Apocrypha in the annals.
Old Testament influence on the Story. So, for example, Svyatopolk, who killed his brothers according to the story of the chronicle, is called "accursed" and "accursed" in it. Let's pay attention to the root of the word "accursed", this root is "cain". It is clear that this refers to the biblical Cain, who killed his brother and was cursed by God. Like Cain, doomed to wander and die in the wilderness, the chronicler Svyatopolk also died. There are many examples like this. Even in terms of stylistic features of the presentation of the text, the Bible and the Tale are similar in some respects: more than once in the Tale, the textual turnover, characteristic of the book of Joshua, is repeated, referring to the fact that evidence of an event can be seen "to this day."
However, not all plots of the story "fit" into the biblical texts. There are stories that are written on biblical topics, but do not agree with the canonical Old Testament. One of the examples of this is the chronicle story about Noah, who divided the earth after the flood between his sons: “By the flood, the first sons of Noah divided the earth: Sim, Ham, Afet. And I went to Simovi ... Hamovi was a midday country ... Afetu was a midnight country and a western one ... ”…. “Sim, both Ham and Afet, having torn up the earth, are metamorphosed in lots - no one transgresses the lot, brothers. And everyone lives in their own parts. "
It should be noted that the chronicles are works of a complex composition. It includes monuments of various origins, content, genres: original documents (for example, treaties between Russia and the Greeks in 911, 944, 971), diplomatic and legislative acts from the princely and monastery archives, information from the military (for example, "The Tale about the invasion of Batu "), political and church history, materials of a geographical and ethnographic nature, descriptions of natural disasters, folk legends, theological writings (for example, the legend about the spread of faith in Russia), sermons, teachings (for example, The Teaching of Vladimir Monomakh), words of praise (for example, Theodosius of the Caves), hagiographic fragments (for example, from the lives of Boris and Gleb), quotes and references to biblical subjects and Byzantine chronicles, etc.
It is now clear that the annals were compiled at different times, in different regions, by different people (authors, compilers) and were subjected, especially the oldest ones, to repeated editorial revisions. Based on this, the chronicle cannot be regarded as the work of one author-compiler; at the same time, it is a single integral literary work. It is distinguished by the unity of design, composition and ideological aspirations of the editors. The language of the chronicle is characterized by both diversity and variegation, and a certain unity due to the work of editors. Its language is not a homogeneous system. In it, in addition to two stylistic types of the ancient Russian literary language - book (church-Slav.) And folk-colloquial - dialectal differences were reflected.
Certain linguistic features, eg. in phonetics and vocabulary, indicate their source of different regional localization; grammatical and syntactic phenomena are more difficult to localize.
Hypothesis about the oldest constructions
The study of the Primary Code showed that it was based on some kind of work (or works) of a chronicle nature. This was indicated by some logical inconsistencies of the text reflected in the Novgorod I Chronicle. So, according to A.A. Shakhmatov, in the early chronicle there should not have been a story about Olga's first three places, and a legend about a brave young man (a boy with a bridle) who saved Kiev from the Pechenezh siege, and about embassies sent to test their faiths, and many other stories.
In addition, A.A. Shakhmatov drew attention to the fact that the story of the death of Vladimir Svyatoslavich's elder brother, Oleg (under 6485/977) ended in the Primary Code with the words: “And ... pogrebosh him [Oleg] on m ?st ? by the city, the call of Vruchiyago; there is his grave to this day at the Vruchiyago city. " However, under 6552/1044 we read: “Pogr ?bena bysta 2 prince, son of Svyatoslavl: Yaropl, Olga; and baptizing the bones with it ”, to which the Laurentian Chronicle added:“ and I put the Holy Mother of God in the church ”.
Consequently, according to A.A. Shakhmatova, the chronicler who described the tragic denouement of the Svyatoslavichs' strife, did not yet know about the transfer of Oleg's remains to the Tithe Church from Vruchey. From this it was concluded that the Primary Code was based on some chronicle compiled between 977 and 1044. The most probable in this period was A.A. Shakhmatov counted 1037 (6545), under which the Tale contains extensive praise to Prince Yaroslav Vladimirovich, or 1939 (6547), which dated the article on the consecration of St. Sophia of Kiev and "the confirmation of the Metropolis by Yaroslav."
The researcher suggested calling the hypothetical chronicle work created this year the Most Ancient Arch. The narrative in it had not yet been broken down into years and had a monothematic (plot) character. Yearly dates (as they sometimes say, a chronological network) were introduced into it by the Kiev-Pechersk monk Nikon the Great in the 70s. XI century.
Shakhmatov's constructions were supported by almost all researchers, then the idea of \u200b\u200bthe existence of the Most Ancient Code aroused objections. It is believed that this hypothesis is not well founded. At the same time, most scholars agree that the Primary Code was indeed based on some kind of chronicle or monothematic narrative. Its characteristics and dating, however, differ significantly.
So, M.N. Tikhomirov drew attention to the fact that the Tale reflects the reign of Svyatoslav Igorevich better than Vladimir Svyatoslavich and Yaroslav Vladimirovich. Based on a comparative study of the Tale and the Novgorod Chronicle, he came to the conclusion that the Tale was based on the monothematic Tale of the Beginning of the Russian Land, based on oral legends about the founding of Kiev and the first Kiev princes. M.N. Tikhomirov essentially coincided with the opinion of N.K. Nikolsky and found support from L.V. Cherepnin. They also linked the origin of the Russian chronicle with "some old story about the glades-Rus" - "a now-lost historical work, which, without having the significance of the all-Russian chronicle and containing news about the fate and ancient ties of the Russian tribes (Rus) with the Slavic world, was free from Byzantinism and Normanism " . The creation of such a work was timed to the time of the reign of Svyatopolk Yaropolkovich (Vladimirovich) in Kiev and was dated 1015-1019. No textual verification of this hypothesis has been carried out.
An attempt to test this hypothesis was undertaken by D.A. Balovnev. His textological, stylistic and ideological analysis of the chronicle fragments, which, in the opinion of DS Likhachev, once constituted a single work, showed that the hypothesis of the existence of the "Legend of the Initial Spread of Christianity" does not find confirmation. In all texts related to D.S. Likhachev to the "Tale", "clearly does not observe a single narrative, does not reveal belonging to one hand and common terminology." On the contrary, D.A. Balovnev was able to prove textually that the basis of the stories allegedly included in the "Tale" were precisely those fragments that at one time AA. Shakhmatov referred to the folk (fabulous) layer of the chronicle narrative. The texts belonging to the spiritual (clerical, ecclesiastical) layer turn out to be insertions that complicated the original text. Moreover, these inserts were based on other literary sources than the original story, which, on the one hand, determined their terminological differences, and on the other, lexical and phraseological similarity with other chronicle stories (not included, according to D.S.Likhachev, into the "Tale"), based on the same sources.
Despite the discrepancies with the views of A.A. Shakhmatova about the nature and exact time of writing the most ancient literary work, which later formed the basis of the actual chronicle presentation, researchers agree that a certain work (or works) did exist. They do not differ in principle in determining the date of its compilation: the first half of the XI century. Apparently, further study of the early chronicle texts should clarify what this source was, its composition, ideological orientation, date of creation.
Examples of information sources Chronicles
As is already known, the literary genre of the chronicle was formed by the middle of the 11th century, but the oldest available lists of chronicles, such as the Synod List of the Novgorod First Chronicle, date back to a much later period - the 13th and 14th centuries.
the year dates back to the Laurentian list, the first quarter of the 15th century - the Ipatiev list of the Ipatiev Chronicle, and the rest of the chronicles - even later. Proceeding from this, the most ancient period in the development of chronicles has to be studied, relying on small lists compiled 2-3 centuries later than the writing of the chronicles themselves.
Another problem in the study of the annals is that each of them is a collection of chronicles, that is, it retells the previous records, usually in an abbreviated form, so that each chronicle tells about the history of the world "from the very beginning", such as, " The Tale of Bygone Years ”begins with“ where the Russian land came from ”.
The authorship of The Tale of Bygone Years, created at the beginning of the 12th century, still raises some doubts: his name was definitely Nestor, but the question of identifying Nestor the chronicler and Nestor the hagiographer, the author of The Life of Boris and Gleb and The Life of Theodosius of the Caves is still controversial.
Like most chronicles, the Tale is a collection that includes the processing and retelling of many previous chronicles, literary, journalistic, folklore sources.
Nestor begins his chronicle with the division of the lands by the children of Noah, that is, from the time of the great flood: he lists the lands in detail, as in the Byzantine chronicles. Despite the fact that Russia was not mentioned in those chronicles, Nestor, of course, introduces it after mentioning Ilurik (Illyria - the eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea or the people who lived there), he adds the word "Slavs". Then, in the description of the lands inherited by Japheth, the chronicles mention the Dnieper, Desna, Pripyat, Dvina, Volkhov, Volga - Russian rivers. In the "part" of Japheth, it is said in the "Tale," and "Russia, people and all languages: Meria, Muroma, all ..." - then follows the list of tribes that inhabited the East European Plain.
The story of the Vikings is a fiction, a legend. Suffice it to mention that the most ancient Russian monuments erect the dynasty of Kiev princes to Igor, and not to Rurik, and the fact that Oleg's "regency" lasted no less than 33 years under Igor's "minor", and the fact that in the Primary Code Oleg is not called , and the governor ...
Nevertheless, this legend was one of the cornerstones of the most ancient Russian historiography. It responded primarily to the medieval historiographic tradition, where the ruling clan was often traced back to a foreigner: this eliminated the possibility of rivalry between local clans.
In the defeat of the Russian princes in the battle with the Polovtsy near Trepol in 1052, God's punishment is also seen, and after that he gives a sad picture of defeat: the Polovtsians are taking away the captured Russian prisoners, and those, hungry, suffering from thirst, naked and barefoot, "the legs of property are shaken off by thorns" , with tears I answered each other, saying: "I am beh of this city", and others: "Yaz sowing all" dachshunds cry with tears, their race is telling and sighing, their eyes lifting up to heaven to the highest, a secret knowledgeable. "
In the description of the Polovtsian raid in 1096, the chronicler again has no choice but to promise the suffering Christians for the torment of the kingdom of heaven. Nevertheless, here is an extract from the apocryphal word of Methodius of Patarsky, which tells about the origin of different peoples, in particular, about the legendary "unclean peoples" who were driven to the north by Alexander the Great, imprisoned in the mountains, but which "will leave" from there "To the end of the century" - on the eve of the death of the world.
To achieve greater reliability and a greater impression of the story, descriptions of small details are introduced into the narrative: how the tinder was attached to the legs of the birds, lists the various buildings that were "fired up" from the sparrows and pigeons returning to their nests and under the eaves (again a specific detail).
Among other records, there are narrative stories written on the basis of historical, not legendary events: a message about an uprising in the Rostov land, led by the Magi, a story about how a certain Novgorodian fortune-telling with a magician (both in article 1071), a description of the transfer of relics Theodosius of Pechersky in article 1091, the story of the blinding of Vasilko Terebovlsky in article 1097.
In The Tale of Bygone Years, like in no other chronicle, narrative stories are frequent (we are not talking about inserted stories in the chronicles of the 15th-16th centuries). If we take the chronicle of the XI-XVI centuries. in general, then for the chronicle as a genre, a certain literary principle, developed already in the XI-XIII centuries, is more characteristic. and received from D.S. Likhachev's name for the "style of monumental historicism" - a style characteristic of all art of this period, and not only of literature.
Almost all the annalistic collections of subsequent centuries began with the "Tale", although, of course, in the abridged collections of the 15th-16th centuries. or in local chroniclers, the most ancient history of Rus was presented in the form of brief selections of the most important events.
The Lives written by Nestor - "Reading about the Life and Destruction" of Boris and Gleb and "The Life of Theodosius of the Caves" represent two hagiographic types - the life-martyria (the story of the martyrdom of a saint) and the monastic life, which tells about the whole life of the righteous man, his piety, asceticism and the miracles he does. Nestor, of course, took into account the requirements of the Byzantine hagiographic canon and knew the translated Byzantine lives. But at the same time he showed such artistic independence, such an outstanding talent that the creation of these two masterpieces makes him one of the outstanding ancient Russian writers, regardless of whether he is also the compiler of the Tale of Bygone Years.
Summing up, it should be noted that the genre diversity of sources determined the richness and expressiveness of the language. They contain valuable material on the history of vocabulary. The chronicle reflects rich synonyms (for example, drevod li - carpenters, stage - mile, sulia - spear), contains military, church and administrative terminology, onomastic and toponymic vocabulary (many personal names, nicknames, geographical names, names of residents, churches, monasteries ), phraseology, borrowed words and tracing papers from Greek are used. language (eg, autocrat, autocracy) When comparing the vocabulary of the Tale of Bygone Years, one can trace the life of terms, in particular military terms, up to their withering away and replacement with new ones.
So, the language of the chronicle is characterized by rather sharp contrasts: from the use of Old Slavicisms and constructions inherent in the book language (for example, an independent dative turnover, a perfect with a bunch, the dual number of names and verbs), to the folklore. elements (for example, the expression did not reach enough or the dubie was smashed by the village) and syntactic constructions (for example, impersonal phrases - not for the sake of shame, constructions without a link, participles in the predicative function - embed and speech). in the story is uneven, in particular, it depends on the genre.
List of references
source tale of bygone years
1.Aleshkovsky M.Kh. The Tale of Bygone Years: The Fate of a Literary Work in Ancient Rus. M., 1971
2.Eremin I.P. "The Tale of Bygone Years": Problems of its Historical and Literary Study (1947). - In the book: Eremin
I.P. Literature of Ancient Rus: (Studies and characteristics). M. - L., 1966 Sukhomlinov M.I. About the ancient Russian chronicle as a literary monument. SPb, 1856
Likhachev D.S. Russian chronicles and their cultural and historical significance. M. - L., 1947
A.N. Nasonov History of Russian chronicle writing XI - early XVIII century. M., 1969
Rybakov B.A. Ancient Russia: legends, epics, chronicles. M. - L., 1963
O. V. Tvorogov Plot narration in the annals of the XI-XIII centuries. ... - In the book: The origins of Russian fiction. L., 1970
Kuzmin A.G. The initial stages of the Old Russian annals. M., 1977
Likhachev D.S. Great legacy. "The Tale of Bygone Years" Selected works: In 3 vols., Vol. 2. L., 1987.
Shaikin A.A. "Behold the Tale of Bygone Years": From Kiy to Monomakh. M., 1989
A.A. Shakhmatov History of Russian annals. T. 1. The Tale of Bygone Years and the Most Ancient Russian Annals. Book. 2. Early Russian chronicle of the XI-XII centuries - SPb., 2003.
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.
History of creation
Old Russian literature developed after the adoption of Christianity and spanned seven centuries. Its main task is to reveal Christian values, to familiarize the Russian people with religious wisdom. The Tale of Bygone Years (Primary Chronicle, or Nesterov Chronicle) is one of the most ancient works of Russian literature. It was created at the beginning of the XII century by the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, the chronicler Nestor. In the title of the chronicle, Nestor formulated his task: "Behold the tales of time years, where did the Russian land go, who in Kiev began the first princes and where did the Russian land begin to eat." The original "Tale ..." has not reached us. Several copies are currently available. Of these, the most famous are two: a handwritten parchment collection of 1337 - kept in the State Public Library named after M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin (Laurentian Chronicle) and a manuscript collection of the early 15th century - kept in the library of the Academy of Sciences of the Russian Federation (Ipatiev Chronicle). The Laurentian Chronicle is named after its scribe - the monk Laurentia, who copied it for the Suzdal Grand Duke Dmitry Konstantinovich in 1337 and put his name at the end. The Laurentian Chronicle is a collection that includes two works: the Tale of Bygone Years itself and the Suzdal Chronicle, brought up to 1305. The Ipatiev Chronicle is named after the former place of storage - the Ipatiev Monastery in Kostroma. This is also a collection, which includes several chronicles, including The Tale of Bygone Years. In this document, the narrative is brought to 1202. The main difference between the lists is at the end: the Laurentian Chronicle brings the story to 1110, and in the Ipatiev list the story passes into the Kiev chronicle.
Genre, kind of chronicle
Chronicle is one of the genres of medieval literature. In Western Europe it was called "Chronicle". Usually this is a description of legendary and real events, mythological representations. Academician D.S. Likhachev said in this regard that ancient Russian literature had one subject - "world history" and one theme - "the meaning of human life." The chroniclers did not record private events in their records, were not interested in the life of ordinary people. As D.S. Likhachev, "getting into the annals is a significant event in itself." Russian chroniclers not only recorded events in chronological sequence, but also created a set of written sources and oral traditions, and then made their generalizations based on the collected material. The result of the work was a kind of lesson.
The annalistic code includes both short weather records (that is, records of events that occurred in a particular year), and other texts of various genres (stories, teachings, parables, traditions, legends, biblical tales, contracts). The main story in the chronicle is the story of an event, which has a complete plot. There is a close connection with oral folk art.
The Tale of Bygone Years contains an exposition of the ancient history of the Slavs, and then of Russia, from the first Kiev princes to the beginning of the 12th century. The Tale of Bygone Years is not only a historical chronicle, but at the same time an outstanding literary monument. Thanks to the state outlook, breadth of outlook and literary talent of Nestor, "The Tale of Bygone Years", according to D.S. Likhachev, was "not just a collection of facts of Russian history and not just a historical and journalistic essay connected with the urgent but transient tasks of Russian reality, but an integral, literary outlined history of Russia."
Subject
The Tale of Bygone Years is the first all-Russian annalistic collection. It contains historical information about the life of Ancient Rus, recorded legends about the origin of the Slavs, their settlement along the Dnieper and around Lake Ilmen, the clash of the Slavs with the Khazars and Varangians, the vocation of the Varangians by the Novgorod Slavs with Rurik at the head and the formation of the state of Rus. The legends recorded in The Tale of Bygone Years represent practically the only source of information on the formation of the first ancient Russian state and the first Russian princes. The names of Rurik, Sineus, Truvor, Askold, Dir, the prophetic Oleg are not found in other sources of that time, although attempts are being made to identify some historical characters with the listed princes. The role of the first Russian princes (Oleg, Igor, Svyatoslav, Vladimir) in the fight against enemies, the formation of the Kiev principality is the fundamental theme of the Tale of Bygone Years.
Among the chronicle texts: a story about Olga's revenge against the Drevlyans (945-946); a story about a young man and a Pecheneg (992); the siege of Belgorod by the Pechenegs (997) - the story of Oleg's death by a horse (912) occupies a special place.
The idea of \u200b\u200bthe analyzed piece
The main idea of \u200b\u200bthe "Tale ..." is the author's condemnation of strife between the princes, a call for unification. The Russian people are presented by the chronicler as equal among other Christian nations. Interest in history was dictated by the pressing needs of the day, history was involved in order to "teach" the princes - contemporaries of political statesmanship, rational government. This prompted the monks of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery to become historians. Thus, ancient Russian literature fulfilled the task of moral education of society, the formation of national identity, and acted as the bearer of civil ideals.
The main characters of the Tale of Bygone Years
The princes were the heroes of the chronicles. The Tale of Bygone Years tells about Prince Igor, Princess Olga, Prince Vladimir Monomakh and other people who lived in medieval Russia. For example, in the center of attention of one of the editions of the story are the events related to the activities of Vladimir Monomakh, which speaks of the family affairs of Monomakh, information about the Byzantine emperors, with whom Monomakh was related. And this is no coincidence. As you know, Vladimir Monomakh was the Grand Duke of Kiev in 1113-1125. He was known to the people as a patriot and an active defender of Russia from the Polovtsians. Monomakh was not only a commander and statesman, but also a writer. In particular, he wrote "Instructions for Children".
Among the first Russian princes, Nestor was attracted by Prince Oleg. Prince Oleg (? - 912) - the first Kiev prince from the Rurik family. The chronicle says that Rurik, dying, transferred power to his relative, Oleg, since Rurik's son, Igor, was very small at that time. For three years Oleg reigned in Novgorod, and then, recruiting an army from the Varangians and the tribes of Chudi, Ilmen Slavs, Meri, Vesi, Krivichi, subject to him, moved south. Oleg took possession of Kiev by cunning, killing Askold and Dir, who reigned there, and made it his capital, saying: "This will be the mother of Russian cities." By uniting the Slavic tribes of the north and south, Oleg created a powerful state - Kievan Rus. A well-known legend is associated with the death of Oleg in the annals. According to the chronicler, Oleg reigned for 33 years, from 879 (the year of Rurik's death) to 912. He possessed an outstanding talent for a commander, and his wisdom and foresight were so great that they seemed supernatural. Contemporaries called Oleg the Prophet. The lucky warrior-prince is nicknamed "prophetic", that is. a wizard (although the Christian chronicler did not fail to emphasize that the nickname was given to Oleg by the pagans, "people of trash and non-voices"), but he also cannot escape his fate. Under the year 912, the chronicle places a poetic tradition associated, obviously, with "Olga's grave", which "is ... to this day." This legend has a complete plot, which is revealed in a laconic dramatic narration. It clearly expresses the idea of \u200b\u200bthe power of fate, which none of the mortals, and even the "prophetic" prince, can not escape.
The legendary Prince Oleg can be called the first Russian figure of a nationwide scale. Many songs, legends and traditions were composed about Prince Oleg. The people praised his wisdom, ability to predict the future, his talent as a magnificent military leader, intelligent, fearless and resourceful.
The plot, composition of the Tale of Bygone Years
Oleg reigned for many years. Once he summoned the soothsayers to him and asked: "What am I destined to die from?" And the wise men answered: "You, prince, will accept death from your beloved horse." Oleg was saddened and said: "If so, I will never sit on him again." He ordered to take the horse away, feed it and take care of it, and took another for himself.
A long time has passed. Once Oleg remembered his old horse and asked where he was now and if he was healthy. They replied to the prince: "Three years have passed since your horse died."
Then Oleg exclaimed: "The wise men lied: the horse from which they promised me death died, and I am alive!" He wanted to see the bones of his horse and rode into an open field, where they lay in the grass, washed by the rains and bleached by the sun. The prince touched the horse's skull with his foot and said with a grin: "Should I accept death from this skull?" But then a poisonous snake crawled out of the horse's skull and stung Oleg in the leg. And Oleg died of snake venom.
According to the chronicler, "all the people mourned him with great weeping."
Artistic originality of the work
“The Tale of Bygone Years”, telling about the place of the Russian people among other peoples of the world, about the history of its formation, introduces us to the atmosphere of an epic folk song attitude to Russian history. In "The Tale of Bygone Years" there is both an epic image and a poetic attitude to native history. That is why The Tale of Bygone Years is not only a work of Russian historical thought, but also of Russian historical poetry. Poetry and history are indissolubly united in her. Before us is a literary work created on the basis of oral stories. It is to oral sources that the "Tale of Bygone Years" owes its magnificent, concise and expressive language. The historicism underlying ancient Russian literature presupposed a certain idealization of the depicted. Hence the artistic generalization, the lack of an image of the inner psychology of the hero, his character. At the same time, the chronicle clearly shows the author's assessment.
A feature of the "Tale of Bygone Years" is an unusually poetic syllable for that time. The style of the chronicle is laconic. O6 different speech includes frequent reference to direct speech, to proverbs and sayings. Basically, the chronicle contains Church Slavonic vocabulary, which is closely intertwined with the spoken Russian language. Reflecting reality, the chronicle also reflects the language of this reality, conveys speeches that were actually uttered. First of all, this influence of the oral language is reflected in the direct speech of the chronicles, but also indirect speech, the narration conducted on behalf of the chronicler himself, to a large extent depends on the living oral language of his time - primarily in terminology: military, hunting, feudal, legal and etc. Such were the oral foundations on which the originality of The Tale of Bygone Years was based as a monument of Russian historical thought, Russian literature and the Russian language.
The meaning of the work "The Tale of Bygone Years"
Nestor was the first ancient Russian feudal historiographer who connected the history of Russia with the history of the East European and Slavic peoples. In addition, a feature of the story is its direct connection with world history.
The Tale of Bygone Years is not only an example of ancient Russian literature, but also a monument to the cultural life of the people. The plots of the chronicle were widely used in their work by many poets. A special place belongs to the famous "Song of the Prophetic Oleg" by A.S. Pushkin. The poet talks about Prince Oleg as an epic hero. Oleg made many campaigns, fought a lot, but fate took care of him. Pushkin loved and knew Russian history, the "legends of the ages." In the legend of Prince Oleg and his horse, the poet was interested in the theme of fate, the inevitability of a predetermined fate. In the poem, there is also a proud confidence in the poet's right to freely follow his thoughts, consonant with the ancient idea of \u200b\u200bthe belief that poets are heralds of a higher will.
Magi are not afraid of mighty rulers, And they do not need a princely gift; Their prophetic language is truthful and free And friendly with the will of heaven.
The truth cannot be bought or circumvented. Oleg gets rid, as it seems to him, of the threat of death, sends the horse, which should, according to the prediction of the magician, play a fatal role. But many years later, when he thinks that the danger has passed - the horse is dead, fate overtakes the prince. He touches the horse's skull: "From the dead head, the coffin snake Hissing meanwhile crawled out."
Narrated by A.S. Pushkin, the legend of the glorious Prince Oleg suggests that everyone has their own destiny, you cannot deceive it, and you need to love your friends, take care of them and not part with them during life.
It is interesting
Writing appeared in Russia along with the adoption of Christianity, when liturgical books were transferred to us from Bulgaria and began to be distributed through rewriting. Although at that distant time the similarity between all the languages \u200b\u200bof different Slavic tribes was incomparably greater than now, the Church Slavonic language nevertheless differed from the Russian colloquial or folk language both in relation to phonetics and in relation to etymology and syntax. Meanwhile, our ancestors, as Christianity and literacy spread, became more and more familiar with this written language: they listened to it during divine services, read church books in it and rewrote them. The very teaching of literacy in Ancient Russia was accomplished according to the books of Church Slavonic. Hence it is clear that the Church Slavonic language should have had a strong influence on the speech of literate people of that time, and this influence was so great that when literature began to emerge in Russia and when the first writers appeared, they made the basis of their book speech Church Slavonic language.
But on the other hand, the Russian folk, or colloquial, language, which has long been used in everyday life, was not supplanted by this introduced book language, but existed alongside it, and book people, no matter how much they mastered Church Slavonic speech, involuntarily introduced into this speech elements of a lively spoken language, and the further, the more and more this adherence of Russian colloquial speech to the Church Slavonic language intensified. This addition of the Russian element to the written language in the literary works of the ancient period was expressed in relation to etymological forms, and in relation to the syntactic structure of the language, and even more so in relation to phonetics.
Thus, in the literary works of Old Russian literature, the languages \u200b\u200bof Church Slavonic and Russian colloquial are mixed, and therefore the literary language of Ancient Russia can be called Slavic-Russian.
The language of the Nestorov Chronicle is also Slavic-Russian and also represents a mixture of elements of both languages.
(Based on the book by P. V. Smirnovsky "History of Russian Literature")
Likhachev D.S. Great legacy. Classical works of literature of Ancient Russia. - M .: Contemporary, 1980.
Likhachev D.S. Poetics of Old Russian Literature. - M .: Science, 1979-
Likhachev D.S. Russian chronicles and their cultural and historical significance. - M .; L., 1947.
Sturgeon E. Living Ancient Rus. - M .: Education, 1984.
Rybakov BA Ancient Russia. Legends. Epics. Chronicle. - K., 1963.
Smirnovsky P.V. History of Russian literature. Part one. Ancient and middle periods. - M., 2009.
A Tale of Time Years
A huge number of interpretations and readings of Russian chronicles forces us to reject everything at once, to collect bare facts, and on their basis, rebuild a logical version of the events that took place. To build a version on a different principled basis, we will apply the proven deductive method that Arthur Conan-Doyle captivated the world with. Its principle is simple: when you meet a person with an odd number of flowers, you cannot determine whether he is going on a date, to the theater or to visit. But if you also notice a cake in his hands, then doubts will disappear. Other details can tell you to whom, where, how much, and for what occasion the object under study is moving. Fact, motivation, causation are the requisites that will be required to rebuild our cloudy initial history. We will explore the characteristic details.
As the main primary source, we will take, as expected, "The Tale of Bygone Years", created by the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor. He used earlier chronicles and vaults, summarized everything and tied events to the annual grid. After Nestor PVL, two more chroniclers wrote, but we will not go that far - everything is detailed, understandable and logical. For convenience, we will call Nestor the author of The Tale of Bygone Years. Several lists of the chronicle have survived - we will take the most ancient one - Lavrentievsky (1377), which received this name from the name of the scribe. The version adapted by D.S.Likhachev will be enough for us. The principle of the investigation is as follows: where descriptions of PVL will be confirmed, either in other sources, or by archaeological data, or by logic, we will take them as a basis. But first of all, we will try to track political and economic motives that justify the logic of the events described in the annals.
Before starting, I want to point out a few important details. Since there was no television in those days, people thought with their own heads and were much more far-sighted than modern ones. The difficult conditions of existence constantly stimulated their brain, and it did not let people down - otherwise we, the descendants, simply would not exist. It was only thanks to the intelligence and insight of our ancestors that we got their inheritance. Let's treat them accordingly - there were few stupid ones among them. But the stupid came across - how could it be without them!
The messages of the chronicle should be considered similar to the messages of modern news broadcasts - the head of state arrived, decided, indicated, etc. The details that the chronicler does not have, try to present yourself. If the prince went to war, then this whole apparatus worked - from the preparation of forage, to the construction of ships, and from the suppliers of weapons to the creation of an administrative center in the conquered territories.
There were no roads (transport arteries) in the territory of the Slavs in the forest zone - the communications were water. Traveling by water transport was less energy-consuming and troublesome, relatively safe, but seasonal. The basis of economic development, as always, was trade. The further the merchants climbed, the higher their profit turned out to be. The trade caravan could be more than a thousand people and several dozen ships. Merchants independently defended their goods from robberies and united in whole detachments. Slave labor was actively used. The basis of goods transported by merchants around the world were leather, wool, carpets and cotton fabrics, gold embroidery fabrics, silk, cosmetics, military equipment, gold and silver, semi-precious stones and glassware, porcelain and metal dishes, lacquerware, tea, rice, salt , spices, horses, hunting dogs and birds. The most expensive commodity was slaves.
If you don't mind, let's get started. First of all, let's look for the motives for the emergence of the ancient Russian state. Let's try to search in a geographical location. And while pundits are digging deeper and deeper into the archives, we, on the contrary, will try to ascend as high as possible and look at the beginning of Russian history from a bird's eye view.
Take a close look at the map - on the way of merchant caravans following the Silk Road from Central Asia to Europe, in the 9th century it becomes restless: robberies and wars became more frequent, which means that taxes also grow. The reason for the region's unrest is economic - trade routes from Asia to Europe and control over them. The Arab conquest is replaced by constant strife between Shiites and Sunnis, which leads the region to fragmentation and civil strife. In this struggle, the Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) also defends its economic interests.
Merchants in alarm: how to trade, how not to lose goods and excess profits (transcontinental trade brought up to 1500% of the profit)? Can you save on overhead? Take another look at the map and look for alternative routes from Central Asia to Europe. I recommend looking for waterways - traveling by ship is more profitable, safer, faster. For the merchants, there are only advantages: there are no problems with pack animals, the carrying capacity is higher, time and money are saved at the parking lots, the slaves do not scatter, the risk of infection with diseases is reduced.
Figure: 1. Map of river routes and settlement of tribes
I hope you managed to see a couple of routes and we can compare our results. The routes will start from the southeastern coast of the Caspian Sea and further through Khazaria along the Qom, then the Kuban to the Black Sea, from there along the Danube to the Frankish empire, or along the Dniester to the Western Bug, then to the Vistula and Baltic. Another route is again through Khazaria, but along the Volga to Beloozero and further to Ladoga and the Gulf of Finland. There is also another route from the Caspian to the Baltic - along the Volga to Rzhev, then to the Western Dvina and to the Baltic. Why do I dwell on the water trade routes in such detail? Because the entire initial Russian history is closely connected with the battle for control over these "gold veins". This is quite comparable to today's hydrocarbon war. The trade routes of the Middle Ages also filled the budgets like today's gas and oil pipelines. From this point of view, we will try to investigate the primary sources.
A word to the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, the chronicler Nestor:
« In the year 6360 (852), indict 15, when Michael began to reign, the Russian land began to be called. We learned about this because under this tsar Russia came to Constantinople, as it is written about it in the Greek chronicles. That is why from now on we will start and put numbers. “From Adam to the flood of 2242, and from the flood to Abraham, 1000 and 82 years, and from Abraham to the exodus of Moses, 430 years, and from the exodus of Moses to David, 600 and 1 year, and from David and from the beginning of the reign of Solomon to the captivity of Jerusalem 448 years "and from the captivity to Alexander 318 years, and from Alexander to the Nativity of Christ 333 years, and from the Nativity of Christ to Constantine 318 years, from Constantine to Michael this 542 years." And from the first year of the reign of Mikhail to the first year of the reign of Oleg, the Russian prince, 29 years, and from the first year of the reign of Oleg, from the time he sat down in Kiev, to the first year of Igor, 31 years, and from the first year of Igor to the first year of Svyatoslavov 33 years old, and from the first year of Svyatoslavov to the first year of Yaropolkov is 28 years old; and Yaropolk reigned for 8 years, and Vladimir reigned for 37 years, and Yaroslav reigned for 40 years. Thus, from the death of Svyatoslav to the death of Yaroslav 85 years; from the death of Yaroslav to the death of Svyatopolk, 60 years.
6366 (858) per year. Tsar Michael went with soldiers to the Bulgarians along the coast and sea. The Bulgarians, seeing that they could not resist them, asked to baptize them and promised to submit to the Greeks. The tsar baptized their prince and all the boyars and made peace with the Bulgarians.
In the year 6367 (859). The Varangians from the overseas took tribute from the Chudi, and from the Slovenes, and from the Mary, and from the Krivichi. And the Khazars took from the field, from the northerners, and from the Vyatichi, a silver coin and a squirrel from the smoke.
In the year 6370 (862). They drove the Varangians across the sea, and did not give them tribute, and began to dominate themselves, and there was no truth among them, and clan after clan, and they had strife, and began to fight with each other. And they said to themselves: "Let's look for a prince who would rule over us and judge by right." And they went across the sea to the Varangians, to Russia. Those Varangians were called Rus, as others are called the Swedes, and other Normans and Angles, and still other Gotlandians - that's how these are. Chud, Slovenia, Krivichi and all said to Russia: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it. Come to reign and rule over us. " And three brothers with their families were elected, and they took all Russia with them, and came, and the eldest, Rurik, sat in Novgorod, and the other, Sineus, - on Beloozero, and the third, Truvor, - in Izborsk. And from those Varangians the Russian land was nicknamed. The Novgorodians are those people from the Varangian family, and before they were Slovenes. Two years later, Sineus and his brother Truvor died. And one Rurik took all the power, and began to distribute cities to his men - to Polotsk, to this Rostov, to another Beloozero. The Varangians in these cities are the seekers, and the indigenous population in Novgorod is the Slovenian, in Polotsk - the Krivichi, in Rostov - the Merya, in Beloozero - the whole, in Murom - the Murom, and Rurik ruled over all of them. And he had two husbands, not his relatives, but boyars, and they asked to go to Constantinople with their kin. And they set off along the Dnieper, and when they sailed past, they saw a small city on the mountain. They asked: "Whose town is this?" The same answered: "There were three brothers, Kiy, Schek and Khoriv, \u200b\u200bwho built this town and disappeared, and we sit here, their descendants, and pay tribute to the Khazars." Askold and Dir remained in this city, gathered many Varangians and began to own the land of the glades. Rurik reigned in Novgorod».
Just think what Nestor invites us to believe: merchant cities are looking for a leader! Moreover, at a distance of hundreds of kilometers from each other (from Novgorod to Belozersk in a straight line 400 km!), Several peoples need to establish order with them. The oligarchs need a prime minister! And then there is no one to pay taxes! Novgorod is a merchant city like Venice and suddenly invites the Varangians, who have been keeping the whole of Europe in fear for several decades! And Novgorod merchants are inviting them to come! Put things in order ...
We know from medieval chronicles how these Varangians, having eaten amanitas (tranquilizers), put things in order in Europe - in 820 a detachment of Vikings penetrated the mouth of the Seine and devastated its banks. In 832, a flotilla of Danish ships along a tributary of the Rhine reached the large shopping center Dorestad in Frisia and plundered it. Dorestad was devastated by the Vikings annually until 837. In 841 the Normans climbed the Seine and plundered the monastery of Saint-Vandril-de-Fontenelle. In 842, the Scandinavians captured Nantes. In 844, a Viking fleet of 100 ships attacked the northern coast of Spain, Lisbon, Cadiz and the northern coast of Morocco. In 845, the Danish robber Ragner's fleet captured and sacked Paris. In the same year 845, the Normans sacked Hamburg. In 859, Bjorn Ironside, at the head of a fleet of 62 ships, passed through the Strait of Gibraltar, devastated the lands of Northern Morocco, southern France by a hurricane, and ravaged the Italian Pisa, Luna and Fiesole. Then the ships of the Scandinavians reached the Byzantine limits ... There was no life from them for the Slavs either.
As it turned out, it was not only luck that accompanied the Normans in their attacks on European cities. They had accomplices. On a number of occasions, survivors of the attacks reported that the Vikings arrived under the cover of trade caravans. City dwellers simply did not expect such a dastardly attack. We'll talk a little later about who provided the northern robbers with their ships.
And in such a nervous atmosphere, having driven out the Varangian robbers, the Slavic merchant cities decided to invite them again "to judge by right"! Karamzin also expressed his doubts about the version set forth by the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra:
« The beginning of Russian History presents us with an amazing and almost unparalleled case in the annals. The Slavs voluntarily destroy their ancient rule and demand the Sovereigns from the Varangians, who were their enemies. Everywhere the sword of the strong or the cunning of the ambitious introduced Autocracy (for the peoples wanted laws, but feared captivity): in Russia it was established with the general consent of citizens: this is how our Chronicler narrates...»
By the way, the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus in the essay "On the Administration of the Empire", compiled in 948-952. we can read a story about how a completely civilized European monarch proposed to the trading city of the Slavs - Venice:
« When King Pepin appeared against the Venetians with a large, strong army, he overlaid the crossing leading from land to the islands of Venice at a place called Aivola. Therefore, the Venetians, seeing that King Pepin was coming with his army and that he intended to sail with horses to the island of Madamavku (this island lies near the mainland), throwing frames, blocked the entire crossing. Finding themselves inactive, the army of King Pepin (for he was not able to ferry them elsewhere) stood opposite the Venetians, on land, for six months, fighting with them daily. While the Venetians climbed onto their ships and settled behind the frames they had thrown, King Pepin stood with his army on the seashore of Venetika, fighting with bows and slings, did not allow them to cross to the island. So, having achieved nothing, King Pepin said to the Venetians: "Be under my hand and protection, for you come from my country and state." But the Venetians objected to him: "We want to be slaves of the basileus of the Romans, not yours." However, prompted by the troubles that had long fallen on them, the Venetians concluded a peace treaty with King Pepin on the condition that a major pact was paid to him. But since then, the pact has been decreasing every year, although it remains to this day. For the Venetians pay the ruler of the Kingdom of Italy, or Papias, a light tribute of 36 liters annually. Thus the war between the Franks and the Venetians ended. When the people began to flee to Venice and flock here, so that a multitude of people gathered, they proclaimed a fool over themselves a man superior to others by nobility. The first duka appeared in their midst before King Pepin went against them. Dukat at that time was in a place called "Tsivitanuva", which means "New Fortress". But since the named island is close to the land, from the general decision they transferred the ducat to another island, on which it is located today, since it is as far from the land as it is possible to distinguish a person sitting on a horse».
Here's a story. Quite realistic for a trading city, so to speak, a normal, adequate reaction. What do we have? "Come to reign and rule over us." And two husbands "not his relatives, but boyars", Askold and Dir, went hundreds of miles to Kiev and there they were also welcomed with open arms. There was even the concept of Kievan Rus - a powerful state entity that dared to attack the Byzantine Empire:
« In the year 6374 (866). Askold and Dir went to war against the Greeks and came to them in the 14th year of the reign of Michael. The tsar was at that time on a campaign against the Hagarians, had already reached the Black River, when the eparch sent him the news that Russia was marching on Constantinople, and the tsar returned. These same went inside the Court, many Christians killed and besieged Tsar-grad with two hundred ships. The Tsar entered the city with difficulty and prayed all night with Patriarch Photius in the Church of the Holy Mother of God in Blachernae, and they brought out the divine robe of the Holy Mother of God with songs, and moistened its floor in the sea. There was silence at that time and the sea was calm, but then a storm with wind suddenly arose, and huge waves arose again, scattered the ships of the godless Russians, and washed them ashore, and broke them, so that few of them managed to avoid this trouble and return home».
The attack really took place in 860, as we learn from Byzantine sources. On June 18, 860, the Russians, led by Askold, destroyed the surroundings of the Roman capital, and the Patriarch of Constantinople Photius asked in the Sophia Cathedral:
« What is it? What kind of blow and anger is so hard and striking? Where did this northern and terrible thunderstorm come from? What condensed clouds of passions and what destinies powerful collisions ignited this unbearable lightning against us? .. Where is the Christ-loving Emperor now? Where is the host? Where are the weapons, vehicles, war councils and supplies? Was it not other barbarians that the invasion removed them and attracted all this? .. The people left the northern country, rushing, as it were, to another Jerusalem, and the tribes rose from the ends of the earth, holding a bow and a spear. They are cruel and unmerciful; their voice rustles like the sea; we heard the news about them, or, better, saw their menacing appearance, and our hands dropped ... The unexpected invasion of the barbarians did not give time to the rumor to announce him so that something could be thought of for safety. Do not go out into the field and do not walk on the road, for the sword is from all sides».
From the book Pre-Mongol Rus in the annalistic vaults of the V-XIII centuries. author Gudz-Markov Alexey Viktorovich"The Tale of Bygone Years" The "Tale of Bygone Years" begins to recount the events from 852. Under 859, the Tale says that the Vikings and Khazars took tribute from individual unions of Slavs in eastern Europe. Under 862, it is reported about the expulsion of the Vikings across the sea and about refusing them tribute. And under the same 862
From the book Rus, which was-2. Alternative version of history author Maksimov Albert VasilievichA Tale of Time Years
From the book Ancient Slavs, I-X centuries [Mysterious and fascinating stories about the Slavic world] author Soloviev Vladimir MikhailovichThe Tale of Bygone Years So let's begin this story. The Slavs sat down the Danube, where now the land of Hungarian and Bulgarian. And from those Slavs, the Slavs dispersed throughout the land and began to be called according to the places where they settled. So some came and sat down on the river, named Morava, and were called morams, and
From the book "The Tale of Bygone Years" as a historical source author Nikitin Andrey LeonidovichThe Tale of Bygone Years as a Historical Source
author Egorov Vladimir BorisovichChapter 1 READING THE "TALK OF TIME YEARS"
From the book Old Russian Literature. Literature of the 18th century the author Prutskov NI3. The most ancient chronicle. The tale of bygone years "Historical memory" of the East Slavic tribes stretched for several centuries inward: from generation to generation legends and legends about the settlement of Slavic tribes, about the clashes of the Slavs with Avars were passed on
From the book The True History of Russia. Dilettante's notes [with illustrations] author Guts Alexander KonstantinovichThe Tale of Bygone Years The main source for writing the history of ancient Russia is the chronicle, or rather the annalistic collection, bearing the name "The Tale of Bygone Years, the Monastery of the Monastery of the Pechersk Fedosiev, where the Russian land came from, and who resided in it first
From the book Russian Chronicles and Chroniclers of the X-XIII centuries. author Tolochko Petr Petrovich3. "The Tale of Bygone Years" A striking monument of the ancient Russian annals of the late XI - early. XII century. is "The Tale of Bygone Years". It is a collection of chronicles that has absorbed not only all the previous experience of historical knowledge of Russia, but also the achievements of European
From the book From Hyperborea to Russia. Unconventional history of the Slavs author Markov GermanWhen was The Tale of Bygone Years written and by whom was it edited? We all learned The Tale of Bygone Years at school. But the monk chronicler Nestor illuminated history to please the Kiev princes, exalting the local dynasty and belittling the role of Novgorod, and his description should be treated with
From the book Chronology of Russian History. Russia and the world author Anisimov Evgeny Viktorovich1113 "The Tale of Bygone Years" Chronicles in Kiev began to be written in the time of Olga and Svyatoslav. Under Yaroslav the Wise in 1037-1039 St. Sophia Cathedral became the center of work of the chroniclers-monks. The monks took old chronicles and brought them together in a new edition, which they supplemented with their own
From the book Pre-Petrine Rus. Historical portraits. author Fedorova Olga PetrovnaA TALK OF TIME YEARS (extracts) THE TRADITION OF THE APOSTLE ANDREW'S VISITING THE RUSSIAN LAND ... When Andrei (46) taught in Sinop (47) and arrived in Korsun (48), he learned that not far from Korsun is the mouth of the Dnieper, and wanted to go to Rome, and sailed to the mouth of the Dnieper, and from there set off
From the book There was no "Iga"! Intellectual sabotage of the West author Sarbuchev Mikhail MikhailovichReading "The Tale of Bygone Years" Prince Dunduk sits at the Academy of Sciences. They say that such an honor is not fitting for Dunduk; Why is he in session? Because well ... and there is. A. Pushkin, 1835 One of the most famous documents referred to by the supporters of the "yoke" is "The Tale of Bygone Years."
From the book Russian Truth. Charter. Lesson [collection] author Monomakh VladimirAppendix 1. A TALK OF TIME YEARS Introduction Vladimir Monomakh's "Teaching" is a historical and literary monument of national importance, an ancient Russian fatherly instruction to children, which retains its enduring significance today, on the nine hundredth anniversary
From the book At the Origins of Russia: Between the Varangian and the Greek author Egorov Vladimir BorisovichChapter 1 Reading The Tale of Bygone Years
From the book Source Studies author Team of authors1.1.2. The Tale of Bygone Years and the Vaults that preceded it The beginning of the Old Russian chronicle is associated with a stable text, which begins the overwhelming majority of the chronicle vaults that have survived to our time. There are no separate lists of him. In some later
From the book History of Political and Legal Doctrines: Textbook for Universities author Team of authorsThe "historical memory" of the East Slavic tribes stretched back several centuries: legends and legends about the settlement of Slavic tribes, about the clashes of the Slavs with Avars ("images"), about the founding of Kiev, about the glorious deeds of the first Kiev princes, about distant campaigns were passed down from generation to generation Kiya, about the wisdom of the prophetic Oleg, about the cunning and decisive Olga, about the warlike and noble Svyatoslav.
In the XI century. chronicle writing appears next to the historical epic. It was the chronicles that were destined for several centuries, up to the time of Peter the Great, to become not just a weather record of current events, but one of the leading literary genres, in the depths of which the Russian narrative narration developed, and at the same time a journalistic genre, sensitively responding to the political demands of its time.
Study of the chronicle of the XI-XII centuries. presents considerable difficulties: the oldest surviving annals date back to the 13th (the first part of the Novgorod first chronicle of the older edition) or to the end of the 14th century. (Laurentian Chronicle). But thanks to the fundamental investigations of A.A. Shakhmatov, M.D. Priselkov and D.S.Likhachev, a sufficiently substantiated hypothesis has now been created about the initial stage of Russian chronicle writing, which undoubtedly will eventually be supplemented and refined, but which is unlikely will change in essence.
According to this hypothesis, the chronicle originates at the time of Yaroslav the Wise. At this time, Christianized Russia begins to be weighed down by Byzantine tutelage and seeks to substantiate its right to church independence, which was invariably combined with political independence, for Byzantium was inclined to view all Christian states as the spiritual flock of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and as a kind of vassals of the Byzantine Empire. This is precisely what Yaroslav's decisive actions are opposed to: he is seeking the establishment of a metropolitanate in Kiev (which raises the church authority of Rus), and is seeking the canonization of the first Russian saints - princes Boris and Gleb. It is in this situation that, apparently, the first historical work, the predecessor of the future chronicle, is created - a collection of stories about the spread of Christianity in Russia. Kievan scribes argued that the history of Russia repeats the history of other great powers: "divine grace" descended on Russia just as it once did on Rome and Byzantium; Russia had its own forerunners of Christianity - for example, Princess Olga, who was baptized in Constantinople at the time of the convinced pagan Svyatoslav; there were their martyrs - the Christian Varangian, who did not give his son to the "slaughter" to idols, and the princes-brothers Boris and Gleb, who perished, but did not violate the Christian precepts of brotherly love and obedience to the "oldest". There was also in Russia his "equal to the apostles" Prince Vladimir, who baptized Russia and thus became equal to the great Constantine, who declared Christianity the state religion of Byzantium. To substantiate this idea, according to D.S.Likhachev, a collection of legends about the origin of Christianity in Russia was compiled. It includes stories about the baptism and death of Olga, the legend about the first Russian martyrs - the Varangians-Christians, the legend about the baptism of Russia (including the "Philosopher's speech", in which the Christian concept of world history was presented in a short form), the legend about the princes Boris and Gleb and extensive praise to Yaroslav the Wise under 1037. All six of these works "reveal their belonging to one hand ... the closest relationship between themselves: compositional, stylistic and ideological." This complex of articles (which DS Likhachev proposed to conditionally call "The Legend of the Spread of Christianity in Russia") was compiled, in his opinion, in the first half of the 40s. XI century. scribes of the Kiev metropolis.
Probably at the same time in Kiev, the first Russian chronographic code was created - "Chronograph according to the great exposition." It was a summary of world history (with a distinct interest in church history), based on the Byzantine chronicles - The Chronicle of George Amartolus and the Chronicle of John Malala; it is possible that already at this time in Russia other translated monuments are becoming known, setting out world history or containing prophecies about the coming "end of the world": "The Revelation of Methodius of Patarsky", "Interpretation" of Hippolytus on the books of the prophet Daniel, "The Legend of Epiphanius of Cyprus about six days of creation ", etc.
The next stage in the development of Russian chronicle writing falls on the 60s – 70s. XI century. and is associated with the activities of the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Nikon.
It was Nikon who added to the "Legend of the Spread of Christianity in Russia" legends about the first Russian princes and stories about their campaigns against Constantinople. It is possible that Nikon introduced the Korsun legend into the chronicle (according to which Vladimir was baptized not in Kiev, but in Korsun), and finally, the chronicle owes to the same Nikon the placement of the so-called Varangian legend in it. This legend reported that the Kiev princes allegedly descended from the Varangian prince Rurik, who was invited to Russia in order to stop the internecine feuds of the Slavs. The inclusion of the legend in the chronicle made sense: with the authority of tradition, Nikon tried to convince his contemporaries of the unnaturalness of internecine wars, of the need for all princes to obey the Grand Duke of Kiev, the heir and descendant of Rurik. Finally, according to researchers, it was Nikon who gave the chronicle the form of weather records.
Initial vault... Around 1095, a new collection of chronicles was created, which A. A. Shakhmatov proposed to be called "Initial". From the moment of the creation of the "Primary Code", the possibility of a proper textological study of the most ancient chronicles appears. A. A. Shakhmatov drew attention to the fact that the description of events up to the beginning of the XII century. differently in the Laurentian, Radziwil, Moscow-Academic and Ipatiev chronicles, on the one hand, and in the Novgorod first chronicle, on the other. This gave him the opportunity to establish that the Novgorod First Chronicle reflected the previous stage of chronicle writing - the "Primary Code", and the rest of the named chronicles included a revision of the "Primary Code", a new chronicle monument - "The Tale of Bygone Years."
The compiler of the Primary Code continued the chronicle with a description of the events of 1073–1095, giving his work, especially in this part, supplemented by him, an obviously journalistic character: he reproached the princes for internecine wars, complained that they did not care about the defense of the Russian land, do not obey the advice of "meaningful husbands".
Tale of Bygone Years... At the beginning of the XII century. The Primary Codex was reworked again: the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor, a scribe with a wide historical outlook and great literary talent (he also wrote The Life of Boris and Gleb and The Life of Theodosius of the Caves) creates a new chronicle collection - The Tale of Bygone Years ". Nestor set himself a significant task: not only to outline the events of the turn of the XI-XII centuries, which he witnessed, but also to completely rework the story about the beginning of Russia - "where did the Russian land go, who in Kiev began the first princess", as he himself formulated this task in the title of his work (PVL, p. 9).
Nestor introduces the history of Russia into the mainstream of world history. He begins his chronicle by setting out the biblical legend about the division of the land between the sons of Noah, while placing the Slavs in the list of peoples dating back to the "Chronicle of Amartol" (in another place in the text the Slavs are identified by the chronicler with the "noriks" - inhabitants of one of the on the banks of the Danube). Nestor slowly and thoroughly tells about the territory occupied by the Slavs, about the Slavic tribes and their past, gradually focusing the readers' attention on one of these tribes - the glades, on the land of which Kiev, the city that became in his time the "mother of Russian cities", arose. Nestor refines and develops the Varangian concept of the history of Rus: Askold and Dir, referred to in the "Primary Code" as "some" Varangian princes, are now called "boyars" of Rurik, it is to them that the campaign against Byzantium during the time of Emperor Michael is attributed; Oleg, referred to in the "Primary Code" as voivode Igor, in the "Tale of Bygone Years" "returned" (in accordance with history) his princely dignity, but at the same time it is emphasized that it is Igor who is the direct heir of Rurik, and Oleg - a relative of Rurik - reigned only in the early years of Igor.
Nestor is even more of a historian than his predecessors. He tries to arrange the maximum of events known to him on a scale of absolute chronology, draws on documents (texts of treaties with Byzantium) for his narration, uses fragments from the Chronicle of George Amartol and Russian historical legends (for example, the story of Olga's fourth revenge, the legend of the Belgorod jelly "And about the young man of leather). “We can safely say,” writes DS Likhachev about Nestor's work, “that never before or later, up to the 16th century, did Russian historical thought rise to such a height of scientific inquisitiveness and literary skill.”
Around 1116, on the instructions of Vladimir Monomakh, The Tale of Bygone Years was revised by Sylvester, Abbot of the Vydubitsky Monastery (near Kiev). In this new (second) edition of the Tale, the interpretation of the events of 1093-1113 was changed: they were now set forth with a clear tendency to glorify the deeds of Monomakh. In particular, the story of the blindness of Vasilko of Terebovlsky (in article 1097) was introduced into the text of the Tale, for Monomakh acted in the inter-princely strife of these years as a champion of justice and brotherly love.
Finally, in 1118, The Tale of Bygone Years underwent another revision, carried out at the direction of Prince Mstislav, the son of Vladimir Monomakh. The narration was continued until 1117, some articles for earlier years were changed. We call this edition of the Tale of Bygone Years the third. These are the modern ideas about the history of the most ancient chronicles.
As already mentioned, only relatively late lists of chronicles have survived, which reflected the above-mentioned ancient vaults. Thus, the "Primary Code" was preserved in the Novgorod first chronicle (copies of the XIII-XIV and XV centuries), the second edition of the "Tale of Bygone Years" is best represented by the Laurentian (1377) and Radziwil (15th century) annals, and the third edition came down to us as part of the Ipatiev Chronicle. Through the "Tver Arch of 1305" - a common source of the Laurentian and Trinity Chronicles - "The Tale of Bygone Years" of the second edition was included in the majority of Russian chronicles of the 15th-16th centuries.
Since the middle of the XIX century. researchers have repeatedly noted the high literary skill of Russian chroniclers. But private observations of the style of the chronicles, sometimes quite deep and fair, were replaced by holistic ideas only relatively recently in the works of D.S.Likhachev and I.P. Eremin.
Thus, in the article "The Kiev Chronicle as a Literary Monument" IP Eremin draws attention to the different literary nature of the various components of the chronicle text: weather records, chronicle stories and chronicle stories. In the latter, according to the researcher, the chronicler resorted to a special "hagiographic", idealizing manner of narration.
D.S.Likhachev showed that the difference in stylistic devices that we find in the chronicle is explained primarily by the origin and specificity of the chronicle genre: in the chronicle, articles created by the chronicler himself, narrating the events of contemporary political life, are adjacent to fragments from epic traditions and legends , with their own special style, special manner of plot narration. In addition, the "style of the era" had a significant influence on the stylistic devices of the chronicler. It is necessary to dwell on this last phenomenon in more detail.
It is extremely difficult to characterize the "style of the era", that is, some general trends in worldview, literature, art, norms of social life, etc. Nevertheless, in the literature of the XI-XIII centuries. The phenomenon that DS Likhachev called "literary etiquette" manifests itself quite thoroughly. Literary etiquette is the refraction in literary creativity of the “style of the era”, of the peculiarities of the worldview and ideology. Literary etiquette, as it were, determines the tasks of literature and already its themes, the principles of constructing literary plots and, finally, the visual means themselves, highlighting the range of the most preferred speech turns, images, metaphors.
The concept of literary etiquette is based on the idea of \u200b\u200ban unshakable and orderly world, where all the actions of people are, as it were, predetermined, where for each person there is a special standard of his behavior. Literature, on the other hand, must accordingly assert and demonstrate this static, "normative" world. This means that its subject should primarily be the depiction of "normative" situations: if a chronicle is being written, then the focus is on descriptions of the prince's accession to the throne, battles, diplomatic actions, death and burial of the prince; and in this latter case a kind of summary of his life is summed up, summarized in an obituary description. Likewise, the Lives must necessarily tell about the childhood of the saint, about his path to asceticism, about his "traditional" (namely traditional, almost obligatory for every saint) virtues, about the miracles he performed during his lifetime and after death, etc.
Moreover, each of these situations (in which the hero of the chronicle or life most clearly appears in his role - a prince or a saint) should have been depicted in similar, traditional speech patterns: it was said about the saint's parents that they were pious, about the child - the future saint, that he shunned games with his peers, the battle was narrated in traditional formulas such as: “and you slaughtered evil,” “some were cut, and some were poimash” (that is, some were hacked with swords, others were taken prisoner), etc.
DS Likhachev called the chronicle style that most corresponded to the literary etiquette of the 11th – 13th centuries "the style of monumental historicism." But at the same time it cannot be argued that the entire chronicle narrative is sustained in this style. If we understand the style as a general characteristic of the author's attitude to the subject of his narration, then one can undoubtedly talk about the comprehensive nature of this style in the chronicle - the chronicler really selects for his narration only the most important events and deeds of state significance. If, however, one demands from the style and the indispensable observance of certain linguistic features (i.e., the stylistic devices proper), then it turns out that not every line of the chronicle will be an illustration of the style of monumental historicism. Firstly, because the various phenomena of reality - and the chronicle could not help but correlate with it - could not fit into the previously invented scheme of "etiquette situations", and therefore we find the most striking manifestation of this style only in the description of traditional situations: in the depiction of the arrival prince "on the table", in the description of battles, in obituary characteristics, etc. Secondly, two genetically different layers of narration coexist in the chronicle: along with the articles compiled by the chronicler, we also find there the fragments introduced by the chronicler into the text. Among them, a significant place is made up of folk legends, legends, in many of which are part of the "Tale of Bygone Years" and - albeit to a lesser extent - subsequent chronicles.
If the actual chronicle articles were a product of their time, bore the stamp of the "style of the era", were sustained in the traditions of the style of monumental historicism, then the oral legends included in the chronicle reflected a different - epic tradition and, naturally, had a different stylistic character. DS Likhachev defined the style of folk legends included in the chronicle as "epic style".
The Tale of Bygone Years, where the story of the events of our time is preceded by reminiscences of the deeds of the glorious princes of the past centuries - Oleg the Prophet, Igor, Olga, Svyatoslav, Vladimir, combines both of these styles.
In the style of monumental historicism, for example, the events of the time of Yaroslav the Wise and his son Vsevolod are presented. Suffice it to recall the description of the battle on Alta (PVL, pp. 97–98), which brought Yaroslav victory over the “accursed” Svyatopolk, the murderer of Boris and Gleb: Svyatopolk came to the battlefield “in the power of a heavy weight”, Yaroslav also gathered “a lot of howls, and I oppose him on Lto. " Before the battle, Yaroslav prays to God and his killed brothers, asking for their help "against this opposing murderer and proud." And now the troops moved towards each other, "and covering the field Letskoe wallpaper from a multitude of howls." At dawn ("the rising sun") "was slaughtering evil, yak was not in Russia, and by the hands I am slaughtered, and stepped three times, as if along the [valleys, hollows] of the mother-in-law's blood." By evening, Yaroslav won a victory, and Svyatopolk fled. Yaroslav ascended the Kiev throne, "wiped sweat with his retinue, showing victory and great work." Everything in this story is intended to emphasize the historical significance of the battle: both an indication of the large number of troops, and details that testify to the fierceness of the battle, and a pathetic ending - Yaroslav solemnly ascends to the Kiev throne, won by him in military labor and the struggle for a "just cause."
And at the same time, it turns out that we have not so much the impressions of an eyewitness about a particular battle, but rather traditional formulas in which other battles were described in the same "Tale of Bygone Years" and in subsequent chronicles: the traditional turn of the "slash of evil", the traditional ending , informing who “overcame” and who “run”, usually for the chronicle narrative an indication of the large number of troops, and even the formula “as much as the mother-in-law's blood” is found in descriptions of other battles. In a word, before us is one of the samples of the "etiquette" image of the battle.
The creators of The Tale of Bygone Years write out the obituary characteristics of the princes with special care. For example, according to the chronicler, Prince Vsevolod Yaroslavich was "a mock God-loving, loving the truth, watching the wretched [took care of the unfortunate and the poor], saluting the bishop and the prezvut [priests], but the exuberant lover of the monasticism, and giving a demand to them" . 142). This type of chronicle obituary will be used more than once by chroniclers of the 12th and subsequent centuries. The use of literary formulas prescribed by the style of monumental historicism gave the chronicle text a special artistic flavor: not the effect of surprise, but, on the contrary, the expectation of a meeting with the familiar, familiar, expressed in a “polished”, tradition-sanctified form - that was what had the power of aesthetic influence on the reader. ... The same technique is well known to folklore - let us recall the traditional plots of epics, threefold repetitions of plot situations, constant epithets, and similar artistic means. The style of monumental historicism, therefore, is not evidence of the limited artistic possibilities, but, on the contrary, evidence of a deep understanding of the role of the poetic word. But at the same time, this style, naturally, fettered the freedom of plot narration, for it sought to unify, express in the same speech formulas and plot motives different life situations.
For the development of the plot narration, oral folk legends, fixed in the chronicle text, played a significant role, each time differing in the unusual and "entertaining" of the plot. The story of the death of Oleg is widely known, the plot of which was the basis of the famous ballad of A.S. Pushkin, stories about Olga's revenge against the Drevlyans, etc. It was in this kind of legends that not only princes could act as heroes, but also insignificant in their social status people: an old man who saved the Belgorodians from death and Pechenezh captivity, a young man-kozhemyak who defeated the Pechenezh hero. But the main thing, perhaps, is different: it is in such chronicle stories, which were genetically oral historical legends, that the chronicler uses a completely different method of depicting events and characterizing characters compared to stories written in the style of monumental historicism.
In works of verbal art, there are two opposite methods of aesthetic impact on the reader (listener). In one case, a work of fiction affects precisely its dissimilarity on everyday life and, let us add, on the “everyday” story about it. Such a work is distinguished by a special vocabulary, a rhythm of speech, inversions, special pictorial means (epithets, metaphors) and, finally, a special "unusual" behavior of the characters. We know that people in life do not say that, do not act that way, but it is this unusualness that is perceived as art. The literature of the style of monumental historicism also takes this position.
In another case, art seeks, as it were, to become like life, and the narrative seeks to create an "illusion of reliability", to bring itself closer to the story of an eyewitness. The means of influencing the reader are completely different here: in this kind of narration, a "plot detail" plays a huge role, a well-found everyday detail, which, as it were, awakens the reader's own impressions of life, helps him see what is being described with his own eyes and thereby believe in the truth of the story.
An important caveat must be made here. Such details are often called "elements of realism", but it is essential that if in the literature of modern times these realistic elements are a means for reproducing real life (and the work itself is intended not only to depict reality, but also to comprehend it), then in ancient times "plot details" - nothing more than a means to create an "illusion of reality", since the story itself can tell about a legendary event, about a miracle, in a word, about what the author portrays as really the past, but which may not be so.
In the "Tale of Bygone Years", stories executed in this manner widely use the "everyday detail": it is a bridle in the hands of a Kiev youth who, pretending to be looking for a horse, runs with her through the camp of enemies, then a mention of how, testing himself before a duel with Pechenezh hero, a young man-kozhemyaka pulls (with professionally strong hands) from the side of a bull that has run past "skin from meat, the hand of a hare is only for him," then a detailed, detailed (and skillfully inhibiting story) description of how Belgorod residents "took honey onion", which they found "To the princes of medush", how the honey was diluted, how the drink was poured into the "kad", etc. These details evoke vivid visual images in the reader, help him to imagine what is being described, to become, as it were, a witness to events.
If in stories, performed in the manner of monumental historicism, everything is known to the reader in advance, then in epic legends the narrator skillfully uses the effect of surprise. The wise Olga seems to take seriously the matchmaking of the Drevlyan prince Mal, secretly preparing a terrible death for his ambassadors; the prediction given to Oleg the Prophetic, it would seem, did not come true (the horse, from which the prince was supposed to die, had already died himself), but nevertheless, the bones of this horse, from which the snake would crawl out, would bring death to Oleg. In a duel with the Pechenezh bogatyr, it is not a warrior that comes out, but a young man of kozhemyak, moreover, a "middle-bodied", and the Pechenezh bogatyr - "great and terrible" - laughs at him. And in spite of this "exposure" it is the adolescent who overcomes.
It is very important to note that the chronicler resorts to the method of "reproducing reality" not only in retelling epic legends, but also in narrating about contemporary events. An example of this is the story "The Tale of Bygone Years" under 1097 about the blinding of Vasilko of Terebovlsky (pp. 170–180). It is no coincidence that it was on this example that researchers examined the “elements of realism” of the Old Russian narrative, it was in it that they found skillful use of “strong details”, and it was here that they discovered the masterful use of “plot direct speech”.
The culminating episode of the story is the scene of the blindness of Vasilko. On the way to the Terebovl volost, assigned to him at the Lyubech princely congress, Vasilko settled down for the night not far from Vydobich. The Kiev prince Svyatopolk, yielding to the persuasion of David Igorevich, decides to lure Vasilko and blind him. After persistent invitations ("Do not go on my name day") Vasilko arrives at the "princess's yard"; David and Svyatopolk lead the guest into the "source" (hut). Svyatopolk persuades Vasilko to stay, and David, frightened by his own malicious intent, "is sitting aky mute." When Svyatopolk came out of the source, Vasilko tries to continue the conversation with David, but - says the chronicler - “there is no voice in David, no obedience [of hearing]”. This is a very rare example for early chronicles when the mood of the interlocutors is conveyed. But then David comes out (supposedly in order to call Svyatopolk), and the prince's servants burst into the source, they rush to Vasilko, knock him to the floor. And the terrible details of the ensuing struggle: in order to keep the mighty and desperately resisting Vasilko, they remove the board from the stove, put it on his chest, sit on the board and press their victim to the floor, "like a persem [chest] of a troscotati," and the mention that " torchin Berendi ", which was supposed to blind the prince with a knife, missed and cut the unfortunate face - all these are not simple narrative details, but artistic" strong details "that help the reader to visually imagine a terrible scene of blinding. The story, according to the plan of the chronicler, was supposed to excite the reader, turn him against Svyatopolk and David, convince Vladimir Monomakh of the correctness, who condemned the cruel reprisal of the innocent Vasilko and reprimanded the oath-breaking princes.
The literary influence of The Tale of Bygone Years has been clearly felt over the course of several centuries: chroniclers continue to apply or vary the literary formulas that were used by the creators of The Tale of Bygone Years, imitate the characteristics it contains, and sometimes quote the Tale by introducing fragments into their text from this monument. The Tale of Bygone Years has retained its aesthetic charm to this day, eloquently testifying to the literary skill of the ancient Russian chroniclers.
According to the generally accepted hypothesis - "The Tale of Bygone Years" was created on the basis of the preceding annals at the beginning of the 12th century. monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Nestor (p. 149, Introduction of Christianity in Russia, Institute of Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences, under the editorship of Professor A.D. Sukhov, M., Mysl, 1987). And we can agree with this assertion that the hypothesis is generally accepted, since it wanders from book to book, from textbook to textbook, having become a statement "by itself" today, that is, it does not require any proof. So B.A. Rybakov ("World of History", M, "Young Guard", 1987) writes in particular:
"Testing the arguments biased by the Normanists, one should pay attention to the fact that the bias appeared in our very sources, dating back to Nestor's Tale of Bygone Years." (page 15)
Thus, the authorship of Nestor is confirmed by each new book and each new authority of the academic title.
For the first time, V.N. Tatishchev:
"Russian stories under different names of different times and circumstances have a considerable number ... common or general three, namely:
1) Nestorov Vremennik, which was laid here for the foundation. "(Russian history. Part 1, V)
Following him N.M. Karamzin:
"Nestor, as a monk of the Kiev-Pechersky Monastery, nicknamed the Father of Russian History, lived in the 11th century." (p.22, History of the Russian State, vol. 1, M., "Slogan", 1994)
More detailed information on this matter is given by V.O. Klyuchevsky:
"The story about the events of that time, preserved in the ancient annals, was formerly called the Chronicle of Nestor, and now it is more often called the Primary Chronicle. If you want to read the Primary Chronicle in its most ancient composition, take the Laurentian or Ipatiev list. Laurentian list is the oldest from the surviving lists of the all-Russian chronicle.It was written in 1377 by "a thin, unworthy and sinful servant of God in the mind of Laurence" for the prince of Suzdal Dmitry Konstantinovich, father-in-law of Dmitry Donskoy, and was then kept in the Nativity monastery in the city of Vladimire on the Klyazma.
The story from the middle of the 9th century to 1110 inclusive according to these two lists is the oldest form in which the Primary Chronicle has come down to us.
About Nestor, who wrote the chronicle, mentions the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Polycarp in his letter to Archimandrite (1224 - 1231) Akindin.
But they did not agree with this statement already in the 15th century, since The Tale of Bygone Years ends with the words:
Abbot Sylvester of Saint Michael wrote this book, a chronicler, hoping to receive mercy from God, under Prince Vadimir, when he reigned in Kiev, and at that time I was Abbot of Saint Michael in 6624 (1116), indict in the 9th year.
In one of the later vaults, Nikonovsky, under 1409, the chronicler makes a remark:
I wrote this not in annoyance, but following the example of the initial Kiev chronicler, who, in spite of (no one), talks about all the events in our land; and our first rulers without anger allowed us to describe all the good and bad that happened in Russia, as under Vladimir Monomakh, without decorating, described the aforementioned great Sylvester Vydubitsky.
In this remark, an unknown chronicler calls Sylvester a great one, which would hardly be related to a simple scribe, albeit a significant work.
Secondly, he calls him a Kiev chronicler and at the same time hegumen of the Vydubitsky monastery. In 1113, Vladimir Monomakh became the Grand Duke of Kiev, a man with a soul rooting for the fate of the Russian Land, apparently, he instructed Sylvester in 1114 to bring together the chronicles that were then in Kiev as a teaching aid for young princes and boyar children. "
Thus, by the beginning of the 20th century, two stable versions of the authorship of The Tale of Bygone Years had developed:
1. From a letter from Polycarp to Archimandrite Akindin - Nestor.
2. From the texts of the Laurentian and Nikon Chronicles - Sylvester.
At the beginning of the XX century. one of the most famous Russian philologists of that time Shakhmatov A.A. (Investigations about the oldest Russian chronicle vaults, 1908) which comes to the following conclusion:
"In 1073 the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nikon the Great, using the" Ancient Kiev-Pechersk Arch ", compiled the" First Kiev-Pichersky Arch ", in 1113 another monk of the same monastery Nestor continued the work of Nikon and wrote" The Second Kiev-Pechersky Arch ". Vladimir Monomakh, becoming after the death of Svyatopolk the Grand Duke of Kiev, transferred the chronicle to his patrimonial Vydubitsky monastery. Here hegumen Sylvestor carried out the editorial revision of the text of Nestor, highlighting the figure of Vladimir Monamakh."
According to Shakhmatov, the first edition is completely lost and can only be reconstructed, the second is read according to the Laurentian Chronicle, and the third according to the Ipatiev Chronicle. Later this hypothesis was confirmed by Likhachev (Russian chronicles and their cultural and historical significance, 1947) and Rybakov (Ancient Rus. Tales. Epics. Chronicles, 1963).
Developing Sylvester's theory of indirectness in relation to the main text of the Tale, Rybakov writes:
"Vladimir Monomakh removed the chronicle from the rich glorified Pechersk monastery and handed it over to the abbot of his court monastery, Sylvester. He altered something in 1116, but Monomakh was not satisfied with this and instructed his son Mstislav to oversee the new alteration, completed by 1118. this history of revisions and editing was clarified in detail by A.A. Shakhmatov. (p. 211, World of History)
After such a statement, to doubt the authorship of Nestor means to cover oneself with the shame of ignorance, and there is no worse for a scientist. So this version wanders through the pages of scientific and popular publications as a scientific canon of academic authority.
But, since doubts about the validity of this theory excited the minds in the 19th century, it would be nice to believe it again, especially since there is every reason to believe it to be wrong.
The history of the Russian Orthodox Church does not know an outstanding church figure with such a name in the 12th century (see Christianity, Handbook, Moscow, Republic, 1994), therefore, all information about him can be gleaned only from the Life of Our Reverend Father Theodosius , Abbot of the Caves "monk of the same monastery Nestor:
"I remembered this, sinful Nestor, and, having strengthened myself with faith and hoping that everything is possible, if it is God's will, I began to narrate the Monk Theodosius, the former hegumen of this monastery of the holy mistress of our Mother of God ..." (1.)
The Great Nikon is first encountered on the pages of the narrative at the time of Theodosius's tonsure as a monk:
"Then the elder blessed him (Anthony of Pechersky 983-1073) and ordered the great Nikon to mow him ..." (15.).
As the Russian Orthodox Church suggests, Theodosius was born c. 1036 ("Christianity"). As stated in the "Life" at the age of 13 he was still at home. Thus, the earliest he could be tonsured a monk at the age of 14, that is, in 1050. Moreover, Nestor writes about Nikon:
"... that Nikon was a priest and a wise monk" (15.)
A priest is the middle rung of the hierarchical ladder of Orthodox clergy, but does not belong to the monastic rank, at the same time, a monk is a synonym for the concept of a monk, monk. Thus, Nestor defines Nikon as a monk of an average hierarchical rank, which in monasticism corresponds to the title of abbot, head of a monastery. So, Nikon in 1050 is the hegumen of the monastic community founded by Blessed Anthony. Even if we assume that he became hegumen, just like Theodosius in 24, and by the time Theodosius came to power for at least a year, he obviously should have been born ca. 1025, that is, 11 years earlier than Theodosius.
Of all Nikon's affairs in the field of abbess, Nestor paid attention only to the message that he had tonsured an eunuch from the prince's house as a monk, for which he drew the wrath of Izyaslav. As a result, approx. 1055 was forced to leave the monastery and go to Tmutorokan (Toman). After the death of Rostislav in 1066, the prince of Tmutorokan, Nikon returned to the Pechersk monastery and, at the request of Theodosius, remained in it. The only phrase from the Life that can somehow connect Nikon with the Tale is as follows:
"It used to be the great Nikon, writing books ..." (48.)
Obviously, this remark of Nestor and considered Shakhmatov a weighty argument in favor of Nikon's authorship, although Nestor also notes another skillful book writer - the monk Ilarion, but for some reason Shakhmatov did not like him, obviously, because he was not great, and therefore did not become the author of the famous work ...
In 1069, “the great Nikon, seeing the princely strife, withdrew with two monks to the above-mentioned island, where in the past he founded a monastery, although Blessed Theodosius begged him many times not to be separated from him while both were alive, and not to leave him. But Nikon did not listen to him ... ”(99). Later, from the text of the Life, it becomes known that he took over the abbess of the Kiev Caves Monastery after the departure of Abbot Stephen (76.), who was abbot after Theodosius (101.), at least until 1078. No other information about Nikon in there is no historical literature.
As can be seen from the description of Nestor, Nikon was in Tmutorokan from 1066 to 1078, and it is almost unlikely that he had time to work on such a serious work as The Tale, requiring a huge amount of auxiliary material, which simply could not have been recently built provincial monastery. Therefore, it is completely incomprehensible on what basis Shakhmatov introduces him to the circle of authors of the Tale, and even during his absence from Kiev, if we do not consider that he twice in his life was abbot in the Kiev-Pechersky Monastery, which in itself is not yet a basis for authorship.
It should also be noted that the creation of works of this level, which describes the life of the state elite, is not possible without close cooperation with it, which Nikon probably could only dream of, since he was twice forced to hide from the Grand Duke literally in the backyards of Russia, and the first time, due to a minor quarrel, over the unauthorized tonsure of a prince's son, he had to flee and hide in Tmutorakani for almost ten years. It is difficult to imagine that being in such a relationship with the Grand Duke, an ordinary hegumen, who did not show himself in anything special, would undertake the creation of such an epic work. Thus, the likelihood that Nikon was somehow involved in the writing of the Tale is close to zero.
Nikon's non-involvement in The Tale is indirectly confirmed by its text itself. Thus, the "Tale" notes that Theodosius died in 1074, and in 1075 hegumen Stephen began the construction of the Pechersk Church. Since, according to Nestor's testimony, Nikon again assumed the abbess of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery after Stephen's departure, the chronicle, since it was written by Nikon, was supposed to reflect the consecration of the Pechersk church as a separate special event significant for Nikon himself, but no, about the lighting of the church , the construction of which was completed on July 11, 1078, there is not a word under this year. But under 1088 a laconic entry appears: "... Nikon, Abbot of Pechersky died." (Note "Nikon", not "the great Nikon" as in Nestor). The next 1089, the entry appears: "The Church of the Pechersk was consecrated ..." and then there is an almost page text very similar to the verbose and flowery style of Nestor, that is, a year after Nikon's death.
The improbability of this insert lies in the fact that the church was built in three years and then it has not been illuminated for 11 years, that is, it stands inactive in a functioning monastery. Even by today's standards, this event is difficult to imagine, and at that time it was not at all possible. The deadline for consecration could have been 1079, but the logic of the presentation in this chronological period is such that it was impossible to insert a verbose ornate insert there and someone (perhaps Nestor) inserts it under 1089, correctly believing that no one would pay attention to this ... If the fact of such a delay in the consecration of the church really took place, then Nikon, as the alleged author of the Tale, would certainly have given a reason that prevented him from consecrating her to his abbess.
Shakhmatov calls Nestor himself the second author of the Tale.
For the first time, as noted above, its authorship was confirmed by the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Polycarp (c. 1227), but more than a hundred years later, after the writing of the Tale, and the letter does not contain an exact indication that this particular work is meant ... Thus, the connection of Nestor with the "Tale" in this case looks somewhat arbitrary.
In order to confirm or refute this assumption, it is necessary to compare the two works “The Life of St. Feodosia ", whose authorship is not in doubt, with" Tale ".
Shakhmatov notes that Nestor's authorship is most fully visible in the Laurentian Chronicle. Therefore, we will use the translation of Likhachev, which was made from the Laurentian Chronicle (manuscript of the State Public Library named after M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, code F, item N2).
The manuscript of "The Tale of Bygone Years" begins with the words: "So let us begin this story.", And then comes a meaningful text.
The manuscript “The Life of St. Feodosia "begins with the words (manuscript of the State Historical Museum in Moscow, Synodal collection N1063 / 4, translation by OV Tvorogov):" Lord, bless, father! " and then more than a page of panegyric maxims, and only after that does the meaningful text begin.
In the first, both the beginning and the entire text (if we do not consider the numerous insertions) the maximum brevity, in the second there are huge panegyric inserts, sometimes obscuring the main text.
Stylistic comparison of both texts relates them to each other as the texts of Tolstoy and Chekhov. If a philologist, picking up the texts of Tolstoy and Chekhov, without a title page is unable to understand whether they belong to one author or two, then this is already at the level of pathology. In psychoanalysis, this state is defined as an underground - paralysis of the will in front of a sacred taboo. There is no other way to explain this phenomenon. Shakhmatov, considered one of the outstanding Russian philologists, is unable to distinguish Tolstoy from Chekhov in his presentation, it is simply impossible to believe in this, especially since another philologist-academician Likhachev echoes him, and, nevertheless, the fact remains neither the other, nor anyone at all, sees this stylistic difference.
Another prime example is the story of the pillar of fire in both works.
In the "Life" we read:
"The blessed prince Svyatoslav, who was not far from the blessed monastery, suddenly saw a pillar of fire that rose above that monastery to the very sky. And no one else saw only the prince alone ... Our father Theodosius died in the year 6582 (1074) - the month of May on the third day on Saturday, as he himself predicted, after sunrise. "
In the "Tale" under the year 1074 we read:
"Theodosius Abbot of Pechersky reposed ..." and nothing more.
As an argument, the statement is given that the subsequent fragment of the text, which speaks of an unusual phenomenon, is simply lost. But here's the bad luck, under the year 1110 we read:
"In the same year there was a sign in the Pechersk Monastery on the 11th day of February: a pillar of fire appeared from earth to heaven, and lightning illuminated the whole earth, and thundered in the sky in the first hour of the night, and all people saw it. This pillar first became above the stone refectory, so that the cross was invisible, and after standing a little, went to the church, and stood over the tomb of Theodosiev, and then went to the top of the church, as if facing the east, and then became invisible. "
Having read both texts at the same time, only in a completely relaxed state of mind can we say that it was written by the same person at the same time, because to explain how it is possible to confuse the sequence and meaningfulness of the event, (who is undoubtedly talented) in two different states, if we proceed from Shakhmatov's version, from the point of view of a normally functioning brain, it is not possible. One could still agree with the error of the year, but at the same time it is simply not possible to be mistaken in the date, May 3 and February 11. In "Life" the witness is only the prince, in "Tale" "all the people." In the "Life" there is only a short vision, in the "Tale" a detailed, conscientious description of the phenomenon.
If you nevertheless continue to follow the generally accepted hypothesis, although it is already clear that it is not consistent, then you will have to explain another oddity. In the "Tale" all sorts of strange events are recorded quite conscientiously, which sometimes seem completely incredible:
"In the year 6571 (1063) ... in Novgorod Volkhov flowed in the opposite direction for five days."
In the "Life" we read:
“One night he (one of the Izyaslav boyars) was driving across a field 15 fields (10.6 km) from the monastery of Blessed Theodosius. And suddenly he saw a church under the very clouds.” (55.)
It is hard to imagine that, while describing a similar incident twice in his Life, Nestor forgot to include it in the Tale. But this case, obviously, was not a sufficient argument to abandon the authorship of Nestor.
Then let's open the "Tale" under the year 6576 (1068):
“Izyaslav, seeing (what they want to do) with Vsevolod, ran out of the yard, but the people freed Vseslav from the cut - on the 15th day of September - and glorified him among the princely court. Izyaslav fled to Poland.
Vseslav was in Kiev; in this, God revealed the power of the cross, because Izyaslav kissed the cross for Vseslav, and then grabbed him: because of this, God brought the filthy, Vseslav obviously delivered the honest cross! For on the day of the erection, Vseslav sighed and said: “O cross! honest! Since I believed in you, you also delivered me from this prison. "
(The Feast of the Exaltation is celebrated on September 14, but on this day Vseslav was still in captivity, so it was apparently celebrated a second time on September 16, combining it with the miraculous liberation of Vseslav)
The same event in the Life is described exactly the opposite:
"... strife began - at the instigation of the wicked enemy - among the three princes, brothers by blood: two of them went to war against the third, their elder brother, love of Christ and truly God-lover Izyaslav. And he was expelled from his capital city, and they came to that city, they sent for our blessed father Theodosius, inviting him to come to them for dinner and join the unrighteous union. One of them sat on the throne of his brother and his father, and the other went to his inheritance. Then our father Theodosius, filled with spirit saint, began to reproach the prince ... "
The most interesting thing about this is that Rybakov (p. 183), who insists on some revisions of the Tale by Vladimir Monomakh, nevertheless adheres to the version of the Tale, not the Life. But as you can see from the above passages, this is a completely different presentation of the same event. If Nestor's point of view is correct, then why does Rybakov not use it in his presentation? If the point of view of the "Tale" is correct, then Nestor cannot be its author in any way, since this is already beyond the bounds of any common sense, and it is better to assume that "Tale" is a complete fiction than to treat it as a collection of "what I want, then I write. "
Another oddity that researchers do not pay attention to is the episodes describing the foundation of the Church of the Holy Mother of God in Tmutarakan.
In the "Tale" this event is associated with the victory of the Tmutarakan prince Mstislav Vladimirovich in connection with his victory over the Kosozh prince Rededya in 1022.
In his Life, Nestor attributes this event to the great Nikon, when he was on the run after 1055.
How can you be so mistaken describing the same event at the same time? It just doesn't fit in my head.
So, if we nevertheless consider that The Tale of Bygone Years is a serious work and reflects in general a real picture of the events of that period, then it must be admitted that neither Nikon nor Nestor could have been its authors. But then, in this case, the only known author is Sylvester, hegumen of the Vydubitsky monastery in Kiev.
There is only one unresolved question - whether Vladimir Monomakh corrected The Tale of Bygone Years, as Rybakov claims.
To do this, we will open "The Instructions of Vladimir Monomakh" in Likhachev's translation. By the way, it should be borne in mind that the "Instruction" is read only in the Laurentian Chronicle, that is, in conjunction with the "Tale", which is an additional indirect confirmation of the authorship of Sylvester. So, we read:
"Then Svyatoslav sent me to Poland; I followed Glogov to the Bohemian forest, and walked in their land for four months. And in the same year my eldest son, from Novgorod, was born. And from there I went to Turov, and in the spring to Pereyaslavl, and again to Turov. "
The same year 1076 in the Tale:
"Vladimir, the son of Vsevolod, and Oleg, the son of Svyatoslav, went to help the Poles against the Czechs. In the same year, Svyatoslav, the son of Yaroslav, on December 27, died from cutting a nodule, and was laid in Chernigov, at the Holy Savior. And he sat down after him on the table (Chernigov) Vsevolod, the month of January on the 1st day. "
If this text had been corrected by Vladimir, the information about Oleg would have been removed from it, since he does not mention this in his "Teaching", quite possibly for some political or personal reason. And yet, in the "Tale" there is a text that contradicts the statement of the prince himself.
Another important contradiction in these passages is their dating.
Yaroslav links this campaign with the birth of his first child Vladimir, the future prince of Novgorod. According to the Tale, this event took place in 1020. The Tale does not cite any campaigns by Yaroslav at this time. If Vladimir was correcting the "Tale", then he would have to transfer this event from 1076 to 1020, and correct it stylistically under the "Instruction".
Even more interesting evidence is found in the description of the next year.
In the "Instruction" we read:
"Then we went again the same year with my father and Izyaslav to Chernigov to fight with Boris and defeated Boris and Oleg ..."
"Story":
"In the year 6585 (1077). Izyaslav went with the Poles, and Vsevolod went against him. Boris sat down in Chernigov, the month of May, the 4th day, and his reign was eight days, and fled to Tmutorokan to Roman, Vsevolod went against his brother Izyaslav to Volyn; and they created the world, and when they came, Izyaslav sat down in Kiev, on the 15th day of July, Oleg, the son of Svyatoslav, was with Vsevolod in Chernigov. "
It is absolutely not clear under what conditions these two passages can be considered corrected among themselves, in my opinion, it is probably difficult to come up with anything more contradictory. But this is only, in my opinion, in the opinion of modern historical science, these passages are written with one hand.
And further.
In the lesson there is no binding of events to specific dates, all events are described as completely known to readers: this year, this year, next year, etc. Considering that the events described are not presented in chronological order, it is absolutely impossible to understand from the text of the "teaching" what happened behind what. Therefore, immediately after the birth of Vladimir in 1020, there follows a notice of the death of Svyatoslav in 1078. What kind of correction in this case can we talk about?
So, all doubts about the influence of Vladimir Monomakh on the content of the text of the "Tale" are dispelled, but one fact remains unexplained. The chronicle ends in 1110, and Sylvester writes that he finished it in 1116. Why did he miss six whole years in it? The answer to this question can be found in the word "chronicle" and the events preceding the great reign of Vladimir Monomakh.
All researchers perceive the "Tale" as a collection of chronicles, but in the 11th century educated people who read Greek and Latin books already knew how the chronograph (chronicler) differs from the story. Therefore, the title should be read, as it is written not "The Chronicler of the Russian Princes", but namely "The Tale of Bygone Years, where the Russian land came from, who began to reign in Kiev first and how the Russian Land arose." The story is not a chronicle, and it can be completed when the author decides, in contrast to the chronicle, the writing of which ends only in the impossibility of writing it further. Thus, "The Tale" is a kind of history textbook for young princes and boyars. And the fact that Selvestor finished this textbook in 1110 only says that those for whom it was intended did not need information after 1110, since this was the present day they already knew from personal life experience. And yet why 1110 and not 1116? To answer this question, it is necessary to study the events on the eve of the great reign of Vladimir Monomakh.
Beginning in 1096, Vladimir took diplomatic measures not typical for the princely environment of that time to remove his competitors from the reign. Preparing for the princely congress, at which he wanted to deprive Oleg of Chernigov's reign, Vladimir is preparing a corresponding speech, and most likely a collection of documents substantiating his claims. But the congress held at the end of 1097 in Lubich, Drevlyansky, did not bring him victory. The congress decided: "... let everyone own his own fiefdom." Preparing for the next congress, Monomakh writes his "Instruction". But this congress, held in 1100 in Uvetichi, did not bring Vladimir success, after which he completely abandoned diplomatic receptions and in 1113, taking advantage of the death of Svyatoslav and the Kiev uprising, he became the Grand Duke of Kiev.
It was the princely congress of 1100 that became a turning point in Monomakh's worldview, it was in this year that his efforts to collect historical materials ended, but the prince's chronicler still continued to keep weather chronicles until his death in 1110 (his name is still unknown). In 1114, Monomakh instructed Sylvester to put together the scattered material on the history of Russian princes, which he actually did with talent, summarizing the material presented by Vladimir into a single "Tale" for the edification and science of young princes. The main goal that Vladimir pursued was the justification of his autocracy and the subordination of the appanage principalities to the Grand Duke.
And although Sylvester knew that he was writing not a chronicle, but a story, he could not resist comparing himself with the chronicler, although it is quite possible that in his time everyone who took up the pen could call themselves chroniclers.
He wrote this with a mournful hope that the coming times of Russia will restore the glorious name of the Great Sylvester, when the honor of a scientist will be valued more than his title.
