What is the name of the chronicle where important events were recorded. How reliable are the old Russian chronicles?

monthly literary, scientific and political magazine, Petrograd, 1915-17. Founded by M. Gorky, it united writers and publicists of a socialist orientation who opposed the continuation of the war, nationalism, and chauvinism.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

CHRONICLES

in Rus' were carried out from the 11th to the 18th centuries. Until sep. XVI century, the time of Ivan the Terrible, they were the main type of historical narration, only from that time on “giving way to another historiographic genre - chronographs. Chronicles were compiled in monasteries, at the courts of princes (and then kings), in the offices of metropolitans. Chroniclers almost were never private individuals, but carried out instructions or orders from spiritual or secular rulers, reflecting the interests of certain groups of people. That is why L. often contradicted each other not only in their assessments of events, but also in their actual factual basis, which creates significant difficulties for researchers of chronicles. and historians, on the basis of L., recreating the actual course of events. In their structure, the ancient Russian L. represented collections of weather articles, that is, reports about the events that occurred in each year. Most often, the chronicler was limited. brief information about what happened, For example: “In the summer of 6751 (1143). Vsevolod married his son Svyatoslav to Vasilkovna, Prince of Polotsk. The same winter, Izyaslav went to his army (uncle - Ya. L.) Gyurgy and, not having settled with him, went to his brother Smolinsk, and from there he went to his other brother Svyatopolk Novugorod, there and winter.” But in a number of cases the chronicler resorted to literary form presentation, creating a plot narrative about the most significant events national history. It is from L. that we know in detail about the campaign, capture and escape from captivity of Prince Igor Svyatoslavich, about the tragedy of the Battle of Kalka, about the Battle of Kulikovo, the circumstances of the capture of Moscow by Tokhtamysh, about the feudal war of the 15th century, climax which resulted in the captivity and blinding of Grand Duke Vasily II Vasilyevich, etc. Even in weather records, chroniclers often include addresses of princes, their dialogues, and widely use literary cliches in them: stable speech formulas, colorful epithets, rhetorical turns, etc. L . not only the main sources on the political history of Rus', but also the most extensive monuments of ancient Russian history. secular literature, and chronicle writing is one of its leading genres. Russian chronicle writing has a long history. With the current level of knowledge, it is not yet possible to establish when they began to keep records of historical events, replacing the previous form of historical knowledge - oral stories, traditions and legends. According to the majority of scientists, followers of Acad. A. A. Shakhmatova, L. takes on a stable form and begins to be carried out systematically from the middle. XI century The oldest book that has come down to us is the Tale of Bygone Years. Already this chronicle of the beginning. XII century It is distinguished by the combination of actual weather records with monuments of other genres and even documents. The Tale of Bygone Years contains texts of treaties with Byzantium, legends about the emergence of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, a presentation of sacred history in the form of a story by a “philosopher” who encouraged Prince Vladimir to adopt the Christian religion, etc. L. would retain such a syncretic character later in the century. further. Of particular interest are the so-called chronicle stories - plot stories about the most significant events in Russian history. Several hundred lists of chronicles have been preserved to this day (some chronicles are known in several lists, others in only one), and scientists have identified at least several dozen chronicle collections. Strictly speaking, each book is a collection, since it combines in itself - in a revised, abbreviated or, on the contrary, expanded form - the previous book and records of events recent years or decades belonging to the chronicler himself. The consolidated nature of L. made possible the path of chronicle research that was discovered and developed by Academician. Shakhmatov. If two or more L. coincide with each other before a certain year, then it follows that either one was copied from the other (this is rare), or they had a common source that reached that year. Shakhmatov and his followers managed to identify a whole chain of chronicle vaults that preceded the surviving L. XIV-XVII centuries: vaults XIV, XV and more early centuries, up to the 11th century. Of course, determining the exact date and place of compilation of the codes is hypothetical, but these hypotheses, based on the actual texts that have reached us and the relationships between them, allow us to navigate the monuments included in the series that has been published for one and a half hundred years - “The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles” (PSRL ). Chronicle collection containing a statement ancient history Rus', is the Tale of Bygone Years. L. South Russian principalities of the XII-XIII centuries. came to us as part of the Ipatievskaya L. (see Ipatievskaya Chronicle). Chronicles of Rostov the Great, Vladimir and Pereyaslavl of Suzdal late XII - early. XIII century best preserved as part of the Laurentian and Radzivilovskaya L. (see Laurentian Chronicle, Radzivilovskaya Chronicle), as well as the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl of Suzdal. The chronicle collection associated with Metropolitan Cyprian and brought up to 1408, reached the Trinity Leningrad, which burned in the Moscow fire of 1812. Its text was reconstructed by M. D. Priselkov (Trinity Chronicle: Reconstruction of the text - M.; Leningrad, 1950 ). Around 1412, a chronicle corpus was created in Tver, reflecting an expanded revision of the all-Russian chronicle corpus of the late 14th and early 14th centuries. XV century, close to the Trinity L. It was reflected in the Simeonovskaya L. (PSRL. - T. 18) and the Rogozh chronicler (PSRL. - T. 15. - Issue 1). Another source of the Rogozhsky chronicler was the Tver code of 1375, which was also reflected in the Tver collection of the 16th century. (PSRL.-T. 15). Of particular interest is the all-Russian, so-called Novgorod-Sophia codex, compiled, apparently, in the 30s. XV century (often defined as “the code of 1448”) and included expanded chronicle stories about the battle of Kalka, Batu’s invasion and stories about the struggle of the Tver princes with the Tatars that were absent in Trinity Leningrad, lengthy editions of stories about the Battle of Kulikovo, the story about the invasion of Tokhtamysh, “THE WORD ON THE LIFE OF DMITRY DONSKY”, etc. This collection, compiled, apparently, at the metropolitan see during the feudal war in Moscow, combined the all-Russian chronicle with the Novgorod one. The code was published in Sofia I L. (PSRL.-T. 5; 2nd edition not completed: in 1925 only the first issue of this volume was published) and Novgorod IV L. (Vol. 4, issues 1 and 2; 2nd ed. not completed). The first monuments of the Moscow grand-ducal chronicle that have come down to us were formed no earlier than the middle. XV century The chronicle collection of 1472 was reflected in Vologda-Perm Leningrad (PSRL.-T. 26) and Nikanorovskaya Leningrad (PSRL.-T. 27). It was based on the Novgorod-Sophia codex, edited by the grand ducal chronicler (who excluded, in particular, the mention of Novgorod liberties). A more radical revision of the previous chronicle was carried out by the Grand Duke's compilers in the late 70s. XV century: The Novgorod-Sofia vault was connected with a vault close to the Trinity Leningrad (with censorship of the material from both sources), and with other monuments. The Grand Duke's Moscow Chronicle of 1479 , which reflected this revision, formed the basis of the entire official chronicle of the late 15th-16th centuries. It has been preserved in an as yet unpublished list XVIII V. (in the Hermitage collection in the Russian National Library), and its later edition, brought up to 1492, was published in the 25th volume of PSRL. The chronicle compilation, which formed the basis of the Moscow code of 1479, was reflected in the first part of the Ermolinskaya L. (PSRL.-T 23), named so by Shakhmatov due to the fact that it contains a selection of news about the activities of the architect V. D. Ermolin in 1462-1472. The second part of the book contains material independent of the grand-ducal chronicle and apparently goes back to the code compiled in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. The same code was reflected in the so-called Abbreviated Chronicles of the late 15th century. (PSRL.-T. 27). Rostov archbishop's code of the 80s. The 15th century was reflected in Typografskaya L. (PSRL.- T. 24). In Sophia II (PSRL.-T 6) and Lvov (PSRL.-T. 20) Leningrad, the code of 1518 was reflected, which in turn was based on a certain chronicle code of the 80s. XV century, compiled in unofficial church circles. At the end of the 20s. XVI century at the Moscow Metropolitan See, a chronicle was compiled covering the events of 1437-1520, named after its owner Joasaph (its text was published in 1967 by A. A. Zimin in a separate edition). The same years also included the compilation of the first edition of the largest Russian chronicle, the Nikon Chronicle (see Nikon Chronicle). Between 1542-1544 Another extensive chronicle was compiled - the Resurrection Chronicle (PSRL - T. 7-8). In the 2nd half. 50s of the 16th century. the initial edition of Nikon's L. was combined with extracts from the Resurrection L. and the Chronicler of the Beginning of the Kingdom (the chronicle outlining the events of 1533-1552, that is, the beginning of the great reign, and then the reign of Ivan the Terrible). Finally, in 1568-1576. under Ivan the Terrible, a multi-volume illustrated book was created - the so-called Facial Vault. These were the last all-Russian chronicle collections, which then gave way to another type of historiographical work - chronographs (see Russian Chronograph). Chronicles, conducted in the 17th-18th centuries, were not monuments of all-Russian, but rather local provincial chronicles. Publisher: Complete collection of Russian chronicles. - St. Petersburg; M, 1843; M., 1989.-T. 1-38; Novgorod first chronicle of the older and younger editions. - M.; L., 1950; Pskov Chronicles.-M, L., 1941-1955.-Iss. 1-2; Stories of Russian chronicles of the XII-XIV centuries / Translation and explanations by T. N. Mikhelson. - M., 1968; 2nd ed. - M., 1973; Stories of Russian chronicles of the XV-XVII centuries / Translation and explanations by T. N. Mikhelson - M., 1976, Northern Russian chronicle code of 1472 / Preparation of text and comments by Ya S. Lurie; Translation by V, V Kolesov // PLDR: Second half of the 15th century. -M., 1982.-S. 410-443, 638-655. Lit.: Sukhomlinov M.I. On the ancient Russian chronicle as a literary monument. - St. Petersburg, 1856; Shakhmatov A. A. Review of Russian chronicles of the XIV-XVI centuries - M., Leningrad, 1938, Priselkov M. D. History of Russian chronicles of the XI-XV centuries - Leningrad, 1940; L i-khachev D.S. Russian chronicles and their cultural and historical significance. - M; L., 1947; Dmitrieva R.P. Bibliography of Russian chronicles. - M.; L., 1962; Nasonov A. N. History of Russian chronicles XI - early XVIII century. - M.. 1969, Tvorogov O. V. Plot narration in the chronicles of the 11th-13th centuries. // Origins of Russian fiction.-S. 31-66, Lurie Y. S.; I) To the study of the chronicle genre // TODRL.- 1972.- T. 27.- P. 76-93; 2) All-Russian Chronicles of the XIV-XV centuries - L., 1976; 3) Two stories of Rus' in the 15th century. St. Petersburg, 1994; Koretsky V.I. History of Russian chronicles of the second half of the 16th - early 17th centuries.-M., 1986. For articles on individual chronicles, see: Dictionary of Bookmakers.-Vol. 1.-S. 234-251; Vol. 2, part 2.-S. 17-18, 20-69. See also: Novgorod Chronicles, Pskov Chronicles, Ipatiev Chronicle, Laurentian Chronicle, Nikon Chronicle, Radzivilov Chronicle, Facial Vault, Tale of Bygone Years. Y. S. Lurie

CHRONICLES

CHRONICLES, historical works, a type of narrative literature in Russia in the 11th-17th centuries, consisted of weather records or were complex monuments - chronicle vaults. L. were all-Russian (for example, "The Tale of Bygone Years", Nikonovskaya L., etc.) and local (Pskovsky and other L.). Preserved mainly in later lists.

Source: Encyclopedia "Fatherland"

historical works of the 11th-17th centuries, in which the narrative was told by year. The story about the events of each year in the chronicles usually began with the words: “in the summer” - hence the name - chronicle. The words “chronicle” and “chronicler” are equivalent, but the compiler of such a work could also be called a chronicler. Chronicles are the most important historical sources, the most significant monuments social thought and culture of Ancient Rus'. Usually the chronicles set out Russian history from its beginning; sometimes the chronicles opened with biblical history and continued with ancient, Byzantine and Russian history. Chronicles played an important role in the ideological justification of princely power in Ancient Rus' and the promotion of the unity of Russian lands. The chronicles contain significant material about the origins Eastern Slavs, about their state power, about the political relationships of the Eastern Slavs among themselves and with other peoples and countries.
A characteristic feature of the chronicle is the chroniclers' belief in the intervention of divine forces. New chronicles were usually compiled as sets of previous chronicles and various materials (historical stories, lives, messages, etc.) and consisted of records about contemporary events of the chronicler. Literary works were also used as sources in chronicles. Legends, epics, treaties, legislative acts, documents from princely and church archives were also woven by the chronicler into the fabric of the narrative. By rewriting the materials included in the chronicle, he sought to create a single narrative, subordinating it to a historical concept that corresponded to the interests of the political center where he wrote (the prince’s court, the office of the metropolitan, bishop, monastery, posadnik’s hut, etc.). However, along with the official ideology, the chronicles reflected the views of their immediate compilers. Chronicles testify to the high patriotic consciousness of the Russian people in the 11th-17th centuries. The compilation of chronicles was given great value, they were addressed in political disputes and during diplomatic negotiations. The skill of historical storytelling has reached high perfection in them. At least 1,500 copies of the chronicles have survived. Many works of ancient Russian literature have been preserved in them: “The Instruction” of Vladimir Monomakh, “The Tale of the Battle of Mamayev”, “The Walk across the Three Seas” by Afanasy Nikitin and others. Ancient chronicles of the 11th-12th centuries. preserved only in later lists. The oldest list of chronicles with a date is the short chronicler of the Patra of Constantinople. Nikifor, supplemented by Russian articles up to 1278, contained in the Novgorod helmsman of 1280. The most famous of the early chronicle collections that have survived to our time is “The Tale of Bygone Years.” Its creator is considered to be Nestor, a monk of the Pechersk Monastery in Kyiv, who wrote his work ca. 1113.
In Kyiv in the 12th century. Chronicle writing was carried out in the Kiev-Pechersk and Vydubitsky St. Michael's monasteries, as well as at the princely court. Galician-Volyn chronicle in the 12th century. concentrated at the courts of the Galician-Volyn princes and bishops. The South Russian chronicle was preserved in the Ipatiev Chronicle, which consists of the “Tale of Bygone Years”, continued mainly by the Kyiv news (ending 1200), and the Galicia-Volyn Chronicle (ending 1289 - 92). In the Vladimir-Suzdal land, the main centers of chronicle writing were Vladimir, Suzdal, Rostov and Pereyaslavl. The monument to this chronicle is the Laurentian Chronicle, which begins with the “Tale of Bygone Years”, continued by the Vladimir-Suzdal news until 1305, as well as the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl-Suzdal (ed. 1851) and the Radziwill Chronicle, decorated a large number drawings. Chronicle writing received great development in Novgorod at the court of the archbishop, at monasteries and churches.
The Mongol-Tatar invasion caused a temporary decline in chronicle writing. In the XIV-XV centuries. it develops again. The largest centers of chronicle writing were Novgorod, Pskov, Rostov, Tver, and Moscow. The chronicles reflected ch. events of local significance (the birth and death of princes, elections of posadniks and thousand in Novgorod and Pskov, military campaigns, battles, etc.), church events (the installation and death of bishops, abbots of monasteries, construction of churches, etc.), crop failure and famine , epidemics, remarkable natural phenomena, etc. Events that go beyond local interests are poorly reflected in such chronicles. Novgorod chronicle XII - XV centuries. most fully represented by the Novgorod First Chronicle of the older and younger editions. The older, or earlier, version was preserved in the only Synodal parchment (haratein) list of the 13th-14th centuries; the younger version reached the lists of the 15th century. In Pskov, chronicle writing was associated with mayors and the state chancellery at the Trinity Cathedral. In Tver, chronicle writing developed at the court of Tver princes and bishops. An idea of ​​it is given by the Tverskoy collection and the Rogozhsky chronicler. In Rostov, chronicle writing was carried out at the court of bishops, and the chronicles created in Rostov are reflected in a number of codes, incl. in the Ermolin Chronicle of the 15th century.
New phenomena in chronicles are noted in the 15th century, when the Russian state was taking shape with its center in Moscow. The politics of Moscow leaders. princes was reflected in all-Russian chronicles. The first Moscow all-Russian code is given an idea by the Trinity Chronicle n. XV century (disappeared in a fire in 1812) and the Simeonovskaya Chronicle in the list of the 16th century. The Trinity Chronicle ends in 1409. To compile it, various sources were involved: Novgorod, Tver, Pskov, Smolensk, etc. The origin and political orientation of this chronicle are emphasized by the predominance of Moscow news and a general favorable assessment of the activities of Moscow princes and metropolitans. The all-Russian chronicle compiled in Smolensk in the 15th century was the so-called. Chronicle of Abraham; Another collection is the Suzdal Chronicle (15th century).
A chronicle collection based on the rich Novgorod written language, the Sophia Vremennik, appeared in Novgorod. A large chronicle appeared in Moscow in the 15th century. XVI centuries The Resurrection Chronicle, which ends in 1541, is especially famous (the main part of the chronicle was compiled in 1534 - 37). It includes many official records. The same official records were included in the extensive Lvov Chronicle, which included “The Chronicler of the Beginning of the Kingdom of the Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich,” up to 1560. At the court of Ivan the Terrible in the 1540s - 60s, the Front Chronicle was created, i.e. chronicle, including drawings corresponding to the text. The first 3 volumes of the Facial Vault are dedicated to world history(compiled on the basis of the “Chronograph” and other works), the next 7 volumes are of Russian history from 1114 to 1567. The last volume of the Litsevoy vault, dedicated to the reign of Ivan the Terrible, was called the “Royal Book”. The text of the Facial Code is based on an earlier one - the Nikon Chronicle, which was a huge compilation of various chronicles, stories, lives, etc. In the 16th century. Chronicle writing continued to develop not only in Moscow, but also in other cities. The most famous is the Vologda-Perm Chronicle. Chronicles were also kept in Novgorod and Pskov, in the Pechersky Monastery near Pskov. In the 16th century New types of historical narration also appeared, already moving away from the chronicle form - “The Sedate Book of the Royal Genealogy” and “The History of the Kazan Kingdom”.
In the 17th century There was a gradual withering away of the chronicle form of storytelling. At this time, local chronicles appeared, of which the most interesting are the Siberian Chronicles. The beginning of their compilation dates back to the 1st half. XVII century Of these, the Stroganov Chronicle and the Esipov Chronicle are the best known. In the 17th century Tobolsk son of boyar S.U. Remezov compiled “Siberian History”. In the 17th century Chronicle news is included in the composition of power books and chronographs. The word “chronicle” continues to be used by tradition even for such works that faintly resemble the Chronicles of earlier times. This is the New Chronicler, telling about the events of the XVI - AD. XVII centuries (Polish-Swedish intervention and peasant war), and “Annals of many rebellions.”
M.N. Tikhomirov
Orthodox worldview in the Russian chronicle tradition
“Russian history amazes with its extraordinary consciousness and logical progression of phenomena,” wrote K.S. Aksakov more than 120 years ago. We often forget about this awareness, unwittingly blaspheming our ancestors, substituting their high spirituality for our misery. Meanwhile, history has brought to us numerous evidence of their harmonious, church-centered worldview. Among such evidence, chronicles are particularly distinguished by their historical completeness.
In the development of Russian chronicles, it is customary to distinguish three periods: ancient, regional and all-Russian. Despite all the peculiarities of Russian chronicle traditions, be it “The Tale of Bygone Years” as edited by the Venerable Nestor the Chronicler, the Novgorod chronicles with their laconicism and dryness of language, or the Moscow chronicle collections, there is no doubt about the common ideological basis that determines their views. Orthodoxy gave the people a strong sense of the commonality of their historical destiny even in the most difficult times of appanage strife and Tatar rule.
The basis of Russian chronicles is the famous “Tale of Bygone Years” - “where did the Russian land come from, who began the reign in Kyiv and where did the Russian land come from.” Having had more than one edition, the Tale formed the basis of various local chronicles. It has not been preserved as a separate monument, having come to us as part of later chronicle codes - the Laurentian (XIV century) and Ipatiev (XV century). The story is an all-Russian chronicle compiled in 1113 in Kyiv on the basis of chronicles of the 11th century. and other sources - presumably Greek origin. St. Nestor the chronicler, holy ascetic of the Kiev Pechersk, completed his work a year before his death. The chronicle was continued by another holy monk - St. Sylvester, abbot of the Vydubitsky St. Michael's Monastery in Kyiv. The Holy Church celebrates their memory, respectively, on October 27 and January 2, according to Art. Art.
The “Tale” clearly shows the desire to give, if possible, comprehensive concepts about the course of world history. It begins with the biblical account of the creation of the world. Having thus declared his commitment to the Christian understanding of life, the author moves on to the history of the Russian people. After the Babylonian Pandemonium, when the peoples were divided, the Slavs stood out among the Japheth tribe, and among the Slavic tribes - the Russian people. Like everything in the created world, the course of Russian history takes place according to the will of God, princes are instruments of His will, virtue is rewarded, sins are punished by the Lord: famine, pestilence, cowardice, invasion of foreigners.
Everyday details do not concern the author of the chronicle. His thought soars above vain concerns, lovingly dwelling on the deeds of holy ascetics, the valor of Russian princes, and the struggle against foreigners and infidels. But all this attracts the chronicler’s attention not in its bare historical “givenness,” but as evidence of God’s providential care for Russia.
In this series, the message about the visit to the Russian land of St. ap. Andrew the First-Called, who predicted the greatness of Kyiv and the future flourishing of Orthodoxy in Russia. The factual accuracy of this story cannot be verified, but its inner meaning is undeniable. Russian Orthodoxy and the Russian people acquire the “first-called” apostolic dignity and purity of faith, which is subsequently confirmed by the equal-to-the-apostles dignity of Saints Methodius and Cyril, the enlighteners of the Slavs, and the holy blessed prince Vladimir the Baptist. The message of the chronicle emphasizes the providential nature of the Baptism of Rus', tacitly presuming for it corresponding religious duties, the duty of Orthodox Church obedience.
The author notes the voluntary nature of accepting service. This is served by the famous story about the choice of faiths, when “Volodimer convened his bolyars and the elders of the city.” The chronicle does not cite any circumstances restricting freedom of choice. “If you want to test much,” the “Bolyars and Elders” tell Vladimir, “by sending, test everyone... the service and how he serves God.” The desire for a godly life, the desire to find the correct path to God is Vladimir’s only motivating motive. The story of the ambassadors who returned after the test of faith is extremely revealing. Muslims are rejected because “there is no joy in them, but sadness,” Catholics - because they “have no vision of beauty.” We are talking, of course, not about worldly “fun” - Muslims have no less of it than anyone else, and not about everyday “sadness”. We are talking about the living religious experience received by the ambassadors. They were looking for that joy about which the Psalmist speaks: “Hear the voice of my prayer, my King and my God... And let all who trust in You rejoice, rejoice forever; and you will dwell in them, and they will boast about you loving name Yours” (Ps. 5:3; 12). This is the joy and joy of a godly life - quiet, gentle, familiar to every sincere Orthodox believer because of its touching personal experience, inexplicable in words. Instead of this joy, the ambassadors felt sadness in the mosque - a terrible feeling of abandonment and abandonment, evidenced by the words of the Prophet: “Alas, a sinful tongue, people full of sins, an evil seed, sons of iniquity - forsake the Lord... Why are you still hurt, applying iniquity, all head in pain and every heart in sorrow” (Isa. 1:4-5).
And among Catholics, the ambassadors were struck not by the lack of material beauty - although in terms of beauty and splendor, Catholic worship cannot be compared with Orthodox worship. A healthy religious instinct unmistakably determined the inferiority of Catholicism, which cut itself off from the conciliar totality of the Church, from its grace-filled fullness. “Behold, whatever is good, or whatever is good, let the brethren live together,” the Holy Scripture testifies. The absence of this beauty was felt by the well-meaning ambassadors. All the more striking for them was the contrast from their presence at the liturgy in the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Constantinople: “When we came to the Greeks, we now serve our God.” The service amazed the Russians so much that they repeat in confusion: “And we don’t know whether we were in heaven or on earth - for such beauty does not exist on earth - only we know for sure that God dwells there with people... And not We can forget that beauty.” Their hearts, seeking religious consolation, received it in unexpected fullness and irresistible authenticity. The outcome of the matter was decided not by external economic considerations (the validity of which is very doubtful), but by living religious experience, the abundant presence of which is confirmed by all further history Russian people.
Enough full picture The Laurentian Code gives the views of contemporaries on the course of Russian life. Here, for example, is a picture of the campaign of the Russian princes against the Polovtsians in 1184: “That same summer, God put in the hearts of the Russian princes, for all the Russian princes marched against the Polovtsians.”
In the 70s of the 12th century. The pressure of the Polovtsians on the borders of the Russian principalities intensifies. The Russians are undertaking a series of retaliatory campaigns. Several local defeats of the Polovtsian troops follow, the result of which is their unification under the rule of one khan - Konchak. The military organization of the Polovtsians receives uniformity and harmony, weapons are improved, throwing machines and “Greek fire” appear: Rus' comes face to face with a united strong enemy army.
The Polovtsians, seeing their superiority, take fortunate circumstances as a sign of God's favor. “Behold, God is far away, there are Russian princes and their armies in our hands.” But the Providence of God is not connected with considerations of human wisdom: “unwise” the unreasonable Gentiles, “as if they have neither courage nor thoughts against God,” the chronicler laments. In the battle that began, the Polovtsians “ran away with the wrath of God and the Holy Mother of God.” The victory of the Russians is not the result of their own care: “The Lord has brought great salvation to our princes and their wars over our enemies. The former foreigners were defeated by the providential help of God under the Intercession Holy Mother of God covering the God-loving Russian army with Her care. And the Russians themselves are well aware of this: “And Vladimir said: Behold the day that the Lord has made, we will rejoice and be glad on it. For the Lord has delivered us from our enemies and subdued our enemies under our nose.” And the Russian troops returned home after the victory, “glorifying God and the Holy Mother of God, the speedy intercessor of the Christian race.” It is hardly possible to more fully and clearly express the view of Russian history as an area of ​​all-encompassing action of God's Providence. At the same time, the chronicler, as a church man, remained far from primitive fatalism. Acting in a decisive way in history, God's Providence at the same time does not suppress or limit the freedom of personal choice, which lies at the basis of man's responsibility for his deeds and actions.
The historical material against which the concept of the religious and moral conditionality of Russian life is affirmed is the events associated with the changeable military happiness in the chronicle. The next year, after a successful campaign against the Polovtsians, carried out by the united forces of the princes, Igor Svyatoslavich, Prince of Novgorod-Seversky, organized an unsuccessful independent raid. The famous “Tale of Igor’s Campaign” gives an exceptionally beautiful and lyrical description of this campaign. In the chronicle about the campaign of Igor Svyatoslavich, two stories have been preserved. One, more extensive and detailed, is in the Ipatiev Vault. The other, shorter one, is in Lavrentievsky. But even his condensed narrative quite clearly reflects the chronicler’s view of the freedom of human will as a force that, along with the unthinkable Providence of God, determines the course of history.
This time, “we would be defeated by the wrath of God,” which fell on the Russian troops “for our sin.” Realizing the failure of the campaign as a natural result of evading their religious duty, “sighing and weeping spread” among the Russian soldiers, who recalled, in the words of the chronicler, the words of the prophet Isaiah: “Lord, in sorrow we remembered Thee.” Sincere repentance was soon accepted by the merciful God, and “in a few short days Prince Igor ran away from the Polovtsians” - that is, from Polovtsian captivity - “for the Lord will not leave the righteous in the hands of sinners, for the eyes of the Lord are on those who fear Him (look), and His ears are in their prayer (they are obedient to their prayers).” “Behold, having committed a sin for our sake,” the chronicler sums up, “our sins and iniquities have multiplied.” God admonishes those who sin with punishments; those who are virtuous, aware of their duty and fulfilling it, He has mercy and protects. God does not force anyone: man determines his own destiny, the people themselves determine their history - this is how the views of the chronicle can be briefly summarized. One can only reverently marvel at the purity and freshness of the Orthodox worldview of the chroniclers and their heroes, looking at the world with childlike faith, about which the Lord said: “I praise Thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou hast hidden this from the wise and prudent and revealed it to babes; Hey, Father! for such was Your good pleasure” (Luke 10:21).
Developing and complementing each other, Russian chroniclers sought to create a holistic and consistent picture of their native history. This desire was reflected in its entirety in the Moscow chronicle tradition, as if crowning the efforts of many generations of chroniclers. “The Great Russian Chronicler”, the Trinity Chronicle, written under Metropolitan Cyprian, code 1448 and other chronicles, more and more suitable under the name “all-Russian”, despite the fact that they retained local characteristics, and were often written not in Moscow, represent as if the steps along which Russian self-consciousness ascended to an understanding of the unity of the religious destiny of the people.
Mid-16th century became the era of the greatest church-state triumph in Rus'. The original Russian lands were brought together, the Kazan and Astrakhan kingdoms were annexed, and the path to the east was opened - to Siberia and Central Asia. Next in line was the opening of the western gates of the state - through Livonia. All Russian life passed under the sign of reverent churchliness and internal religious concentration. It is not surprising, therefore, that it was during the reign of John IV Vasilyevich that a grandiose chronicle collection was created, reflecting a new understanding of Russian fate and its hidden meaning. He described the entire history of mankind in the form of a succession of great kingdoms. In accordance with the importance attached to the completion of work so important for national self-awareness, the chronicle collection received the most luxurious design. Its 10 volumes were written on the best paper, specially purchased from royal reserves in France. The text was decorated with 15,000 skillfully executed miniatures depicting history “in faces”, for which the collection received the name “Facial Vault”. The last, tenth, volume of the collection was dedicated to the reign of Ivan Vasilyevich, covering events from 1535 to 1567.
When this last volume(known in science under the name of the “Synodal List”, since it belonged to the library of the Holy Synod) was basically ready, it underwent significant editorial changes. Someone's hand made numerous additions, insertions and corrections right on the illustrated sheets. On a new, purely rewritten copy, which entered science under the name “Royal Book,” the same hand again made many new additions and amendments. It seems that the editor of the “Facebook Vault” was John IV himself, who consciously and purposefully worked to complete the “Russian ideology.”
Another collection of chronicles, which, along with the “Face Vault,” was supposed to create a coherent concept of Russian life, was the Degree Book. The basis of this enormous work was the idea that all Russian history from the time of the Baptism of Rus' to the reign of Ivan the Terrible should appear in the form of seventeen degrees (chapters), each of which corresponds to the reign of one or another prince. Summarizing the main thoughts of these extensive chronicles, we can say that they come down to two most important statements, which were destined to determine the course of all Russian life for centuries:
1. God is pleased to entrust the preservation of the truths of Revelation, necessary for the salvation of people, to individual nations and kingdoms, chosen by Him Himself for reasons unknown to the human mind reasons. In Old Testament times, such a ministry was entrusted to Israel. In New Testament history it was successively entrusted to three kingdoms. Initially, the ministry was accepted by Rome, the capital of the world during early Christianity. Having fallen into the heresy of Latinism, he was removed from the ministry successively given to Orthodox Constantinople - the “second Rome” of the Middle Ages. Having encroached on the purity of the preserved faith due to selfish political calculations, having agreed to a union with heretical Catholics (at the Council of Florence in 1439), Byzantium lost the gift of service, which was transferred to the “third Rome” of recent times - to Moscow, the capital of the Russian Orthodox Kingdom. The Russian people are determined to preserve the truths of Orthodoxy “until the end of the age” - the second and glorious Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the meaning of his existence; all his aspirations and strengths must be subordinated to this.
2. The service assumed by the Russian people requires a corresponding organization of the Church, society and state. The divinely established form of existence of the Orthodox people is autocracy. The King is God's Anointed. He is not limited in his autocratic power by anything other than fulfilling the duties of a common service to all. The Gospel is the “constitution” of autocracy. The Orthodox Tsar is the personification of the chosenness and God-bearing nature of the entire people, its prayer chairman and guardian angel.
Metropolitan John (Snychev)

CHRONICLES - historical works of the X-XVIII centuries.

In some cases, the research was carried out by year (by “le-there”; hence the name fybt) and co-pro-w-y-da- moose hro-no-gra-fi-che-ski-mi, sometimes ka-len-dar-ny-mi yes-ta-mi, and sometimes pointing to the clock, when about-is-ho-di-lo co-existence. Chronicles exist in a number of European countries, one wide-spread of the country mainly in The Old Russian state, Russian lands and princes, the Russian state, as well as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. According to visual features, they are close to Western European an-na-lamas and chron-kas. In the Old Russian state, Chronicles could name not only the exact data about what happened, but also the dis- position false descriptions of actions in a chronological order without breaking them down into annual articles. Most of the Chronicles, representing a collection of previous texts, based on yearly records , include do-ku-men-you (inter-national do-go-vo-ry, private and public-personal acts), sa-mo-hundred - significant literary works (“by weight”, “words”, lives and other hagio-graphic materials, sayings) ) or their frag-men, as well as for the texts of folk-lore-no-go pro-is-like-de-niya. Every Chronicle or a chronicle of writings is considered as a self-sufficient integral literary work, I have -what we sat down with, as well as the structure and ideological direction. The main attention in the Chronicles is usually given to the ancestors, since from them, according to medieval ideas, -whether from-me-not-in-the-historical development, around-the-same pra-vi-te-lei, church-hier-rar-hams, war-us and conf-lik-there; in the Chronicles there is not much information about the wide layers of the village, the development of culture, everything there is no outside information about economic developments. Chronicles were usually compiled at the courts of princes, church hierarchs, and in monasteries. Over 1000 lists of Chronicles have been preserved, dating back to the XIII-XVIII centuries, the most ancient of which are per-ga-men “Le-to-pi-sets soon pat-ri-ar-ha Ni-ki-for-ra” with Ros-tov-ski-mi from-ves-tiya-mi (last quarter of the 13th century ), Nov-gorod-skaya first summer-writing of the old-she-go-da (re-editions) (Si-no-distant list, 2nd half XIII century, 2nd quarter of the XIV century), Lav-ren-t-ev-skaya le-to-pis (1377), as well as on-pi-san-naya on bu-ma-ge Ipat-ev- skaya le-to-pis (1420s). Earlier summer-written codes of re-con-st-rui-ru-yut-xia is-sled-to-va-te-la-mi on the basis of ana- li-for the saved-memories. Summer-written texts are class-si-fi-tsi-ru-ut-sya by type, re-dak-tsi-yam, from-vo-dam; according to the conditional names (depending on the production, location, to one person or another; according to places of storage) - Lav-ren-t-ev-skaya, Ipat-ev-skaya, Niko-nov-skaya, Er-mo-lin-skaya, Lvovskaya, Ti-po-grafskaya, etc. If several Chronicles have the same names, a condition is added to them number (Nov-gorod-skie 1-5th, Sophia-skie 1st and 2nd, Pskov-skie 1-3-ya), and tion is connected not with the time of their creation, but either with the subsequent publication, or with other circumstances.

The scheme of the ancient Russian le-to-pi-sa-niya, divided into a whole (with certain stipulations, to -pol-not-nii-mi and from-me-ne-nii-mi) with modern research-to-va-te-la-mi, proposed by A.A. Shah-ma-tov. According to his point of view, the initial stage of Russian literature was the Ancient Code, compiled under the Mitro -according to the ca-fed-re in Kiev around 1039 (according to M.D. Pri-sel-ko-vu - in 1037). In 1073, he was extended and became the head of the Kiev-Pecher Monastery of Ni- co-nom Ve-li-kim; along with other sources, was used by the abbot of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery, Io-an-n, with the co- becoming the so-called At the beginning of the century, around 1093-1095 (original title - “Time-name, like the na-ri-tsa-et-su-le-to- writing of the Russian princes and the land of Russia..."). Text Initially, to the fullest you-write-ka-mi from the Byzantine chronicle and ma-te-ria-la-mi ki-ev-sko-go ve-li-ko-prince-of-ar-hi-va (Russian-Byzantine do-go-vo-ry), lay in the base “By the time of-men- new years." According to the Shah-ma-to-va scheme, its first edition (not preserved) was created by mo-na-khom Kiye- in the Pe-cher-sko-go monastery Ne-sto-rum around 1113, re-ra-ba-you-va-was the abbot of the Ki-ev-sko-go you-du-bits- of the Mi-hai-lov-go monastery of Sil-ve-st-rom in 1116 (kept in the composition of the Lav-ren-t-ev-skaya le-to- pi-si) and an unknown person close to the new city prince of Msti-sla-v Vla-di-mi-ro-vi-chu, in 1118 (kept in the village of Ipat-ev-skaya le-to-pi-si). In the future, the Initial Code and the “Tale of Bygone Years”, as a rule, were used in the production of art -to-rii of Ancient Ru-si in the regional le-to-pi-sa-nii. In later times, the pop-up appeared back in the 1850-1860s (M.I. Su-ho-mli-nov, I. I. Srez-nev-sky and others) concept of the emergence of Russian summer-pi-sa-niya in the form of an-na-li-sti-che- skih notes and their subsequent stage-by-stage narration (V.Yu. Aristov, T.V. Gi-mon, A. A. Gip-pi-us, A.P. To-loch-ko). According to this concept, Russian literature arose in Kiev at the end of the 10th and 11th centuries and continued until the creation of “Po -of all the years" in the form of some an-na-fishings, year-by-year records of some-of-the-years, from-whether- with brevity, fact-graphic-ness, from-the-sut-st-vi-em of complex narrative constructions, development were in the right direction to increase the accuracy (appearance of exact dates) and increase the volume of light -de-niy, ras-shi-re-niya te-ma-ti-ki and ob-ga-sche-niya nar-ra-tiv-ny-mi insert-ka-mi and until-pol-not-nii- mi.

“The Tale of Bygone Years” formed the basis of the Ki-ev-sk-le-to-pi-sa-niya, which was carried out on pro-tya history of the XII - 1st third of the XIII centuries. The most important stage of its development was the Kiev vault of 1198 (kept in the Ipat-ev-skaya le-to-pi-si village) , founded in the Vydubetsky monastery. According to B.A. Fish-ba-ko-va, he was preceded by 3 other svo-das, established: in the Kiev-Pecher-sky monastery by abbot Po-li-kar-pom (oh-vaty-val of the co-being of 1141-1171); at the court of the Ki-ev-sky prince of the Holy-glory Vse-vo-lo-di-cha (1179); at the court of the Bel-gorod-sko-go and ov-ru-sko-go prince Ryu-ri-ka Ros-ti-sla-vi-cha (1190). According to V.T. Pa-shu-to, Kiev-skoe le-to-pi-sa-nie lasted until 1238. Its individual fragments (for example, the description of the Battle of Kalka in 1223) became part of the Galits-ko-Volyn-skaya le-to-pi-si ( XIII century; perhaps, separate summer records were kept in Ga-li-che and Vla-di-re-Vo-lyn from the middle of the 12th century) , which at the end of the 13th century was united with the Kiev Battle of 1198. Both remembrances were kept in the Ipat-ev-skaya le-to-pi-si.

The Nov-gorod-skoe le-to-pi-sa-nie arose between 1039 and 1042 as a shortened selection or a copy of the earlier Kiev Chronicle (possibly the Ancient Code), which is subsequently not a system-te-ma-ti-che-ski lasted until 1079. Around 1093, the New City arch was created, which was based on the previous New City tradition and culture. Ev-sky Initial vault (according to A.A. Gip-pi-us, T.V. Gi-mon). In the mid-2nd half of the 1110s the so-called Leningrad was formed. the Vse-vo-lo-yes vault, in which the Novy-gorod vault was com- pletely extracted from the Ki-ev-skogo le-to-pi- sa-niya and notes-ka-mi about the new-city so-by-ti-yah of the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th centuries, written down mainly by memory -ti. In the future, annual records in Novgorod were kept regularly. Is-follow-up-to-va-te-la-mi you-de-la-you-are-the-new-city-vul-dical vault, compiled by Herman Vo- started in the 2nd half of the 1160s and continued until 1188. In the next century, the ruler's le-to-pi-sa-nie was carried out practically without interruptions until the 1430s. According to Gip-piu-sa, Ger-man Vo-yata also created the ancient vault of the Yur-e-va monastery, on the basis of something Around 1195, a new vault was built in this monastery.

An important step in the New-city le-to-pi-sa-niya was the creation of the New-city 1st le-to-pi-si, came before us in 2 of the vo-dahs (re-dak-tsi-yah) - the elder and the younger (a number of lists from the middle of the 15th century). The next stage of the New-Gorod-sko-go-le-to-pi-sa-niya was developed in 2 sub-bor-kahs of the New-Gorod-Karam-zin -sky le-to-pi-si, okan-chi-va-shih-sya in 1411 and 1428 and preserved in the unified list of the late 15th - early 16th centuries . The co-founder of these sub-rocks for the first time paid attention not only to the local New-City, but also to the general Russian wow. This ten-den-tion is based on its development in the New City 4th Le-to-pi-si senior (from-lo-zhe-nie life before 1437; lists of the 1470s and the 1st quarter of the 16th century) and younger ones (before 1447; lists from the last quarter of the 15th century) edited tions. Its special re-working appears in the Nov-gorod-skaya 5th chronicle (from before 1446, list) the end of the 15th century), in which there is a tendency to return mainly to the location of local new towns -would-be. The history of the New City republic for the years 1447-1469 was preserved in the most complete form in the world. hundred-ve so-called Le-to-pi-si Av-ra-am-ki (1st part before 1469, created in the late 1460s - early 1470s; 2nd part - in 1495); more brief versions of the summer of the 3rd quarter of the 15th century - in some lists of the Novgorod 4th summer pi-si, and also (until 1461) in the Le-to-scribe of Episcopal Paul (list of the 2nd half of the 16th century). Despite the morning of the New-Gorod-res-pub-li-coy not-behind-the-vi-si-mo-sti (1478), summer-written work -that in Novgorod continued in the 16th century. In 1539, according to the authority of Arch-bishop Ma-ka-ria, a le-to-piss vault was created, known under the name of the New City Le-re -the-writing of Dub-rov-skogo (or Nov-gorod-skaya 4th le-to-write according to the list of Dub-rov-sko-go) (from the lo-zhe-nie- until 1539; preserved in the list at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th centuries). Another Chronicle of the 16th century - Nov-gorod-skaya 2nd, until 1572 - in fact, not-completed for-go-tov -ka, in which so-b-ra-ny you-pi-ki from various Chronicles without co-blue-de-niy chron-no-logich. in a row.

At the end of the 16th and 17th centuries, the Novgorod Uva-rovskaya Le-to-pis was compiled (continuous text until 1606, individual weight of 1612, 1645 and 1646), the final part of which (since 1500) is based on not-saved new native sources. The reintroduction of summer writing work in Novgorod (1670-1680s) is connected with the activity pat-ri-ar-ha Io-a-ki-ma. At this time, the Novgorod 3rd edition was created (spatially re-edited in the first form from -but-sit-by the time between 1674 and 1676, in the final form - by 1682 and, possibly, several after- this year; a brief edition in full form between 1682 and 1690, in brief - between 1690 and 1695 years), as well as the largest, both in volume and in abundance and variety of used sources -kov Nov-gorod-skaya Za-be-lin-skaya le-to-pis (from-lo-zhe-nie before-ve-de-but until 1679; co-sta-le-on the inter-zh -du 1680 and 1681). Afterwards, a significant memory of the New-city-rod-sko-le-to-pi-sa-niya became Nov-go-rod-skaya Po-go-din-skaya le-to-pis (created in the 1680-1690s), before late XVII century, and in some ru-ko-pi-syakh pro-long-wives until the end of the 18th and even early XIX centuries. What is particularly special about the New City Chronicles of the late 17th century is the appearance in them of systematic references to sources -ki and even individual elements of cri-ti-ki is-precisely.

Per-re-yas-lav-skoye le-to-pi-sa-nie arose in the 1st quarter of the 12th century in the city of Per-re-yas-lavl (Russian), per-vo-na -started, but as the bishop's le-to-pi-sets (until 1175), someone was replaced by the prince's le-to-pi-sets, led as a mi-ni-mum until 1228.

On the basis of ana-li-for the preserved Chronicles you-de-la-et-sya and pre-Mongol-Cher-ni-gov-skoe le-to-pi -sa-nie, representing the summer-pi-set of the Prince of the Holy-glory Ol-go-vi-cha, arose in the 1140s and continued -married under his sons - Ole Svyato-sla-vi-che (died in 1180) and Igor Svyato-sla-vi-che (died in 1201).

In the Russian-in-Suz-dal-land, summer-written records have been traced since the middle of the 12th century, systematic Summer written records in North-Eastern Russia began to weigh in the late 1150s in Vladimir. In 1177, under the Uspensky council, the first vla-di-mir le-to-pis-ny vault was created. In the subsequent great princely palaces (1193, 1212 and 1228), local influences also co-existed with information from the summer writings of Pe-re-yas-lav-la (Russian). To the memory of the Vla-di-mir-skogo le-to-pi-sa-niya of the 13th century from the Rad-zi-vil-lov-skaya le-to-writing, preserved in 2 copies of the 15th century. (Rad-zi-vil-lov-sky sp-sok pro-il-lu-st-ri-ro-van more than 600 mi-nia-tyu-ra-mi). IN XIII-XV centuries the hundred-year-old summer-written work was carried out in Ros-to-ve, frag-ment-men of the Ro-tov-sko-le-to-pi-sa- nia were preserved in the composition of the Russian public codes of the 15th-16th centuries.

By the 13th century, from the Pskov summer, which was connected with the aspirations of the Pskov region -whose pri-ob-re-sti is not-for-vis-si-most from the Nov-gorod-skaya re-pub-li-ki. Since the beginning of the 14th century, summer-pi-sa-nie was carried out at the Tro-its-kom so-bo-re, ru-ko-in-di-li-them in the garden. The pro-graph of the Pskov Chronicles that have come down to us was created in the 1450s or early 1460s as a result of the unification of shi-ro-co- go-kru-ha is-to-k-kov (Pskov-le-to-pi-s-pi-s, chrono-graphically ma-ter-ria-lov, smo-len-sko-li -tovsky is-toch-ni-ka, etc.). According to A.N. On-so-but-woo, as a result of it, until its completion, the codes of 1464, 1469, 1481 and the end of the 1480s arose. The oldest preserved Pskov Chronicle - Pskov 2nd Chronicle (from before 1486), presented by a single Si-no-distant list (mid-1480s), which was, in the opinion of Na-so-no- va, copy her pro-graph, but in my opinion B.M. Klos-sa, - her under-lin-no-one. On the basis of the building of 1481, 2 rights arose in the development of the Pskov summer, co-storage -she-go-xia and after the union of the Pskov Republic to the Russian state (1510). The first of them was presented by the code of 1547 (Pskov 1st Le-to-pis), co-sta-vi-tel of some co-feeling -vu-et to Moscow go-su-da-ryam, but about-li-cha-et them in-me-st-ni-kov; the second is the house of the abbot of the Psko-vo-Pe-cher-skogo monastery. Cor-ni-liy of 1567 (Pskov 3rd summer letter), reflecting the mood of the bo-yar-st-va, op-po-zi-tsi-on-but -go Mo-sk-ve.

According to A.N. On-so-now, from the end of the 13th century until the annexation of the Tver Grand Duchy to the Russian State (1485), the Tver forest was continuously conducted -to-pi-sa-nie. Once upon a time, the Tver summer-written ma-te-ri-al was preserved only in the form of separate pieces and excerpts, because it was glo-loved by the Moscow le-to-pi-sa-ni-y, and sometimes, perhaps, on-the-measure-but-destroyed-wives by Moscow books-no-ka- mi. Tver ma-te-ri-al co-contained in the great-prince's court of 1305, which became the basis of Lav-ren-ty-ev -skoy le-to-pi-si. Is-follow-to-va-te-la-mi you-de-la-ut-sya Tver arches of 1327, 1409, etc. Tver is-exactly used-uses -was involved in the compilation of the Ro-gozh-skogo le-to-scribe of the 1st half of the 15th century (list of the mid-15th century). The Tver Le-to-piss (Tver collection), containing a fragment of the Tver Le-to-pi-sa-niya, has been preserved the end of the 13th - the end of the 15th centuries (lists from the 17th century).

In connection with the rise of Mo-s-cov-sko-go-prince-st-va of Mo-s-cov-skoe le-to-pi- sa-nie, first-in-at-first-but (in the 14th century) su-sche-st-vo-vav-neck in the form of brief za-pi-se mi-tro-personally -th yard and family chronicle of Mo-s-cov-skih Yes-no-vi-whose, re-accepted and developed a society Russian summer-written tradition. Due to the political position of Mo-sk-you, both princely and mi-tro-personal le-to-pi have developed here -sa-nie. The first Moscow grand princely palace was the “Great Russian Le-to-pi-sets” (1389). The next significant memory of the summer in Moscow was the Russian society for the maintenance of Tro- Its-kaya le-to-write (from before 1408), compiled, according to V.A. Kuch-ki-na, after 1422. One of the largest written monuments of the 2nd half of the 15th century is the Moscow Grand Prince's Code of 1479, the ideological basis -how someone has established the hereditary right of the Grand Dukes of Moscow to Novgorod. Its later edition is the Moscow Grand Prince's Code of the late 15th century. An important memory of the Moscow le-to-pi-sa-niya of the end of the 15th century is the Si-me-o-nov-skaya le-to-pis (list of the 16th century ).

A wide range of sources (some of them unique) were attracted by Metropolitan Da-ni-l when he created the Ni-ko- new le-to-pi-si - the largest memory of the Russian summer-to-pi-sa of the 16th century, subsequently the best -the name according to one of the later lists, under the-above-the-lying Patriarch Niko-nu. Is-to-ria was based on Da-ni-lom mainly from a church point of view, and the protection of property in- the Church has moved to the forefront. In the early 1560s, the summer-written tradition of the Moscow mi-tro-personal department continued in the “Step-pen-book” ", established under the blue-de-ni-em of Metropolitan Afa-na-siya and pro-po-ve-to-va-shay "symphony" of churches and secular authorities.

The Moscow summer-to-pi-sa-nie was carried out non-stop until the end of the 1560s, the largest memory-memories - os-no-van-naya at the Moscow Grand Prince's Palace at the end of the 15th century. Vos-Kre-sen-skaya le-to-pis (1st edition on-cha-ta in 1533, last, 3rd, edition created-on-me- railway 1542 and 1544) and “Le-to-pi-sets na-cha-la tsar-st-va” (in the first-initial edition from-la-gav-shiy events of 1533-1552 and then continued until 1556 and 1560). In the 2nd half of the 16th century, the Litse-voy vault was created - the most complete en-cyclo-pedia of historical knowledge of medieval Russia.

The most important chronicle of the 1st third of the 17th century was the New Le-to-pi-sets, an oh-you-shay period since the end of the tsar-st-vo. va-niya Iva-na IV Va-sil-e-vi-cha Groz-no-go until 1630. Ver-ro-yat-but, he is set up in the vicinity of the pat-ri-ar-ha Fi-la-re-ta and is based on a lot -numerical and different sources, including official grams and documents from the period of Time of Troubles -ni, various Chronicles, etc. He had a significant influence on the subsequent development of Russian literature, the later creation its numerous continuations and re-workings.

Between 1652 and 1658, in the Moscow Chu-do-voy monastery, a pat-ri-ar-shiy summer-written vault of 1652 was created, the basis of which according to the significant-but-abbreviated texts of Vos-Kre-sen-skaya and Niko-nov-skaya le-to-pi-sey, and so- the same source, close to the New-letter-scribe; so-sta-vi-te-la-mi a number of words and sayings have been introduced into the written text. The work of the scribes of the Chu-do-va monastery became a pat-ri-ar-shiy le-to-piss code of the 1670s, and for -that pat-ri-ar-shiy summer-written code of the 1680s (between 1680 and 1688; from the weight-ten in 2 editions of the 1690s ). The vault of the 1680s became one of the most important literary monuments of the 17th century, created not from the world. nia of the Russian-society le-to-pi-sa-niya; for his co-sta-vi-te-la ha-rak-ter-but aspiration on the shi-ro-com is-to-ric ma-te-ria-le to establish a con-chain tion of the “out-of-bra-no-sti” of the Russian state and its self-powers among all the nations and states of the world. The author gave a patriotic, “go-su-dar-st-ven-nuyu,” point of view on domestic history.

In the 15th-16th centuries, a wide range of short-form scribes were obtained, which became part of the -st-ryakh: Ki-ril-lo-Be-lo-zer-skom, Io-si-fo-Vo-lo-ko-lam-skom, Troi-tse-Ser-gie-vom, So-lovets -com, Spa-so-Yaroslav-sk. Once upon a time, pro-vints. le-to-pi-sa-nie in Vo-lo-gde, Ve-li-kom Us-tyu-ge and some other cities. Significantly its-ra-zi-em from-li-cha-yut-sya le-to-pi-si white-Russian-li-tov-s, created on the territory ri-to-rii of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the XIV-XVI centuries and its sacred histories. At the beginning of the 16th century, a new type of historical history appeared, which was represented in the Russian chro-no-graphy. fe (the so-called re-edition of 1512) (see the article Chro-no-graphs). In the 17th-18th centuries, the summer-written form of the established system was preserved only in the provincial let-to-pi-sa -nii, and by the end of the 18th century it ceased to exist.

In the middle of the 19th century, the publication of Chronicles began in the series “Complete collection of Russian chronicles” (PSRL).

The chronicles are the most important information on Russian history of the 9th-16th centuries, they contain a valuable material on history to-rii of the 17th-18th centuries. In the Chronicles from-ra-zhe-na bo-ga-taya si-no-ni-mi-ka, with-kept-shay military, church-naya and hell-mi-ni-st -ra-tiv-naya ter-mi-no-logia, on-m-astic and to-po-ni-mic lex-si-ka (many personal names, nicknames , geographical names, names of churches, monasteries, names of people according to their place of living tel-st-va), phrase-zeo-logia, use-re-la-ut-sya for-them-st-vo-van-nye words and cal-ki with Greek language. By comparing the lek-si-ki “According to the weight of the times” and the later Chronicles, it is possible to trace the life of some people -mi-new, in part-of the military, right up to their removal and replacement with new ones.

The language of the Chronicles has its own uniqueness and unity, and a certain unity -noe work-toy re-dak-to-ditch. The language of the Chronicles does not represent a single system. In it, in addition to two stylistic types of the ancient Russian literary language - bookish (see Church-Slavic language) and vernacular once-a-thieves, - found the origin of the dialistic difference. Individual language features, for example in fo-ne-ti-ke and le-si-ke, indicate their source of different regional lo-ka-li-za-tion; grammatical and syn-tactical phenomena are more difficult to locate.

The originality of Old Russian literature as medieval literature

Handwritten character (in the beginning was the word, the word was with God, the word was God)

Variability of the text (edition - if deliberately changed, variant - if there are typos, excerpt - if the text is moved far from the place of writing, list - copy) the text is fluid, unstable

Anonymous character (they did not know the personal principle, collective forms of perception predominated)

Medieval historicism - documentary, authenticity of the liter. (until the 16th century, the liter did not know fiction)

Applied nature (the creation of a work was a public order; the text served a non-literary function)

Religious character (litera of that time is associated with Christianity)

Artistic originality ancient Russian literature

No rhyme

Dr. genres (they did not know the novel and drama; but there was chronicle writing, hagiography and eloquence)

Bilingualism (mixing of Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian languages ​​even in one work)

Handwritten character

About ink and birch bark and parchment (calfskin)

Not books, but manuscripts (the word “book” is almost never used)

There are palimpsests(this is when the original text of the manuscript is erased and another one is written)

Anonymity of works

Features of the chronicle genre

Chronicles are usually called “monuments of historical writing and literature of Ancient Rus'. The narration in them was carried out year by year in chronological order (the story about the events of each year began with the words “in the summer:” - hence the name “chronicle” (The word “chronicle” is ambiguous: this is also the name of a type of historical writing that has special external features (“writing”) by year") - entry historical events is carried out by year - i.e. in chronological order; and a separate book consisting of records of this type, and a part of the book containing the annual grid. In the narrow sense of the word, chronicles are the records of contemporaries of events. United in chronological order, such records and other historical writings form a chronicle. The compiler of the code may no longer be a contemporary of the events discussed in his work. Experts also distinguish between chronicle collections, which sometimes represent a mechanical combination of several chronicles or codes in one manuscript, and chronicle lists, i.e. handwritten copies from a chronicle, codex or collection. The compilation of chronicles was a historical-legal moment; The chronicle, telling about the past, consolidated some important stage of the present. Mostly officials worked on the compilation of chronicles: princely and sovereign servants, charterers, Pskov mayors, and later clerks. It is known that one could be removed from chronicling, and this was perceived as a punishment; the chronicles were never shown to foreigners. The chronicle style, which corresponded to the literary etiquette of the 11th - 13th centuries, was called the style of monumental historicism. The authors consider the basis of this style to be the desire of the ancient Russian scribe to judge everything from the point of view general meaning and the goals of human existence, hence the desire to show only the largest and most significant, from large spatial and temporal distances.

Genre features of the chronicle

Kievan Rus in a short period of time acquired a rich and varied literature. The authors of the academic “History of Russian Literature” showed that a whole system of genres was transferred to new soil: chronicles, historical stories, lives, patericons, “words”, teachings and stated that the system of genres of Byzantine or ancient Bulgarian literature was not completely taken over by Russia: ancient Russian scribes preferred some genres and rejected others; at the same time, genres arose that had no analogies in “model literature” (see more details IRL. In 4 volumes. T.1.-L., 1980. - P.1 -36). This statement goes back to the works of D. S. Likhachev “The System of Literary Genres of Ancient Rus'” (1963) and “The Origin and Development of Genres of Old Russian Literature” (1973). They express the idea that the system of literary genres of Ancient Rus' was supplemented by folklore, that there was a discrepancy between the secular needs of a feudalizing society in the 11th - 13th centuries. and this literary and folklore system of genres.

D. S. Likhachev pointed out that the need to create their own literary genres was due to the lack of sufficiently strong economic and military ties in the huge early feudal state of the Eastern Slavs - the country was torn apart by the strife of the princes: “To maintain unity, high public morality, a sense of honor, loyalty, dedication, patriotic self-awareness and high development of the art of persuasion, verbal art - genres of political journalism, genres that develop love for one’s native country, lyric-epic genres. The help of literature in these conditions was as important as the help of the church. We needed works that would clearly indicate the historical and political unity of the Russian people: That is why, despite the presence of two complementary systems of genres - literary and folklore, Russian literature of the 11th - 13th centuries. was in the process of genre formation“In different ways, from different roots, works constantly arise that stand apart from traditional systems of genres, destroy them or creatively unite them” (Likhachev D.S. Studies in Old Russian Literature. - L., 1986. - P. 82 -83).

So, let's begin our consideration of the first question with the statement of D.S. Likhachev that for the XI - XIII centuries. characteristic of many more or less talented works going beyond traditional genre boundaries; these works are distinguished by “infantile softness and vagueness of form.”

Chronicle- one of these genres. Chronicles are usually called “monuments of historical writing and literature of Ancient Rus'. The narration in them was carried out year by year in chronological order (the story about the events of each year began with the words “in the summer:” - hence the name “chronicle” (Literature and culture of Ancient Rus': Dictionary-reference book / Ed. V. V. Kuskov.- M., 1994.- P. 78). The word “chronicle” is ambiguous: this is also the name of a type of historical writing that has special external features (“writing by years”) - historical events are recorded by year - i.e. in chronological order. ; both a separate book consisting of records of this type, and a part of the book containing an annual grid. In the narrow sense of the word, chronicles are records of contemporaries of events combined in chronological order, such records and other historical works. chronicle. The compiler of the code may no longer be a contemporary of the events discussed in his work. Experts also distinguish chronicle collections, sometimes representing a mechanical connection in one manuscript of several chronicles or codes , and chronicle lists, those. handwritten copies from a chronicle, codex or collection.

Today we will dwell on those features of the chronicle as a historical work that distinguish it from European works of this type and allow us to call this genre original (that is, having no analogues, created by Russian scribes, and not transplanted from outside). Medievalists state that the chronicle occupies a leading place in the DRL. It developed from the 11th to the 18th centuries and has come down to us in a huge number of monuments (their publication was carried out by the Academy of Sciences during 1841-1982 in 37 volumes of the “Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles”). No other European literature knows such a number of historical works!

In the history of the study of the chronicle, two periods can be traced, characterized by an intensive increase in the interest of scientists in monuments of this type. The first is associated with the name of one of the founders of the philological school in Russian literary criticism - Alexei Alexandrovich Shakhmatov (1864 -1920). This scientist laid the foundations of textual criticism as a science and conducted a textual study of chronicles. The second period begins with the works of M. D. Priselkov (“History of Russian chronicles of the 11th - 15th centuries” - Leningrad, 1940) and D. S. Likhachev (“Russian chronicles and their cultural and historical significance” - M.-L. , 1947).

I consider it necessary to draw your attention to those methods of textual study of the chronicle that were developed by A. A. Shakhmatov and to this day remain in the arsenal of philological science:

He first studied the texts and their relationships, established their origin, and then published them (before him, it was customary in science to first publish and then study an ancient text);

He created scientific reconstructions of texts as illustrations to their conclusions (Shahmatov’s predecessors, based on the best readings in original texts, created so-called “summary texts” or reconstructions and added their hypotheses to them);

The text in all its historical changes was a single whole for Shakhmatov, and he believed that it was changing as a whole;

For him, the text was never closed in on itself; he studied texts as part of collections, as part of archives, as part of a literary movement; behind the text he sought to see the entire written culture of the people;

He sought not only to state the movement of the text, but also to explain this movement; he believed that in order to determine a fact, its understanding was necessary;

He sought an explanation for the movement of the text outside the text (in the creators, in their views on the world, in their methods of work, and only when it was not possible to find the conscious activity of its creator in the movement of the text, Shakhmatov explained the changes in the text by copyist errors, accidental losses, etc. .).

At the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries. A. A. Shakhmatov creates a special method for studying chronicles, called historical-critical. On its basis, a work was created in 1908, summing up the results of the scientist’s numerous studies on the most ancient chronicles- “Research on the most ancient Russian chronicles”, which is a unique history of Kievan Rus. In the work, the history of the text of “The Tale of Bygone Years” is accompanied by a historical analysis that explains the reasons for certain changes in the chronicle. The most interesting thing about his method is that the scientist did not divide philological sciences into basic and auxiliary, believing that generalizations should be built only on the basis of primary sources.

Such a lengthy methodological passage was undertaken in order to convince you, novice philologists, never to limit yourself to getting acquainted with a brief summary of the work, with its textbook versions, but to turn to scientific publications primary sources, always read the text “from cover to cover” as an integral unity.

Throughout the twentieth century in Russian literary criticism, the conclusions and observations of A. A. Shakhmatov were clarified, supplemented, and shared by more than one generation of scientists, but even today it cannot be said that science knows everything about the chronicle. Thus, D.S. Likhachev outlined ways for additional research into the origin of the chronicle genre; he believed that a scientist could gain a lot from studying the circumstances under which this or that chronicle arose: “Some chronicles arose in connection with the rise of this or that prince, others - in connection with the establishment of a bishopric or archbishopric, others - in connection with the annexation of a principality or region, fourths - in connection with the construction of cathedral churches, etc. All this suggests that the compilation of chronicles was a historical-legal moment; the chronicle corpus, telling about the past, consolidated some important stage of the present: For the history of the chronicle genre itself, it is very important to find out exactly under what circumstances chronicles were turned to, to determine the functions of this genre” (Likhachev D. S. Studies on Old Russian Literature. - S. 65).

Russian chronicle writing began in the first half of the 11th century. in Kyiv and Novgorod. Mostly officials worked on the compilation of chronicles: princely and sovereign servants, charterers, Pskov mayors, and later clerks. It is known that one could be removed from chronicling, and this was perceived as a punishment; the chronicles were never shown to foreigners - why? These and other questions related to the mystery of the genre are unlikely to ever receive a definite answer.

But many features of the chronicle have been studied in sufficient detail, and their assimilation should not cause you any professional difficulties. First of all, this concerns questions chronicle style and forms of chronicle narration. Let me remind you of two fairly well-known definitions of style: “Style is a person” (J. Buffon); “Style may be defined as follows: the appropriate words in the appropriate place” (J. Swift). In literary criticism, style usually means the uniqueness of creative style, based on a stable complex of formal and artistic properties. But the definitions of style that you know cannot be applied to the DRL, since ancient Russian genres are much more associated with certain types of style than the genres of modern times: “We can talk about the unity of the style of the festive word, panegyric life, chronicle, chronograph, etc.” (Likhachev D.S. Poetics of Old Russian Literature. 3rd ed. - M., 1979. - P. 70).

What is it based on? unity of chronicle style?

First of all, as noted in a number of works by I. P. Eremin, on style of the era, i.e. general trends in worldview, literature, art, norms of social behavior (see for more details: Eremin I.P. Literature of Ancient Rus'. (Sketches and Characteristics). - M.-L., 1966). This concept was concretized by D. S. Likhachev using the term literary etiquette, expressing the refraction of the style of the era in the literary work. “Literary etiquette and the literary canons developed by it are the most typical medieval conditional-normative connection between content and form” (Likhachev D.S. Poetics of ancient Russian literature, Ed. 3-M., 1979.-P. 80 - 81).

(In anticipation of your independent work With this source, we will create a guide to the specified section of the monograph.

1. Feudalism created developed rituals: church and secular. The relationships between people and their relationship to God were subject to etiquette, tradition, custom, ceremonial (etiquette is an established order of behavior, forms of treatment; a ceremony accepted at the royal, princely court).

2. From public life, a penchant for etiquette penetrates into art.

3. In literature, the subject in question requires certain formulas and language for its depiction.

4. The use of the Church Slavonic language was clearly subject to etiquette in the Middle Ages; church subjects required church language, secular ones - Russian.

5. Certain expressions and a certain style of presentation are selected for appropriate situations; these situations are created by writers exactly as required by etiquette requirements.

6. Etiquette requires a certain “good manners”.

7. Behavior ideal heroes obeys norms taken from real customs, the behavior of villains is the etiquette of the situation.

8. From work to work, what was related to etiquette was transferred: speeches that should be made in a given situation, actions that should be performed under given circumstances.

9. A medieval writer looks for precedents in the past, is concerned with patterns, formulas, analogies, selects quotes, subordinates events, actions, thoughts, feelings and speeches of characters and his own language to a pre-established “order”.

10. Before us is creativity in which the writer strives to express his ideas about what is proper and proper, not so much by inventing something new as by combining the old).

The chronicle style, which corresponded to the literary etiquette of the 11th - 13th centuries, was called the style of monumental historicism. Along with the epic style of chronicling, it is described in detail in the textbook edited by D. S. Likhachev. The authors consider the basis of this style to be the desire of the ancient Russian scribe to judge everything from the point of view of the general meaning and goals of human existence, hence the desire to show only the largest and most significant, from large spatial and temporal distances. “This is a style within which everything that is most significant and beautiful appears monumental, majestic, and is perceived as if from a bird’s eye view: The historicism of the monumental style was expressed in a special passion for the historical theme: Scribes tried every historical event or character connect with others, equally historical:” (1980, p. 79).

Let us consider from these positions the obituary description of Prince Vladimir: “In the year 6523 (1015). ... That new Konstantin great Rome; just as he was baptized himself and baptized his people, so this one did the same: It is worthy of surprise how much good he did for the Russian land by baptizing it. We, having become Christians, do not give him honors equal to his work. For if he had not baptized us, then even now we would still be in the devil’s error, in which our first parents perished... We should pray to God for him, since through him we came to know God.” (PLDR. Issue 1, - P. 147). The description names the main historical merit of Vladimir - the baptism of Rus', defines the historical meaning of this event, it is inscribed in world history through parallels Vladimir - Constantine, Kievan Rus- Byzantium.

The content of the chronicle as a genre is primarily the political history of the country. The purpose of the chronicle is to tell descendants about the past, about the historical events of their time, to show with examples how to and how not to act. In achieving this goal, the role of the chronicler is great - the compiler of the chronicle, who strove to write the truth (“unsweet” and “unsweetened”). He creates a set, a compilation, that is, he turns to diverse sources of information about the past and present, reworks the text of his predecessor, supplementing it. This allows us to call the chronicle a universal, unifying genre, which includes a huge amount of information written in a multi-genre and multi-style manner, which is cemented by an annual grid (arrangement of material by year), which fundamentally distinguishes the Russian chronicle from Byzantine chronicles.

The concept of vault was introduced into science by A. A. Shakhmatov. Its meaning becomes clear from the enumeration of the forms of chronicle narration: weather record, chronicle legend, chronicle story, chronicle story, documents from the princely archives; in it you can find excerpts from translated monuments, theological treatises, hagiographic fragments, and words of praise. A novice philologist should first learn to distinguish between two types of narration: actual weather records and chronicle stories.

Weather writing is the oldest form of storytelling. It is introduced into the text with the formula “In the summer:” (In the year:): “In the year 6560 (1052). Vladimir, the eldest son of Yaroslav, reposed in Novgorod and was laid in St. Sophia, which he himself erected”; “Per year 6561 (1053). Vsevolod had a son from the royal daughter, a Greek woman, and named him Vladimir” (note the specific chronology - the years were counted not from the Nativity of Christ, but from the creation of the world, the gap between these milestones of Christian history is 5508 years). I. P. Eremin concluded: “The sphere of weather news is isolated facts, interesting from the point of view of the chronicler and worthy of mention, but not requiring detailed presentation” (p. 55). Among such facts (event messages) include the birth and death of princes and church hierarchs, the founding of churches, natural disasters, solar eclipses, and the appearance of comets.

Chronicle stories offer descriptions of events. They are strictly factual and full of specific details, reproducing the logic of the event and the dialogues of the characters. Their style is reminiscent of the eyewitness account: “In the year 6524 (1016). Yaroslav came to Svyatopolk, and they stood on both sides of the Dnieper, and neither one decided against one another, nor one against another, and stood like that for three months against each other. And the governor Svyatopolk, driving along the shore, began to reproach the Novgorodians, saying: “What did they come with this lame man? You are carpenters. We’ll set you to chop down our mansions!” Hearing this, the Novgorodians said to Yaroslav that “tomorrow we will cross over to him; If anyone doesn’t come with us, we’ll attack him ourselves.” It's already frosty. Svyatopolk stood between two lakes and drank all night with his retinue. In the morning, Yaroslav, having completed his squad, crossed at dawn. And, having landed on the shore, they pushed the boats away from the shore, and went against the enemies, and fought in battle. The slaughter was brutal, and the Pechenegs could not help because of the lake; and they pressed Svyatopolk and his squad to the lake, and stepped onto the ice, and the ice broke under them, and Yaroslav began to overcome, but seeing this, Svyatopolk ran and defeated Yaroslav. Svyatopolk fled to Poland, and Yaroslav sat in Kyiv on his father’s and grandfather’s table. And then Yaroslav was twenty-eight years old” (PLDR. Issue 1., - P. 157)

In the above example we see all of the above features of the chronicle story.

Chronicle stories, in turn, are divided by experts into two subtypes, depending on whether the events are contemporary with the chronicler or whether we are talking about what happened long before the chronicle was written (i.e. the source of information is of oral and poetic origin, such stories are distinguished by their entertaining plot and amaze the imagination the extraordinary strength of the heroes, their wisdom or cunning). I. P. Eremin proposes to distinguish two more types in the latter: princely-squad origin and folk. By comparing the chronicle biography of Prince Oleg (weather records from 852 to 912) and the story of the young man-kozhemyak (under 992), we will be convinced that the events in them are considered with different points vision.

To consolidate knowledge of the features of the chronicle style and forms of chronicle narration, practical lesson © 1 is used, the tasks of which include independent work with the text “The Tale of Bygone Years” - this is the scientific name for the chronicle corpus created at the beginning of the 12th century, the oldest of those that have survived to our time, All subsequent Russian chronicles go back to it in one way or another.

To understand the phenomenon of PVL, you should familiarize yourself with the hypotheses about its formation.

History of early Russian chronicles

In philological science, the study of chronicles of the early period presents significant difficulties, since the oldest chronicle collections that have survived to our time date back to the 13th - late 14th centuries (thus the Ipatiev Chronicle - an all-Russian chronicle collection of the southern edition of the late 13th - early 14th centuries - reached the list of 15 century; the Laurentian chronicle was rewritten in 1377). Through the works of A. A. Shakhmatov, M. D. Priselkov and D. S. Likhachev, a hypothesis was created about the initial stage of Russian chronicle writing (a hypothesis is a scientific assumption put forward to explain any phenomena, the scientific reliability of which has not yet been proven experimentally). Now she has entered academic history Russian literature and in university textbooks on the history of ancient Russian literature.

According to this hypothesis, chronicles appear during the time of Yaroslav the Wise, at the moment when Rus' begins to fight for church and political independence. Apparently, then the first historical works were created, claiming that the history of Rus' repeats the history of other Christian powers. The most ancient events of Russian history were reconstructed from a wide variety of oral and written sources. The history of Rus' was correlated with world history.

Let us consider the schemes for the formation of the most ancient chronicles according to the mentioned hypotheses.

A. A. Shakhmatov’s hypothesis

Scheme © 1

Scheme © 1 compiled on the basis of the works of A. A. Shakhmatov “Research on the most ancient Russian chronicle codes” - St. Petersburg, 1908; “The Tale of Bygone Years”, Vol. 1. Introductory part. Text. Notes - Pg., 1916; and “The Kiev initial code of 1095” - in the book. Shakhmatov A. A. Collection of articles and materials. - M. -L., 1947. - P. 117 - 160.

Shakhmatov’s hypothesis was clarified, and in some provisions, challenged by academician V.M. Istrin, who believed that the Novgorod chroniclers shortened the text of the PVL, therefore, the Novgorod chronicles do not precede the PVL, but go back to it

Hypothesis of V. M. Istrin

Scheme © 2

Chronicle of George Amartol

Chronograph

according to the great exposition of 1039

The Tale of Bygone Years

First edition 1054

The Tale of Bygone Years.

Edited by Nestor 1113

Scheme 2 compiled on the basis of the work of V. M. Istrin. Notes on the beginning of Russian chronicles: Regarding the research of A. A. Shakhmatov in the field of Russian chronicles. -IORYAS for 1921, 1923, vol. 23. - P. 45 - 102; for 1922, 1924, vol. 24. - p. 207 - 251. Pay attention to the abbreviation IORYAS - this is the abbreviation for the periodical publication - Izvestia of the Department of Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences, published in St. Petersburg-Petrograd-Leningrad from 1896 to 1927; a total of 32 volumes were published.

Further refinements of A. A. Shakhmatov’s hypothesis were made by D. S. Likhachev / and in its main features it was shared by many followers of A. A. Shakhmatov, for example, M. D. Priselkov, L. V. Cherepnin, A. N. Nasonov, Y. S. Lurie and others - you can read about this in the textbook by V. V. Kuskov/. In D. S. Likhachev’s argument, we will pay special attention to the connection between the first Russian original genre and the formation of national identity.

Hypothesis of D. S. Likhachev

Scheme © 3

Tales of Spread

Christianity in Rus' -30s - 40s. XI century

First Kiev-Pechersk vault

Nikon the Great 1073

Second Kiev-Pechersk arch of 1095

The Tale of Bygone Years.

Edited by Nestor. 1113

The Tale of Bygone Years.

Edited by Sylvester.1116

The Tale of Bygone Years.

Third edition. 1118

Scheme © 3 compiled based on the work of D. S. Likhachev “Russian chronicles and their cultural and historical significance” - M.-L., 1947

The hypotheses of philologists differ significantly from the hypothesis of the historian Academician B. A. Rybakov, who believes that brief weather records began to be kept in Kyiv in 867 under Prince Askold. Around 996 - 997 At the Tithe Church, the “First Kiev Chronicle Code” was created.

Hypothesis of B. A. Rybakov

Scheme © 4

Scheme © 4 compiled based on the work of B. A. Rybakov. Ancient Rus': Legends. Epics. Chronicles. - M., 1963. - P. 215 - 300 .

Familiarity with the hypotheses allowed you to consolidate the idea that the oldest chronicle that has reached us - “The Tale of Bygone Years” - is the work of many chroniclers, in which the artistic unity of the ensemble is surprisingly subtly maintained, meaningfully representing the Russian historical encyclopedia.