Transferable literature XI-XII centuries
As the chronicle reports, immediately after Russia adopted Christianity, Vladimir Svyatoslavich “began to take children from deliberate children [of noble people], and began to give them book learning” (PVL, p. 81). For education, books brought from Bulgaria were needed. Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) and Old Russian languages are so close that Rus' was able to use the ready-made Old Church Slavonic alphabet, and Bulgarian books, being formally foreign languages, essentially did not require translation. This greatly facilitated the acquaintance of Rus' with the monuments of Byzantine literature, which for the most part penetrated into Rus' in Bulgarian translation.
Later, during the time of Yaroslav the Wise, in Rus' they began to translate directly from Greek. The chronicle reports that Yaroslav collected “many scribes and translations from Greek to Slovenian writing. And I copied many books” (PVL, p. 102). The intensity of translation activity is confirmed both by direct data (lists of translated monuments that have come down to us or references to them in original works) and indirect data: the influx of translated literature at the end of the 10th - beginning of the 11th century. was not only a consequence of the established cultural ties between Rus' and Bulgaria or Byzantium, but was primarily caused by an urgent need, a kind of state necessity: Rus', which had adopted Christianity, needed literature for worship, to become familiar with philosophical
and ethical doctrines of the new religion, ritual and legal customs of church and monastic life. 6
For the activities of the Christian church in Rus', liturgical books were needed first of all. The obligatory set of books that were necessary for worship in each individual church included the Gospel aprakos, the Apostle aprakos, the Missal, the Breviary, the Psalter, the Lenten Triodion, the Colored Triodion and the General Menaion. 7 Considering that in the chronicles in the narration of the events of the 9th-11th centuries. 88 cities are mentioned (data from B.V. Sapunov), each of which had from several units to several dozen churches, then the number of books necessary for their functioning will be in the many hundreds. 8 Only a few copies of manuscripts from the 11th-12th centuries have reached us, but they confirm our ideas about the above-mentioned repertoire of liturgical books. 9
If the transfer of liturgical books to Russian soil was dictated by the needs of church services, and their repertoire was regulated by the canon of liturgical practice, then in relation to other genres of Byzantine literature one can assume a certain selectivity.
But it is here that we encounter an interesting phenomenon, which D. S. Likhachev characterized as the phenomenon of “transplantation”: Byzantine literature in its individual genres not only influenced Slavic literature, and through it on Old Russian literature, but was - of course, in some way its part was simply transferred to Rus'. 10
Patristics. First of all, this applies to Byzantine patristic literature. 11 In Rus' the works of the “church fathers”, theologians and preachers were known and enjoyed high authority: John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus,
Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Athanasius of Alexandria, etc.
Homiletic writers (authors of teachings and sermons) were highly valued throughout the Russian Middle Ages. Their creations not only helped to shape the moral ideals of the Christian world, but at the same time made them think about the properties of human character, drew attention to various features of the human psyche, and influenced other literary genres with their experience of “human studies.” 12
Of the homiletic writers, John Chrysostom (d. 407) enjoyed the greatest authority. In his work, “the assimilation of the traditions of ancient culture by the Christian Church reached complete and classical completion. He developed a style of preaching prose that absorbed the countless richness of expressive techniques of rhetoric and brought the virtuosity of finishing to stunning expressiveness.” 13 The teachings of John Chrysostom have been included in collections since the 11th century. 14 From the 12th century. The list “Zlatostruya” has been preserved, containing mainly the “words” of Chrysostom; several “words” were included in the famous Assumption collection at the turn of the 12th-13th centuries.
In the lists of the XI-XII centuries. translations of other Byzantine homilets have also been preserved - Gregory the Theologian, Cyril of Jerusalem, “The Ladder” of John Climacus, 15 Pandects of Antiochus and Pandects of Nikon the Montenegrin. 16 The sayings and aphorisms of the “Church Fathers” (along with aphorisms extracted from the works of ancient authors) made up a popular collection in Ancient Rus' - “The Bee” (the oldest list at the turn of the 13th-14th centuries). In the "Izbornik 1076" A significant place is occupied by Gennady’s “Stoslovets” - a kind of “moral code” of a Christian. 17
Works of the homiletical genre did not hide their edifying, didactic function. Addressing readers and listeners directly, homiletic writers sought to convince
Their logic of reasoning extolled virtues and condemned vices, promised eternal bliss to the righteous, and threatened the careless and sinners with divine punishment.
Lives of the Saints. Monuments of the hagiographic genre - the lives of saints - also educated and instructed, but the main means of persuasion was not so much the word - sometimes indignant and denouncing, sometimes insinuatingly instructive - as a living image. An action-packed narrative about the life of a righteous man, willingly using the plots and plot devices of the Hellenistic adventure novel, could not fail to interest the medieval reader. The hagiographer addressed not so much his mind as his feelings and ability for a vivid imagination. Therefore, the most fantastic episodes - the intervention of angels or demons, miracles performed by saints - were sometimes described with detailed details that helped the reader to see and imagine what was happening. Sometimes the Lives reported precise geographical or topographical features, and named the names of real historical figures - all this also created the illusion of authenticity and was intended to convince the reader of the veracity of the story and thereby give the Lives the authority of a “historical” narrative.
The lives can be roughly divided into two plot types - martyrium lives, i.e. stories about the torment of fighters for the faith in pagan times, and lives that told about saints who voluntarily took on the feat of seclusion or foolishness, distinguished by extraordinary piety and love of poverty etc.
An example of the first type of life is the “Life of St. Irene.” 18 It tells how Irina’s father, the pagan king Licinius, at the instigation of a demon, decides to destroy his Christian daughter; According to his sentence, she should be crushed by the chariot, but a miracle happens: the horse, breaking the traces, pounces on the king, bites off his hand and returns to its original place. Irina is subjected to various sophisticated tortures by King Zedeki, but each time, thanks to divine intercession, she remains alive and unharmed. The princess is thrown into a ditch infested with poisonous snakes, but the “reptiles” immediately “press” against the walls of the ditch and die. They try to saw the saint alive, but the saw breaks and the executioners die. She is tied to a mill wheel, but water “by the command of God flows around,” etc.
Another type of life includes, for example, the legend of Alexei the Man of God. Alexey, a pious and virtuous young man, voluntarily renounces wealth, honor, women
love. He leaves the house of his father - a rich Roman nobleman, his beautiful wife, as soon as he has married her, distributes the money taken from the house to the poor and for seventeen years lives on alms in the vestibule of the Church of the Virgin Mary in Edessa. When the fame of his holiness spread everywhere, Alexei left Edessa and, after wanderings, found himself again in Rome. Unrecognized by anyone, he settles in his father’s house, feeds at the same table with the beggars, whom the pious nobleman gives alms every day, and patiently endures the bullying and beatings of his father’s servants. Another seventeen years pass. Alexei dies, and only then do the parents and widow recognize their missing son and husband. 19
Patericon. Patericon collections were widely known in Kievan Rus short stories about monks. The themes of the Patericon legends are quite traditional. Most often these are stories about monks who became famous for their asceticism or humility. Thus, one legend tells how elders come to a hermit to talk with him, thirsting for instruction from him. But the recluse is silent, and when asked about the reason for his silence, he replies that day and night he sees before him the image of the crucified Christ. “This is our best instruction!” - the elders exclaim.
The hero of another story is a stylite. 20 He is so alien to pride that he even lays out alms for the poor on the steps of his refuge, and does not give them from hand to hand, claiming that it is not he, but the Mother of God who gives gifts to the suffering.
The patericon tells of a young nun who gouges out her eyes after learning that their beauty has aroused the lust of a young man.
The omnipotence of prayer and the ability of ascetics to perform miracles are the subjects of another group of patericon short stories. The righteous elder is accused of adultery, but through his prayer the twelve-day-old baby, when asked “who is his father,” points his finger at his real father. Through the prayer of a pious shipbuilder, rain pours over the deck on a hot day, delighting travelers suffering from the heat and thirst. A lion, having met a monk on a narrow mountain path, stands on its hind legs to give him way, etc.
If the righteous are accompanied by divine help, then sinners in the patericon legends face a terrible and, what is especially characteristic, not posthumous, but immediate punishment: for the defiler
the eyes of the grave are gouged out by the living dead; the ship does not move from its place until a female child killer steps into the boat from its side, and the boat with the sinner is immediately swallowed up by the abyss; the servant, who plans to kill and rob his mistress, cannot leave his place and stabs himself to death.
Thus, in the patericon a certain fantasy world, where the forces of good and evil are constantly fighting for the souls of people, where the righteous are not just pious, but exaltedly fanatical, where miracles are performed in the most everyday situations, where even wild animals confirm the omnipotence of faith with their behavior. The subjects of translated patericons 21 influenced the work of Russian scribes: in Russian patericons and lives we will find direct analogies to episodes from Byzantine patericons.
Apocrypha. Apocrypha was also a favorite genre of ancient Russian readers, the oldest translations of which also date back to the Kievan era. Apocrypha (from the Greek ἀπόκρυφα - “secret, hidden”) were works that tell about biblical characters or saints, but were not included in the circle of monuments revered as sacred scripture or officially recognized by the church. There were apocryphal gospels (for example, “The Gospel of Thomas”, “The Gospel of Nicodemus”), lives (“The Life of Andrew the Fool", “The Life of Basil the New”), legends, prophecies, etc. 22 The apocrypha often contained a more detailed account of events or characters mentioned in canonical biblical books. There were apocryphal stories about Adam and Eve (for example, about Adam’s second wife Lilith, about the birds who taught Adam how to bury Abel 23), about the childhood of Moses (in particular, about the test of the wisdom of the boy Moses by Pharaoh 24), about the earthly life of Jesus Christ.
The apocryphal “Walking of the Mother of God through the Torment” describes the suffering of sinners in hell, the “Tale of Agapius” tells of paradise - a wonderful garden, where “a bed and a meal decorated with precious stones” are prepared for the righteous, birds sing around “with different voices”, and the plumage they have gold, and scarlet, and scarlet, and blue, and green...
Apocrypha often reflected heretical ideas about the present and future world and rose to complex philosophical problems. The apocrypha reflected the teaching according to which God is opposed by an equally powerful antipode - Satan, the source of evil and the culprit of human disasters; Thus, according to one apocryphal legend, the human body was created by Satan, and God only “put” the soul into it. 25
The attitude of the Orthodox Church towards apocryphal literature was complex. The most ancient indices (lists) of “true and false books,” in addition to “true” books, distinguished between “hidden” and “hidden” books, which were recommended to be read only by knowledgeable people, and “false” books, which were certainly forbidden to be read, since they contained heretical views . However, in practice, it was almost impossible to separate apocryphal stories from stories found in “true” books: apocryphal legends were reflected in monuments that enjoyed the highest authority: in chronicles, paleas, in collections used in worship (Solemnists, Menaions). Attitudes towards the apocrypha changed over time: some monuments that were popular in the past were subsequently banned and even destroyed, but, on the other hand, in the “Great Menaion of Cheti”, created in the 16th century. Orthodox churchmen included many texts previously considered apocryphal as a set of recommended reading literature.
Among the first translations carried out under Yaroslav the Wise or over the subsequent decades were also monuments of Byzantine chronography. 26
Chronicle of George Amartol. Among them, the Chronicle of George Amartol was of greatest importance for the history of Russian chronicles and chronography. The author, a Byzantine monk, outlined in his work the entire history of the world from Adam to the events of the mid-9th century. In addition to the events of biblical history, the Chronicle told about the kings of the East (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius), Alexander the Great, Roman emperors, from Julius Caesar to Costanius Chlorus, and then about the Byzantine emperors, from Constantine the Great to Michael III. Even on Greek soil, the Chronicle was supplemented by the extraction
from the “Chronicle of Simeon Logothet”, and the presentation in it was completed before the death of Emperor Roman Lekapin (he was overthrown from the throne in 944 and died in 948). Despite its significant volume and breadth of historical range, Amartol's work presented world history from a unique perspective, primarily as church history. The author often introduces lengthy theological reasoning into his presentation, scrupulously sets out debates at ecumenical councils, himself argues with heretics, denounces iconoclasm 28 and quite often replaces the description of events with reasoning about them. We find a relatively detailed account of the political history of Byzantium only in the last part of the Chronicle, which describes the events of the 9th - first half of the 10th centuries. The “Chronicle of Amartol” was used in the compilation of a brief chronographic code - the “Chronograph according to the Great Exposition”, which in turn was used in the compilation of the “Initial Code”, one of the oldest monuments of Russian chronicles (see below, p. 39). Then the Chronicle was again turned to when compiling the Tale of Bygone Years; it became part of the extensive ancient Russian chronographic codes - “Greek Chronicler”, “Russian Chronograph”, etc. 29
Chronicle of John Malala. The Byzantine Chronicle, compiled in the 6th century, had a different character. Greekized Syrian John Malala. Its author, according to the researcher of the monument, “set out to provide moralizing, in the spirit of Christian piety, edifying, and at the same time entertaining reading for a wide audience of readers and listeners.” 30 The “Chronicle of Malala” retells in detail ancient myths (about the birth of Zeus, about the struggle of the gods with the Titans, myths about Dionysus, Orpheus, Daedalus and Icarus, Theseus and Ariadne, Oedipus); The fifth book of the Chronicle contains a story about the Trojan War. 31 Malala sets out in detail the history of Rome (especially the ancient one - from Romulus and Remus to Julius Caesar), and significant space is devoted to the political history of Byzantium. In a word, the “Chronicle of Malala” successfully complemented Amartol’s presentation, in particular, it was through this “Chronicle” that Kievan Rus could get acquainted with the myths of ancient Greece. Separate lists of the Slavic translation of the “Chronicles of Malala” have not reached us; we know it only as part of the extracts included in Russian chronographic compilations
(“Archive” and “Vilna” chronographs, both editions of the “Hellenic Chronicler”, etc.). 32
History of the Jewish War by Josephus. Perhaps already in the middle of the 11th century. Josephus Flavius’s “History of the Jewish War” was translated in Rus' - an exceptionally authoritative monument in the Christian literature of the Middle Ages. 33 "History" was written between 75-79. n. e. Joseph ben Mattafie, a contemporary and direct participant in the anti-Roman uprising in Judea, who later went over to the side of the Romans. The book of Joseph is a valuable historical source, although extremely biased, for the author very unequivocally condemns his fellow tribesmen, but glorifies the military art and political wisdom of Vespasian and Titus Flavius. 34 At the same time, "History" is brilliant literary monument. Josephus Flavius skillfully uses plot narration techniques; his presentation is replete with descriptions, dialogues, and psychological characteristics; the “speeches” of the characters in “History” are constructed according to the laws of ancient declamations; even when talking about events, the author remains a sophisticated stylist: he strives for a symmetrical construction of phrases, willingly resorts to rhetorical oppositions, skillfully constructed enumerations, etc. Sometimes it seems that for Josephus the form of presentation is no less important than the subject itself about which he writes.
The Old Russian translator understood and appreciated the literary merits of the “History”: he was not only able to preserve the refined style of the monument in translation, but in a number of cases he entered into competition with the author, either disseminating descriptions using traditional stylistic formulas, or translating the indirect speech of the original into direct speech, or introducing comparisons or clarifications that make the narrative more lively and imaginative. The translation of the History is convincing evidence high culture words from the scribes of Kievan Rus. 35
Alexandria. No later than the 12th century. An extensive narrative about the life and exploits of Alexander the Great was also translated from Greek - the so-called pseudo-Callisthenes “Alexandria”. 36 It is based on a Hellenistic novel, apparently created by
in Alexandria in the 2nd-1st centuries. BC e., but later subjected to additions and revisions. Over time, the initial biographical narrative became more and more fictionalized, overgrown with legendary and fairy-tale motifs, gradually turning into an adventure novel typical of the Hellenistic era. One of these later versions of “Alexandria” was translated into Rus'. 37
The actual history of the actions of the famous commander is barely traceable here, buried under the layers of later traditions and legends. Alexander turns out to be no longer the son of the Macedonian king, but illegitimate son Olympiad and the Egyptian king-sorcerer Nektonav. The birth of a hero is accompanied by miraculous signs. Contrary to history, Alexander conquers Rome and Athens, boldly appears to Darius, posing as a Macedonian ambassador, negotiates with the queen of the Amazons, etc. The third book of Alexandria is especially replete with fairy-tale motifs, where Alexander’s (of course, fictitious) letters to mothers; the hero informs Olympias about the miracles he saw: people of gigantic stature, disappearing trees, fish that can be boiled in cold water, six-legged and three-eyed monsters, etc. Nevertheless, the ancient Russian scribes apparently perceived “Alexandria” as a historical narrative about as evidenced by the inclusion of its full text in the chronographic codes. Regardless of how the novel about Alexander was received in Rus', the very fact that ancient Russian readers were introduced to this most popular plot of the Middle Ages 38 was of great importance: ancient Russian literature was thereby introduced into the sphere of pan-European cultural interests and enriched their knowledge of the history of the ancient world.
The Tale of Akira the Wise. If "Alexandria" genetically went back to the historical narrative and told about a historical character, then "The Tale of Akira the Wise", also translated in Kievan Rus in the 11th - early 12th centuries, is in origin a purely fictional monument - an ancient Assyrian legend of the 7th century. BC e. Researchers
did not come to a common conclusion about the ways of penetration of “The Tale of Akira” into Rus': there are assumptions that it was translated from Syriac 39 or from the Armenian original. 40 In Rus' the Tale lived a long life. Its oldest edition (apparently a translation very close to the original) was preserved in four copies of the 15th-17th centuries. 41 In the 16th or early 17th centuries. The story has been radically revised. Its new editions (Brief and Distributed, which goes back to it), have largely lost their original oriental flavor, but acquired the features of a Russian folk tale, were extremely popular in the 17th century, and among the Old Believers the story continued to exist until our time. 42
The oldest edition of the Russian translation of the Tale told how Akir, the wise adviser to King Sinagrippa, was slandered by his adopted son Anadan and sentenced to death. But Akira’s devoted friend Nabuginail saved and managed to reliably hide the convict. Some time later, the Egyptian pharaoh demanded that King Sinagrippa send him a sage who could solve the riddles proposed by the pharaoh and build a palace “between heaven and earth.” For this, the pharaoh will pay Synagrippa “three years’ tribute.” If the envoy Synagrippa fails to complete the task, tribute will be exacted in favor of Egypt. All those close to Sinagrippa, including Anadan, who has now become Akir’s successor as the first nobleman, admit that they are unable to fulfill the pharaoh’s demand. Then Nabuginail informs the despairing Synagrippus that Akir is alive. The happy king forgives the disgraced sage and sends him under the guise of a simple groom to the pharaoh. Akir solves the riddles and then cunningly avoids completing the final task - building a palace. To do this, Akir teaches the eagles to lift a basket into the air; the boy sitting in it shouts to be given “stone and lime”: he is ready to begin building the palace. But no one can deliver the necessary goods to the skies, and the pharaoh is forced to admit defeat. Akir returns home with a “three-year tribute”, again becomes close to Synagrippa, and the exposed Anadan dies a terrible death.
The wisdom (or cunning) of the hero freeing himself from the need to complete an impossible task is a traditional fairy tale motif. 43 And it is characteristic that with all the alterations of the Tale on Russian soil, it was the story about how Akir guesses the riddles of the pharaoh and, with wise counter-demands, forces him to abandon his claims, 44 enjoyed constant popularity, it was constantly revised and supplemented with new details. 45
The Tale of Barlaam and Joasaph. If “The Tale of Akira the Wise” resembles a fairy tale in many of its elements, then another translated story - about Varlaam and Joasaph - is closely related to the hagiographic genre, although in fact its plot is based on the legendary biography of Buddha, which came to Rus' through Byzantine media.
The Tale tells how Prince Joasaph, the son of the Indian pagan king Abner, under the influence of the hermit Varlaam, becomes a Christian ascetic.
However, a plot potentially replete with " conflict situations”, turns out to be extremely smoothed out in the Tale: the author seems to be in a hurry to eliminate the obstacles that arise or simply “forget” about them. So, for example, Abner imprisons young Joasaph in a secluded palace precisely so that the boy cannot hear about the ideas of Christianity and does not learn about the existence of old age, illness, and death in the world. And yet, Joasaph still leaves the palace and immediately meets a sick old man, and the Christian hermit Barlaam enters his chambers without any special obstacles. The pagan sage Nahor, according to Abner's plan, in a dispute with the imaginary Barlaam, should debunk the ideas of Christianity, but suddenly, completely unexpectedly, he himself begins to denounce paganism. Brought to Joasaph beautiful princess, she must persuade the young ascetic to sensual pleasures, but Joasaph easily resists the beauty’s charms and easily convinces her to become a chaste Christian. There are a lot of dialogues in the Tale, but they are all devoid of individuality and naturalness: Varlaam and Varlaam speak in the same pompous and “scholarly” manner.
and Joasaph and the pagan sages. Before us is like a lengthy philosophical debate, the participants of which are as conventional as the participants in a conversation in the genre of “philosophical dialogue”. Nevertheless, The Tale of Varlaam was widely distributed; The parables-apologists included in its composition, illustrating the ideals of Christian piety and asceticism, were especially popular: some of the parables were included in collections of both mixed and permanent composition (for example, in “Izmaragd”), and many dozens of their lists are known. 46
Devgenie's act. It is believed that back in Kievan Rus, a translation of the Byzantine epic poem about Digenis Akrites was carried out (akrits were the name given to the warriors who guarded the borders of the Byzantine Empire). The time of translation is indicated, according to researchers, by language data - lexical parallels of the story (in the Russian version it was called “Devgeniy’s Deed”) and literary monuments of Kievan Rus, 47 as well as the mention of Devgeniy Akrit in “The Life of Alexander Nevsky”. But the comparison with Akrit appears only in the third (according to the classification of Yu. K. Begunov) edition of the monument, created probably in the middle of the 15th century, 48 and cannot serve as an argument in favor of the existence of the translation in Kievan Rus. Significant plot differences between the “Acts of Devgenius” and the Greek versions of the epic about Digenis Akritos known to us remain open question, whether these differences were a consequence of a radical reworking of the original during translation, whether they arose in the process of later alterations of the text on Russian soil, or whether the Russian text corresponds to the Greek version that has not reached us.
Devgenius (as the Greek name Digenis was rendered in Russian translation) is a typical epic hero. He has extraordinary strength (even as a boy, Devgeny strangled a bear with his bare hands, and, having matured, exterminates thousands of enemy soldiers in battles), he is handsome, knightly generous. Significant place
in the Russian version of the monument there is a story about the marriage of Devgeniy to the daughter of the proud and stern Stratigus. 49 This episode has all the characteristic features of an “epic matchmaking”: Devgeny sings a love song under the girl’s windows; She, admiring the beauty and daring of the young man, agrees to run away with him. Devgeny takes his beloved away in broad daylight, defeats her father and brothers in battle, then makes peace with them; the parents of the newlyweds arrange a multi-day lavish wedding.
Devgeny is akin to the heroes of translated chivalric novels that spread in Rus' in the 17th century. (such as Bova Korolevich, Eruslan, Vasily Zlatovlasy), and, apparently, this closeness to the literary taste of the era contributed to the revival of the manuscript tradition of the “Acts”: all three lists that have come down to us date back to the 17th-18th centuries. 50
So, Kievan Rus in a short period of time acquired a rich and varied literature. A whole system of genres was transferred to new soil: chronicles, historical stories, lives, patericons, “words”, teachings. The significance of this phenomenon is being increasingly studied and comprehended in our science. 51 It has been established that the system of genres of Byzantine or ancient Bulgarian literature was not completely transferred to Rus': ancient Russian scribes preferred some genres and rejected others. At the same time, genres arose in Rus' that had no analogues in “model literature”: the Russian chronicle is not similar to the Byzantine chronicle, and the chronicles themselves are used as material for independent and original chronographic compilations; the “Tale of Igor’s Host” and “Teaching” by Vladimir Monomakh, “The Prayer of Daniil the Imprisoner” and “The Tale of the Ruin of Ryazan” are completely original. Translated works not only enriched Russian scribes with historical or natural scientific information, introduced them to the plots of ancient myths and epic legends, they at the same time represented different types plots, styles, manners of narration, being a unique literary school for Old Russian
scribes who were able to get acquainted with the ponderous, verbose Amartol and the laconic Malala, stingy with details, with the brilliant stylist Flavius and the inspired rhetorician John Chrysostom, with the heroic world of the epic of Devgenia and the exotic fantasy of Alexandria. It was rich material for reading and writing experience, an excellent school of literary language; it helped Old Russian scribes to visualize possible variants of styles, to refine their hearing and speech on the colossal lexical wealth of Byzantine and Old Church Slavonic literature.
But it would be a mistake to believe that translated literature was the only and main school of ancient Russian scribes. In addition to translated literature, they used the rich traditions of oral folk art, and above all, the traditions of the Slavic epic. This is not a guess or a reconstruction of modern researchers: as we will see later, folk epic legends are recorded in early chronicles and represent a completely exceptional artistic phenomenon that has no analogues in the monuments of translated literature known to us. Slavic epic legends are distinguished by a special manner of constructing the plot, a unique interpretation of the character of the heroes, and a style that differs from the style of monumental historicism, which was formed mainly under the influence of monuments of translated literature.
The “historical memory” of the East Slavic tribes stretched back several centuries: traditions and legends were passed down from generation to generation about the settlement of Slavic tribes, about the clashes of the Slavs with the Avars (“Obras”), about the founding of Kyiv, about the glorious deeds of the first Kyiv princes, about distant campaigns Kiya, about the wisdom of the prophetic Oleg, about the cunning and decisive Olga, about the warlike and noble Svyatoslav.
In the 11th century Along with the historical epic, chronicle writing appears. It was the chronicle that was destined for several centuries, right up to the time of Peter the Great, to become not just a weather record of current events, but one of the leading literary genres, in the depths of which Russian plot narration developed, and at the same time a journalistic genre, sensitively responding to the political demands of its time.
Study of chronicles of the 11th-12th centuries. presents considerable difficulties: the oldest chronicles that have reached us date back to the 13th century (the first part of the first Novgorod chronicle of the older edition) or to the end of the 14th century. (Laurentian Chronicle). But thanks to the fundamental research of A. A. Shakhmatov,
M. D. Priselkova and D. S. Likhachev 52 a fairly substantiated hypothesis has now been created about initial stage Russian chronicles, to which undoubtedly some additions and clarifications will be made over time, but which is unlikely to change in essence.
According to this hypothesis, chronicle writing appears during the time of Yaroslav the Wise. 53 At this time, Christianized Rus' began to be burdened by Byzantine tutelage and sought to justify its right to church independence, which was invariably combined with political independence, for Byzantium was inclined to consider all Christian states as the spiritual flock of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and as a kind of vassals of the Byzantine Empire. This is precisely what Yaroslav’s decisive actions oppose: he seeks the establishment of a metropolitanate in Kyiv (which raises the church authority of Rus'), 54 he seeks the canonization of the first Russian saints - princes Boris and Gleb. It was in this situation that the first historical work, the predecessor of the future chronicle, was apparently created - a collection of stories about the spread of Christianity in Rus'. Kyiv scribes argued that the history of Rus' repeats the history of other great powers: “divine grace” descended on Rus' just as it once did on Rome and Byzantium; Rus' had its own forerunners of Christianity - for example, Princess Olga, who was baptized in Constantinople during the time of the convinced pagan Svyatoslav; they had their own martyrs - a Christian Varangian who did not give up his son to be “slaughtered” to idols, and the prince-brothers Boris and Gleb, who died but did not break the Christian covenants of brotherly love and obedience to the “eldest”. Rus' also had its own “equal to the apostles” prince Vladimir, who baptized Rus' and thereby became equal to the great Constantine, who declared Christianity the state religion of Byzantium. To substantiate this idea, according to the assumption of D.S. Likhachev, a set of legends about the emergence of Christianity in Rus' was compiled. It included stories about the baptism and death of Olga, a legend about the first Russian martyrs - the Christian Varangians, a legend about the baptism of Rus' (including the “Philosopher’s Speech”, which briefly outlined Christian
the concept of world history), the legend of princes Boris and Gleb and extensive praise for Yaroslav the Wise under 1037. All six of these works “reveal their belonging to the same hand... the closest relationship between themselves: compositional, stylistic and ideological.” 55 This set of articles (which D.S. Likhachev suggested conditionally calling “The Legend of the Spread of Christianity in Rus'”) was compiled, in his opinion, in the first half of the 40s. XI century scribes of the Kyiv metropolis.
Probably at the same time, the first Russian chronographic code was created in Kyiv - “Chronograph according to the Great Presentation”. It was a summary of world history (with a distinct interest in church history), compiled on the basis of the Byzantine chronicles - the Chronicle of George Amartol and the Chronicle of John Malala; it is possible that already at this time other translated monuments became known in Rus', setting out world history or containing prophecies about the coming “end of the world”: “The Revelation of Methodius of Patara”, “Interpretations” of Hippolytus on the books of the Prophet Daniel, “The Tale of Epiphanius of Cyprus about the Six days of creation”, etc.
The next stage in the development of Russian chronicles occurred in the 60-70s. XI century and is associated with the activities of the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nikon.
It was Nikon who added to the “Tale of the Spread of Christianity in Rus'” the legends about the first Russian princes and stories about their campaigns against Constantinople. Perhaps Nikon also included the “Korsun Legend” into the chronicle (according to which Vladimir was baptized not in Kyiv, but in Korsun); finally, the chronicle owes the same Nikon the inclusion of the so-called Varangian legend. This legend reported that the Kyiv princes allegedly descended from the Varangian prince Rurik, who was invited to Rus' to stop the internecine strife of the Slavs. The inclusion of the legend in the chronicle had its own meaning: with the authority of legend, Nikon tried to convince his contemporaries of the unnaturalness of internecine wars, of the need for all princes to obey the Grand Duke of Kyiv - the heir and descendant of Rurik. 56 Finally, according to researchers, it was Nikon who gave the chronicle the form of weather records.
Initial arch. Around 1095, a new chronicle was created, which A. A. Shakhmatov proposed to call “Initial”. Since the creation of the “Initial Code”, it becomes possible
the actual textual study of ancient chronicles. A. A. Shakhmatov drew attention to the fact that the description of events up to the beginning of the 12th century. different in the Laurentian, Radzivilov, Moscow Academic and Ipatiev Chronicles, on the one hand, and in the Novgorod First Chronicle, on the other. This gave him the opportunity to establish that the Novgorod First Chronicle reflected the previous stage of chronicle writing - the “Initial Code”, and the rest of the named chronicles included a revision of the “Initial Code”, a new chronicle monument - “The Tale of Bygone Years”. 57
The compiler of the “Initial Code” continued the chronicle with a description of the events of 1073-1095, giving his work, especially in this part, supplemented by him, a clearly journalistic character: he reproached the princes for internecine wars, complained that they do not care about the defense of the Russian land, do not listen to the advice of “sensible husbands”.
The Tale of Bygone Years. At the beginning of the 12th century. The “Initial Code” was again revised: the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor, a scribe with a broad historical outlook and great literary talent (he also wrote “The Life of Boris and Gleb” and “The Life of Theodosius of the Pechersk”) creates a new chronicle collection - “The Tale of Bygone Years” " Nestor set himself a significant task: not only to present the events of the turn of the 11th-12th centuries, of which he was an eyewitness, but also to completely rework the story about the beginning of Rus' - “where did the Russian land come from, who in Kyiv began first than the princedom,” as he himself formulated this task in the title of his work (PVL, p. 9).
Nestor introduces the history of Rus' into the mainstream of world history. He begins his chronicle with a presentation of the biblical legend about the division of the land between the sons of Noah, while placing the Slavs in the list of peoples going back to the “Chronicle of Amartol” (elsewhere in the text the Slavs are identified by the chronicler with the “Norics” - the inhabitants of one of the provinces of the Roman Empire, located on the banks of the Danube). Nestor slowly and thoroughly talks about the territory occupied by the Slavs, about the Slavic tribes and their past, gradually focusing the readers’ attention on one of these tribes - the glades, on the land of which Kyiv arose, a city that in his time became the “mother of Russian cities.” Nestor clarifies and develops the Varangian concept of the history of Rus': Askold and Dir, mentioned in the “Initial Code” as “certain” Varangian princes, are now called “boyars” of Rurik, it is they who are credited with the campaign against Byzantium during the
Emperor Michael; Oleg, referred to in the “Initial Code” as Igor’s governor, in the “Tale of Bygone Years” his princely dignity was “returned” (in accordance with history), but it is emphasized that it is Igor who is the direct heir of Rurik, and Oleg, a relative of Rurik, reigned only during Igor’s childhood.
Nestor is even more of a historian than his predecessors. He tries to arrange the maximum of events known to him on the scale of absolute chronology, uses documents for his narration (texts of treaties with Byzantium), uses fragments from the “Chronicle of George Amartol” and Russian historical legends (for example, the story of Olga’s fourth revenge, the legend of the “Belgorod jelly "and about the young man-kozhemyak). “We can safely say,” D.S. Likhachev writes about Nestor’s work, “that never before or later, until the 16th century, has Russian historical thought risen to such a height of scholarly inquisitiveness and literary skill.” 58
Around 1116, on behalf of Vladimir Monomakh, “The Tale of Bygone Years” was revised by the abbot of the Vydubitsky Monastery (near Kiev) Sylvester. In this new (second) edition of the Tale, the interpretation of the events of 1093-1113 was changed: they were now presented with a clear tendency to glorify the acts of Monomakh. In particular, the story of the blinding of Vasilko Terebovlsky was introduced into the text of the Tale (in article 1097), for Monomakh acted as a champion of justice and brotherly love in the inter-princely feud of these years.
Finally, in 1118, “The Tale of Bygone Years” underwent another revision, carried out at the direction of Prince Mstislav, the son of Vladimir Monomakh. The narrative was continued until 1117, some articles for earlier years were changed. We call this edition of The Tale of Bygone Years the third. 59 These are modern ideas about the history of ancient chronicles.
As has already been said, only relatively late lists of chronicles have been preserved, which reflect the mentioned ancient codes. Thus, the “Initial Code” was preserved in the Novgorod First Chronicle (lists of the XIII-XIV and XV centuries), the second edition of the “Tale of Bygone Years” is best represented by the Laurentian (1377) and Radzivilovskaya (XV century) chronicles, and the third edition came to us as part of the Ipatiev Chronicle. Through the Tver Vault of 1305 - a common source of the Laurentian and Trinity Chronicles - “The Tale of Bygone Years” of the second edition was included in most Russian chronicles of the 15th-16th centuries.
Since the middle of the 19th century. Researchers have repeatedly noted the high literary skill of Russian chroniclers. 60 But private observations of the style of chronicles, sometimes quite deep and fair, were replaced by holistic ideas only relatively recently in the works of D. S. Likhachev 61 and I. P. Eremin. 62
Thus, in the article “The Kyiv Chronicle as literary monument» I. P. 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 stylistic devices that we find in the chronicle is explained primarily by the origin and specificity of the chronicle genre: in the chronicle there are articles created by the chronicler himself, telling about the events of his time political life, are adjacent to fragments from epic tales and legends, which have their own special style, a special manner of plot narration. In addition, the “style of the era” had a significant influence on the chronicler’s stylistic techniques. This last phenomenon needs to be discussed in more detail.
It is extremely difficult to characterize the “style of the era,” that is, some general trends in worldview, literature, art, norms of social life, etc. 63 Nevertheless, in the literature of the 11th-13th centuries. The phenomenon that D. S. Likhachev called “literary etiquette” manifests itself quite thoroughly. Literary etiquette is a refraction in literary creativity“style of the era”, features of 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 circle of the most preferred speech patterns, images, metaphors.
The concept of literary etiquette is based on the idea of an unshakable and ordered world, where all people’s actions are, as it were, predetermined, where for each person there is a special standard of his behavior. Literature must accordingly affirm and demonstrate this static, “normative” world. This means that its subject should primarily be the depiction of “normative” situations: if a chronicle is written, then the focus is on descriptions of the prince’s accession to the throne, battles, diplomatic actions, death and burial of the prince; Moreover, in this last case, a unique summary of his life is summed up, summarized in the necrological description. Similarly, the lives must necessarily tell about the saint’s childhood, about his path to asceticism, about his “traditional” (precisely traditional, almost obligatory for every saint) virtues, about the miracles he performed during his life and after death, etc.
Moreover, each of these situations (in which the hero of the chronicle or life most clearly appears in his role - a prince or a saint) had to be depicted in similar, traditional speech patterns: it was necessarily said about the parents of the saint that they were pious, about the child - the future saint, that he shunned games with peers, the battle was narrated in traditional formulas such as: “and the slaughter of evil came,” “some were cut down, and others were caught” (i.e., some were chopped up with swords, others were captured), etc. 64
The chronicle style that most corresponded to the literary etiquette of the 11th-13th centuries was called by D. S. Likhachev “the style of monumental historicism.” 65 But it cannot be argued that the entire chronicle narrative is maintained in this style. If we understand style as a general characteristic of the author’s attitude to the subject of his narration, then we can undoubtedly talk about the comprehensive nature of this style in the chronicle - the chronicler really selects for his narration only the most important events and deeds of national significance. If we demand from the style and indispensable observance of certain linguistic features (i.e., stylistic devices themselves), then it turns out that not every line of the chronicle will be an illustration of the style of monumental historicism. Firstly, because various
the phenomena of reality - and the chronicle could not help but correlate with it - could not fit into a pre-conceived scheme of “etiquette situations”, and therefore we find the most striking manifestation of this style only in the description of traditional situations: in the depiction of the prince’s arrival “on the table”, in the description battles, in necrological characteristics, etc. Secondly, two genetically different layers of narration coexist in the chronicle: along with the articles compiled by the chronicler, we also find fragments introduced by the chronicler into the text. Among them, a significant place is made up folk legends, legends, many of which are part of the “Tale of Bygone Years” and - although to a lesser extent - subsequent chronicle collections.
If the chronicle articles themselves were the product of their time, bore the stamp of the “style of the era”, and were consistent with the traditions of the style of monumental historicism, then the oral legends included in the chronicle reflected a different - epic tradition and, naturally, had a different stylistic character. The style of folk legends included in the chronicle was defined by D. S. Likhachev as the “epic style.” 66
“The Tale of Bygone Years,” where the story of modern events is preceded by memories of the deeds of the glorious princes of past centuries - Oleg the Prophet, Igor, Olga, Svyatoslav, Vladimir, combines both of these styles.
In the style of monumental historicism, for example, the events of the time of Yaroslav the Wise and his son Vsevolod are presented. Suffice it to recall the description of the battle on Alta (PVL, pp. 97-98), which brought Yaroslav victory over the “accursed” Svyatopolk, the killer of Boris and Gleb: Svyatopolk came to the battlefield “in the strength of a heavy man,” Yaroslav also gathered “a multitude of howls, and against him on Lto." Before the battle, Yaroslav prays to God and his murdered brothers, asking for their help “against this nasty murderer and proud man.” And now the troops moved towards each other, “and covered the Letetskoye field with a multitude of howls.” At dawn (“the rising sun”) “there was a slaughter of evil, as if I had not been in Rus', and I was cut by the hands, and stepped three times, as if across the valleys [valleys, hollows] of the mother-in-law’s blood.” By evening, Yaroslav won, and Svyatopolk fled. Yaroslav ascended the Kiev throne, “wiped off his sweat with his retinue, showing victory and great labor.” Everything in this story is intended to emphasize the historical significance of the battle: an indication of the large number of troops, and details indicating the ferocity of the battle, and the pathetic ending - Yaroslav solemnly ascends to the Kiev throne, which he won through military labor and the struggle for a “just cause.”
And at the same time, it turns out that what we have before us is not so much the impressions of an eyewitness about a specific battle, but the traditional formulas that described other battles in the same “Tale of Bygone Years” and in subsequent chronicles: the phrase “slaughter of evil” is traditional, the ending is traditional , telling who “overcame” and who “fleeed”, usually for the chronicle narrative an indication of the large number of troops, and even the formula “as if to please the blood of the mother-in-law” is found in descriptions of other battles. In short, we have before us one of the examples of an “etiquette” depiction of a battle. 67
The creators of “The Tale of Bygone Years” write out the obituary characteristics of the princes with special care. For example, according to the chronicler, Prince Vsevolod Yaroslavich was “mockishly loving of God, loving the truth, providing for the poor [caring for the unfortunate and poor], giving honor to the bishop and presbytery [priests], being overly loving to the monks, and giving their demands” (PVL, with .142). This type of chronicle obituary will be used more than once by chroniclers of the 12th and subsequent centuries. 68 The use of literary formulas prescribed by the style of monumental historicism gave the chronicle text a special artistic flavor: not the effect of surprise, but, on the contrary, the expectation of a meeting with the familiar, the customary, expressed in a “polished” form, consecrated by tradition - this is what had the power of aesthetic impact on reader. This same technique is well known to folklore - let us remember the traditional plots of epics, triple repetitions of plot situations, constant epithets and the like artistic media. The style of monumental historicism, therefore, is not evidence of limited artistic possibilities, but, on the contrary, evidence of a deep awareness of the role of the poetic word. But at the same time, this style naturally fettered the freedom of plot narration, because it sought to unify and express various life situations in the same speech formulas and plot motifs.
For the development of the plot narrative, oral folk legends enshrined in the chronicle text played a significant role, each time distinguished by the unusualness and “entertaining” of the plot. The story of Oleg’s death is widely known, the plot of which was used as the basis for the famous ballad by A. S. Pushkin,
stories about Olga’s revenge on the Drevlyans, etc. It was in this kind of legends that not only princes, but also insignificant ones in their own right could act as heroes social status people: an old man who saved Belgorod residents from death and Pecheneg captivity, a young Kozhemyak who defeated the Pecheneg hero. But the main thing, perhaps, is something else: it is in such chronicle stories, which are genetically oral historical traditions, that the chronicler uses a completely different - compared to stories written in the style of monumental historicism - method of depicting events and characterizing characters.
In works of verbal art, there are two opposing methods of aesthetic influence on the reader (listener). In one case, a work of art influences precisely by its dissimilarity on everyday life and, we add, on the “everyday” story about it. Such a work is distinguished by special vocabulary, rhythm of speech, inversions, special visual means (epithets, metaphors) and, finally, special “unusual” behavior of the characters. We know that people in real life don’t talk like that or act like that, but it is precisely this unusualness that is perceived as art. 69 The literature of the style of monumental historicism also occupies the same position.
In another case, art seems to strive to become like life, and the narrative strives to create the “illusion of authenticity”, to bring itself as close as possible to the eyewitness account. The means of influencing the reader here are completely different: in this kind of narration, a “plot detail” plays a huge role, a successfully found everyday detail that seems to awaken in the reader his own life impressions, helps him to see what is being described with his own eyes and thereby believe in the truth of the story.
An important caveat needs to be made here. Such details are often called “elements of realism,” but it is significant that if in the literature of modern times these realistic elements are a means of reproducing real life(and the work itself is intended not only to depict reality, but also to comprehend it), then in ancient times “plot details” were nothing more than a means to create the “illusion of reality,” since the story itself can tell about a legendary event, about a miracle, in a word, about what the author portrays as having actually happened, but which may not have been so. 70
In The Tale of Bygone Years, stories performed in this manner widely use “everyday detail”: this is a bridle in the hands
a Kievite 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 a Pecheneg hero, a leather youth pulls out (professionally strong hands) from the side of a bull running past “the skin of the meat, as strong as a hare’s hand”, then a detailed, detailed (and skillfully slowing down the story) description of how the Belgorodians “took honey with a bow”, which they found “in the prince of Medusha”, how they diluted the honey, how they poured the drink into the “kad”, etc. These details evoke vivid visual images in the reader, help him imagine what is being described, and become, as it were, a witness to the events.
If in stories written in the manner of monumental historicism, everything is known to the reader in advance, then in epic legends the narrator skillfully uses the effect of surprise. Wise Olga seems to take seriously the matchmaking of the Drevlyan prince Mal, secretly preparing a terrible death for his ambassadors; the prediction given to Oleg the Prophet, it would seem, did not come true (the horse from which the prince was supposed to die had already died himself), but nevertheless, the bones of this horse, from which the snake would crawl, would bring death to Oleg. It is not a warrior who comes out to duel with the Pecheneg hero, but a skinned youth, moreover, “of average body,” and the Pecheneg hero - “very great and terrible” - laughs at him. And despite this “exposition”, it is the youth who prevails.
It is very significant to note that the chronicler resorts to the method of “reproducing reality” not only in retelling epic legends, but also in narrating contemporary events. An example of this is the story of “The Tale of Bygone Years” under 1097 about the blinding of Vasilko Terebovlsky (pp. 170-180). It is no coincidence that it was in this example that researchers examined the “elements of realism” of the Old Russian narrative, it was in it that they found the skillful use of “strong details,” and it was here that they discovered the masterful use of “plot direct speech.” 71
The climax of the story is the scene of Vasilko’s blinding. On the way to the Terebovl volost assigned to him at the Lyubech princely congress, Vasilko settled down for the night not far from Vydobich. The Kiev prince Svyatopolk, succumbing to the persuasion of David Igorevich, decides to lure Vasilko and blind him. After persistent invitations (“Don’t go on my name day”), Vasilko arrives at the “prince’s court”; David and Svyatopolk lead the guest into the “istba” (hut). Svyatopolk persuades Vasilko to stay, and he is frightened by his own malicious intent
David, “sitting as if dumb.” When Svyatopolk left the source, Vasilko tries to continue the conversation with David, but, says the chronicler, “there was no voice in David, no obedience [hearing].” This is a very rare example for early chronicles when the mood of the interlocutors is conveyed. But then David comes out (ostensibly to call Svyatopolk), and the prince’s servants burst into the hut, they rush at Vasilko, knock him to the floor. And the terrible details of the ensuing struggle: in order to restrain the powerful and desperately resisting Vasilko, they remove the board from the stove, put it on his chest, sit on the board and press their victim to the floor “like a persem [chest] of a troscotati,” and a mention that “ Torchin Berendi,” who was supposed to blind the prince with a blow of a knife, missed and cut the unfortunate man’s face - all these are not simple details of the story, but artistic “strong details” that help the reader visually imagine the terrible scene of blinding. According to the chronicler’s plan, the story was supposed to excite the reader, turn him against Svyatopolk and David, and convince him of the rightness of Vladimir Monomakh, who condemned the cruel massacre of the innocent Vasilko and punished the oath-breaking princes.
Literary influence The Tale of Bygone Years has been clearly felt for several centuries: chroniclers continue to apply or vary those literary formulas that were used by the creators of the Tale of Bygone Years, imitate the characteristics found in it, and sometimes quote the Tale, introducing fragments from this into their text monument. 72 “The Tale of Bygone Years” has retained its aesthetic charm to this day, eloquently testifying to the literary skill of ancient Russian chroniclers.
Introduction
1. The concept of chronicle
3. Methods for studying the chronicle
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
Chronicles, 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 of 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 origin of the Eastern Slavs, their state power, and the political relationships of the Eastern Slavs among themselves and with other peoples and countries.
Purpose of the study– study of the chronicle as a historical source, methods of their study.
Research objectives:
1) reveal the concept of chronicle;
2) consider the contents of the chronicle;
3) identify methods for studying the chronicle.
1. The concept of chronicle
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 with a large number of 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 of the 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 (charatein) 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. Origin and political orientation This chronicle is emphasized by the predominance of Moscow news and a general favorable assessment of the activities of Moscow princes and metropolitans. The all-Russian 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 “Sofia 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 1540-60s, the Front Chronicle was created, i.e. chronicle, including drawings corresponding to the text. The first 3 volumes of the Litsevoy vault are devoted to world history (compiled on the basis of “Chronograph” and other works), the next 7 volumes are devoted to Russian history from 1114 to 1567. Last volume The front 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 according to 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 “Chronicle of many rebellions.”
A characteristic feature of the Chronicle is the chroniclers' belief in the intervention of divine forces. New Chronicles were usually compiled as collections 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 the Chronicle. Traditions, 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 Chronicle reflected the views of their immediate compilers, sometimes very democratically progressive. In general, the Chronicles testify to the high patriotic consciousness of the Russian people in the 11th-17th centuries. Great importance was attached to the compilation of the Chronicle; they were consulted in political disputes and during diplomatic negotiations. The mastery of historical storytelling reached in the Chronicle high perfection. At least 1,500 copies of the Chronicle have survived. Many works of ancient Russian literature have been preserved in the Chronicle: The Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh, The Legend of the Battle of Mamaev, The Walking of Three Seas by Afanasy Nikitin, etc. Ancient Chronicles of the 11th-12th centuries. preserved only in later lists. The most famous of the early chronicles 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 around 1113.
Feudal fragmentation of the XII-XIV centuries. reflected in the chronicles: the vaults of this time express local political interests. In Kyiv in the 12th century. Chronicle writing was carried out in the Pechersk and Vydubitsky monasteries, as well as at the princely court. Galician-Volyn chronicle in the 13th century. (see Galicia-Volyn Chronicle) is concentrated at the courts of Galicia-Volyn princes and bishops. The South Russian chronicle was preserved in the Ipatiev Chronicle, which consists of the "Tale of Bygone Years", continued mainly by the Kyiv news (ending 1200), and the Galicia-Volyn Chronicle (ending 1289-92) (PSRL, vol. 2, Chronicles according to the Ipatiev list). In the Vladimir-Suzdal land, the main centers of chronicle writing were Vladimir, Suzdal, Rostov and Pereyaslavl. The monument of this chronicle is the Laurentian Chronicle, which begins with the "Tale of Bygone Years", continued by the Vladimir-Suzdal news until 1305 (PSRL, vol. 1, Chronicles according to the Laurentian list), as well as the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl-Suzdal (edition 1851) and the Radziwill Chronicle, decorated a lot of 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 mainly local events (the birth and death of princes, elections of posadniks and mayors in Novgorod and Pskov, military campaigns, battles, etc.), church events (the installation and death of bishops, abbots of monasteries, the construction of churches, etc.). ), crop failure and famine, epidemics, remarkable natural phenomena, etc. Events that go beyond local interests are poorly reflected in such Chronicles. Novgorod chronicle of the XII-XV centuries. The Novgorod First Chronicle of the older and younger editions is most fully represented (see Novgorod Chronicles). The older, or earlier, version was preserved in the only Synodal parchment (charatein) list of the 13th-14th centuries; the younger version reached the lists of the 15th century. (Novgorod First Chronicle of the older and younger editions, PSRL, vol. 3). In Pskov, chronicle writing was associated with mayors and the state chancellery at the Trinity Cathedral (PSRL, vol. 4-5; Pskov Chronicles, v. 1-2, 1941-55). In Tver, chronicle writing developed at the court of Tver princes and bishops. An idea of it is given by the Tver collection (PSRL, vol. 15) and the Rogozhsky chronicler (PSRL, vol. 15, v. 1). In Rostov, chronicle writing was carried out at the court of bishops, and the Chronicles created in Rostov are reflected in a number of codes, including the Ermolinsk Chronicle of the Con. XV century
A chronicle collection based on the rich Novgorod written language, the Sophia Vremennik, appeared in Novgorod. A large chronicle collection appeared in Moscow at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th 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,” until 1560. At the court of Ivan the Terrible in the 40-60s. XVI century A facial chronicle was created, i.e. a chronicle including drawings corresponding to the text. The first 3 volumes of the obverse vault are devoted to world history (compiled on the basis of the “Chronograph” and other works), the next 7 volumes are devoted to Russian history from 1114 to 1567. The last volume of the obverse vault, dedicated to the reign of Ivan the Terrible, was called the “Royal Book”. The text of the front vault 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 of the 17th century. Of these, the Stroganov Chronicle and the Esipov Chronicle are the best known. At the end of the 17th century. The Tobolsk boyar's son S.U. Remezov compiled "Siberian History" ("Siberian Chronicles", 1907). In the 17th century Chronicle news is included in the composition of power books and chronographs. The word "Chronicles" continues to be used according to tradition even for such works that faintly resemble the Chronicles of former times. This is the New Chronicler, telling about the events of the late 16th - early 17th centuries. (Polish-Swedish intervention and peasant war), and "Chronicle of many rebellions."
Chronicle writing, which received significant development in Russia, was developed to a lesser extent in Belarus and Ukraine, which were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The most interesting work of this chronicle of the early 16th century. is the "Brief Kiev Chronicle", containing the Novgorod and Kyiv abridged Chronicles (1836). The ancient history of Rus' is presented in this Chronicle on the basis of earlier chronicles, and the events of the late XV - early XVI centuries. described by a contemporary. Chronicle writing also developed in Smolensk and Polotsk in the 15th-16th centuries. The Belarusian and Smolensk Chronicles formed the basis for some Chronicles on the history of Lithuania. Sometimes some Ukrainian historical works of the 18th century are also called Chronicles. (Chronicle of the Samovidets, etc.). Chronicle writing was also carried out in Moldova, Siberia, and Bashkiria.
Chronicles serve as the main source for studying the history of Kievan Rus, as well as Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus in the 13th-17th centuries, although they mainly reflected the class interests of the feudal lords. Only the Chronicle preserved such sources as treaties between Rus' and the Greeks of the 10th century, Russian truth in short version and so on. The Chronicles are of enormous importance for the study of Russian writing, language and literature. The chronicles also contain valuable material on the history of other peoples of the USSR.
The study and publication of the Chronicle in Russia and the USSR has been going on for more than two hundred years: in 1767, the chronicle text was published in the “Russian Historical Library, containing ancient chronicles and all kinds of notes,” and from 1841 to 1973 the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles was published.
V.N. Tatishchev and M.M. Shcherbatov laid the foundation for the study of the Chronicle. He devoted forty years to the study of the “Tale of Bygone Years” by A. Shletser, clearing the chronicle of errors and typos, explaining the “dark” places. P.M. Stroev viewed chronicles as collections or “codes” of previous material. Using the method of Shletser and Stroev, M.P. Pogodin and I. I. Sreznevsky enriched science with many facts that facilitated the study of the history of the Russian Chronicle
I.D. Belyaev classified the Chronicles into state, family, monastic and chronicle collections and pointed out that the position of the chronicler was determined by his territorial and class position. M.I. Sukhomlinov, in his book “On the Ancient Russian Chronicle as a Literary Monument” (1856), tried to establish the literary sources of the initial Russian chronicle. K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin in his work “On the composition of Russian chronicles until the end of the 14th century.” (1868) was the first to decompose the chronicle text into annual records and legends. A real revolution in the study of the Chronicle was made by Academician. A. A. Shakhmatov. He used comparison of various lists, subtly and deeply analyzing the material, and made this method the main one in his work on the study of the Chronicle. Shakhmatov attached great importance to clarifying all the circumstances of the creation of the Chronicle, each list and code, and paid attention to the study of various chronological indications found in the Chronicle. clarifying the time of their compilation and correcting factual inaccuracies. Shakhmatov extracted a lot of data from the analysis of typos, language errors, and dialectisms. He was the first to recreate a complete picture of Russian chronicles, presenting it as a genealogy of almost all lists and at the same time as the history of Russian social consciousness. Shakhmatov’s method was developed in the works of M.D. Priselkov, who strengthened its historical side. A significant contribution to the study of the Russian Chronicle was made by Shakhmatov’s followers - N.F. Lavrov, A.N. Nasonov, Chronicles V. Cherepnin, D.S. Likhachev, S.V. Bakhrushin, A.I. Andreev, M.N. Tikhomirov, N.K. Nikolsky, V.M. Istrin et al. The study of the history of chronicle writing is one of the most complex sections of source study and philological science.
3. Methods for studying the chronicle
The methods of studying the history of chronicles, applied by Shakhmatov, formed the basis of modern textual criticism.
The restoration of the chronicle codes that preceded the “Tale of Bygone Years” belongs to the most fascinating pages of philological science.
So, for example, at the beginning of the lists of the First Novgorod Chronicle (except for the First Novgorod Chronicle according to the Synodal list, where the beginning of the manuscript is lost) one reads a text that is partly similar and partly different from the Tale of Bygone Years.
Studying this text, A.A. Shakhmatov came to the conclusion that it preserved fragments of an older chronicle than the Tale of Bygone Years. Among the evidence of A.A. Shakhmatov also cites the places noted above where insertions are found in the text of The Tale of Bygone Years. Thus, under 946, in the Novgorod First Chronicle there is no story about Olga’s fourth revenge and the narrative unfolds logically: “and she defeated the Drevlyans and imposed a heavy tribute on them,” that is, exactly as, according to the assumption of A.A. Shakhmatov, was read in the chronicle that preceded the Tale of Bygone Years.
Also absent from the Novgorod Chronicle is the agreement between Svyatoslav and the Greeks, which, as stated above, broke the phrase: “And he said: “I will go to Rus' and bring more to the squad; and go to the boats."
Based on these and many other considerations, A.A. Shakhmatov came to the conclusion that the initial part of the First Novgorod Chronicle is based on a chronicle code older than the Tale of Bygone Years. The chronicler who compiled the “Tale of Bygone Years” expanded it with new materials, various written and oral sources, documents (treaties with the Greeks), extracts from Greek chronicles and brought the application to his time.
However, the code that preceded the “Tale of Bygone Years” is reconstructed according to the First Novgorod Chronicle only partially; for example, it does not contain a statement of the events of 1016 - 1052. and 1074 - 1093 The code that formed the basis of both the “Tale of Bygone Years” and the First Novgorod Chronicle was called “Initial” by A. A. Shakhmatov, suggesting that Russian chronicle writing began with it.
Step by step in various studies of A.A. Shakhmatov managed to completely restore its composition, establish the time of its composition (1093-1095) and show in what political situation it arose.
The initial collection was compiled under the fresh impression of the terrible Polovtsian invasion of 1093. It ended with a description of this invasion; it began with reflections on the causes of the misfortunes of the Russian people. In the introduction to the Initial Code, the chronicler wrote that God was executing the Russian land for the “insatiability” of modern princes and warriors. The chronicler contrasts them, greedy and selfish, with the ancient princes and warriors, who did not ruin the people with judicial exactions, supported themselves with booty on long campaigns, and cared about the glory of the Russian land and its princes.
Calling this code Primary, A.A. Shakhmatov did not imagine that this name would soon turn out to be inaccurate. Further research by A. A. Shakhmatov showed that the Initial arch also contains various layers and inserts. A.A. Shakhmatov managed to uncover two even more ancient vaults at the base of the Initial vault.
Thus, the history of the oldest Russian chronicles is presented by A.A. Shakhmatov in the following form.
In 1037-1039 The first Russian chronicle was compiled - the Ancient Kiev Code.
Since the early 60s. XI century Abbot Nikon of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery continued chronicling and by 1073 compiled a second chronicle.
In 1093-1095 in the same Kiev-Pechersk monastery, the third chronicle code, conventionally called the Initial one, was compiled. Finally, at the beginning of the 12th century, not all at once, but in several stages, the “Tale of Bygone Years” that has come down to us was compiled.
A.A. Shakhmatov did not stop to find out the most important facts history of the initial Russian chronicles. He sought to restore the text itself of each of the above codes. In “Research on the most ancient Russian chronicles” (1908) A.A. Shakhmatov gave the text of the most ancient code restored by him in the edition of 1073, - that is, the text of the Nikon code of 1073, highlighting in it, using a special font, those parts that were included in it from the Ancient Code of 1037-1039. In his later work “The Tale of Bygone Years” (vol. 1, 1916) A.A. Shakhmatov gave the text of “The Tale of Bygone Years”, in which large print highlighted those parts of it that go back to the Initial Code of 1093-1095.
It should be noted that in his extremely bold attempt to visually present the entire history of Russian chronicles, to restore the long-lost texts of A.A. Shakhmatov was faced with a number of issues for which sufficient material could not be found.
Therefore, in this last part of the work A.A. Shakhmatov - where he inevitably had to, reconstructing the text, solve all the questions - even those that were almost impossible to answer - his conclusions were only speculative.
Along with the greatest advantages of the study by A.A. Shakhmatov, however, have significant drawbacks. These shortcomings are primarily of a methodological nature. For its time, the general understanding of A.A. Shakhmatov's history of Russian chronicles was distinguished by progressive features. A.A. Shakhmatov was the first to introduce a subtle but formal philological analysis of bourgeois philology historical approach. He drew attention to the politically acute and by no means dispassionate nature of the chronicles, to their connection with the feudal struggle of his time.
Only on these premises A.A. Shakhmatov was able to create a history of chronicling. However, the historical approach of A.A. Shakhmatova was not always correct. In particular, A.A. Shakhmatov did not study the chronicle as a literary monument, did not notice purely genre changes in it. The genre of the chronicle and the methods of its maintenance were presented by A.A. Shakhmatov unchanged, always the same.
Following A.A. Shakhmatov, we would have to assume that already the first Russian chronicle combined in itself all the features of Russian chronicle writing: the manner of compiling new records by year, features of the language, the widespread use of folklore data to restore Russian history, the very understanding of Russian history, its main milestones. We would also have to assume that the chronicle stood outside the social struggle of its time.
It goes without saying that such a beginning of chronicle writing is unlikely. In fact, as we will see below, the chronicle literary form and her ideological content grew gradually, changing under the influence of the ideas and trends of their time, reflecting the internal, social struggle of the feudalizing state.
In fact, insertions, alterations, additions, and combinations of ideologically and stylistically heterogeneous material characterize the Ancient Chronicle, even in the form in which it is restored by A.A. Shakhmatov.
Conclusion
So, having studied the work of A.A. Shakhmatov, it should be noted that in his extremely bold attempt to visually present the entire history of Russian chronicles, to restore the long-lost texts of A.A. Shakhmatov achieved serious success.
However, at the same time, he was faced with a number of issues for which sufficient material could not be found.
Along with the greatest advantages of the study by A.A. Shakhmatov, however, have significant drawbacks. These shortcomings are primarily of a methodological nature. For its time, the general understanding of A.A. Shakhmatov's history of Russian chronicles was distinguished by progressive features. A.A. Shakhmatov was the first to introduce a historical approach into the subtle but formal philological analysis of bourgeois philology.
He drew attention to the politically acute and by no means dispassionate nature of the chronicles, to their connection with the feudal struggle of his time.
Only on these premises A.A. Shakhmatov was able to create a history of chronicling. However, the historical approach of A.A. Shakhmatova was not always correct.
In particular, A.A. Shakhmatov did not study the chronicle as a literary monument, did not notice purely genre changes in it. The genre of the chronicle and the methods of its maintenance were presented by A.A. Shakhmatov unchanged, always the same.
Bibliography
1. Danilevsky I.N. and others. Source study. – M., 2005. – 445 p.
2. Danilets A.V. Source study // History and politics. – 2009. - No. 5. - P.78-85.
3. Kovalchenko I. D. Methods of historical research. - M., 2003. – 438 p.
4. Likhachev D.S. Russian Chronicles // Sat. Literature and art. - M.: Nauka, 1997. – 340 p.
5. Medushevskaya O.M. Theoretical problems source studies. - M., 2005. – 86 p.
6. The Tale of Bygone Years. – M.: Academy. 1987. – 540 p.
7. Priselkov M.D. History of Russian chronicles of the 11th – 15th centuries. – L.: Education, 1990. – 188 p.
Priselkov M.D. History of Russian chronicles of the 11th – 15th centuries. – L.: Education, 1990. – P. 95.
Tutoring
Need help studying a topic?
Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
Among the genres of the ancient chronicle, the chronicle occupied a central place. The purpose of the chronicle is the desire to tell about the past of the Russian land and leave a memory. Initially, the first chronicles were created as historical encyclopedias for the Kyiv nobility. The creation of chronicles is a state matter. Scientists define the time of creation in different ways: B.A Rybakov linked the temporal beginnings of chronicles with the moment of the birth of the state, but most researchers believe that chronicles appeared only in the 11th century. eleven century - beginning chronicles that will be kept systematically until the 18th century.
Basically, chronicles were compiled at monasteries and at the courts of princes. Almost always, chronicles were written by monks - the most educated people of their time. Chronicles were created on a special assignment. The basis of the chronicle narrative is the arrangement of historical material by year/year. This principle was suggested by the Paschals. Chroniclers told all the historical events of Rus', arranging the material by year. The chronicler sought to show the continuous flow of life itself. The ancient Russian scribe knew that history has its beginning and its end (the Last Judgment). Old Russian chronicles also reflected these eschatological thoughts.
Sources of Russian chronicles are divided into 2 types:
Oral sources: family legends, squad poetry, local legends related to the origin of villages and cities.
Written sources: sacred scriptures (New Testament, Old Testament), translated Byzantine chronicles, various historical documents and charters.
Very often in the scientific literature, chronicles are called chronicle collections, since the chronicles combined the chronicles of the previous time and chronicle records about events that were recent or contemporary to the chronicler. Many scientists write about the fragmentation of the chronicle. The weather principle of the arrangement of material led to the fact that the chronicle was made into many articles and fragments. Hence such features as the fragmentary and episodic nature of the chronicle style.
“The Tale of Bygone Years” is a work under development
more than one generation of Russian chroniclers worked, this is a monument to the collection
creative creativity.In the beginning, in the first half of the 40s. XI century, a complex of articles was compiled, which Academician D.S. Likhachev suggested calling it “The Legend of the Spread of Christianity in Rus'.” It included stories about the baptism and death of Princess Olga, a story about the first Russian martyrs - the Varangian Christians, a story about the baptism of Rus', a story about princes Boris and Gleb and extensive praise for Yaroslav the Wise. The next stage in the development of Russian chronicles occurred in the 60-70s gg. XI century and is associated with the activities of the monk of Kiev-Pechersk
Nikon monastery. Nikon added to the “Tale of the Spread of Christianity in Rus'” legends about the first Russian princes and stories about their campaigns against Constantinople, the so-called “Varangian legend”, according to which the Kyiv princes descend from the Varangian prince Rurik, invited to Rus', so that the internecine strife of the Slavs ceases. The inclusion of this legend in the chronicle had its own meaning: Nikon tried to convince his contemporaries of the unnaturalness of internecine wars, of the need for all princes to obey the Grand Duke of Kyiv - the heir and descendant of Rurik. Finally, according to researchers, it was Nikon who gave the chronicle the form of weather records.
Around 1095, a new chronicle was created, which A.A. Shakhmatov suggested calling it “Initial”. The compiler of this collection continued the chronicle with a description of the events of 1073–1095, giving his work, especially in this part he added, a clearly journalistic character: he reproached the princes for internecine wars, for not caring about the defense of the Russian land.
The chronicle is a collection: apparently, its creator skillfully worked with a rich arsenal of sources (Byzantine chronicles, Holy Scripture, historical documents, etc.), moreover, later scribes could make their own changes to the created text, making its structure even more heterogeneous . For this reason, many researchers call the chronicle a compilation, and compilability is considered a distinctive feature of chronicle texts. D.S. Likhachev accompanies his literary translation of PVL with the names of chronicle passages, in which, along with names of an eventful nature (the reign of Oleg, the second campaign of Prince Igor against the Greeks, the revenge of Princess Olga, the beginning of the reign of Yaroslav in Kyiv, etc.), proper genre names are found (the legend of the founding of Kyiv , the parable of the Obra, the legend of Belgorod jelly, the story of the blinding of Vasilko Terebovlsky, etc.)
From the point of view of the forms of chronicle writing, Eremin divided all chronicle material into 5 groups: weather record (a small documentary record, devoid of artistic form and emotionality), chronicle legend (oral historical tradition in the literary processing of the chronicler), chronicle story (factual narration, in which the author’s personality is manifested: in the assessment of events, attempts to characterize the characters, comments, individual manner of presentation), chronicle story (narrative of the death of the prince, which gives a hagiographically enlightened image of the ideal ruler), documents (agreements and charters).
Tvorogov criticized the classification developed by Eremin, based on the nature of the combination of opposing methods of depicting reality, as not confirmed by chronicle material, and proposed a typology by the nature of the story.
The first type of narration is weather records (only informing about events), the other is chronicle stories (telling about events using a plot narrative).
Tvorogov distinguishes 2 types of plot narration: chronicle legends and chronicle stories characteristic of “PVL”. A distinctive feature of the first is the depiction of a legendary event. Chronicle stories are devoted to depicting events contemporary to the chronicler. They are more extensive. They combine factual records, sketches of episodes, and religious reasoning of the author.
The plot narration of “PVL” is constructed using art. Techniques: emphasizing strong details, evoking visual ideas, characterizing characters, direct speech of characters.
Plot stories are common in PVL, but chronicle writing in general is characterized by the style of monumental historicism.
Thus, based on the theoretical study of the works of researchers, we received a number of genres (forms of narration) with characteristic features assigned to them, which became the basis for identifying types of presentation in Russian chronicles. To date, we have identified the following types within the PVL: hagiographic, military, business, didactic, documenting, folk-poetic, reference. 1. Hagiographic: the main subject of the image is the actions of the saint or his life path as a whole; involves the use of certain motives, for example, motives of teaching (mentoring), prophecy.
Example: fragment about Theodosius of Pechersk (ll. 61 volume - 63 volume).
2. Military: depiction of a historical event associated with the struggle of the Russian people against external enemies (mainly the Pechenegs and Polovtsians), as well as with princely strife; the central character is usually real historical figure, as a rule, a prince.
Example: fragment about the captivity of Thrace and Macedonia by Semeon (l. 10).
3. Business: texts of documents included in the PVL.
Example: a fragment containing the text of the agreement between the Russians and the Greeks (ll. 11-14).
4. Didactic: contains edification, i.e. moral teaching (teaching) moral/religious.
Example: a fragment about the unrighteous life of Prince Vladimir before his adoption of Christianity (l. 25).
5. Documenting: a statement of the fact of a particular event that deserves mention, but does not require detailed presentation; fragments of this type are distinguished by the protocol nature of the image, the lack of artistic form and emotionality.
Example: fragment about the reign of Leon and his brother Alexander (fol. 8 vol.).
6. Folk poetic: a story about real or possible events, as a rule, built on one vivid episode, may contain fiction.
Example: fragment about the revenge of Princess Olga (ll. 14v.-16).
7. Referential: fragments taken from authoritative sources (Byzantine chronicles, biblical texts, etc.).
2. Teacher's word
The purpose of the cognition stage: What events are associated with the emergence of ancient Russian literature?
Teacher:
The stimulus for the emergence of Old Russian literature was the adoption of Christianity, when the need arose to acquaint Rus' with the Holy Scriptures, with the history of the church, with world history, with the lives of saints. Without liturgical books, the churches being built could not exist. And also there was a need to translate the originals from Greek and Bulgarian and distribute a large number of texts. This was precisely the impetus for the creation of literature in the 10th century. Unlike Western European countries, Rus' adopted Christianity late, in 988. The initial development of Russian literature took place under the influence of Byzantium - that is, the Eastern Roman Empire with its capital in Constantinople. The oldest monuments date back to the 11th century and are written in the old Church Slavonic language. The earliest surviving manuscripts were created in Kyiv, which was then located at the crossroads of the most important trade routes and was one of the most prosperous and cultural cities of medieval Europe. Chernigov, Galich, Rostov, and Novgorod were also centers of book literacy. Books in Ancient Rus' were highly valued. They were written mainly by monastic scribes in their cells. The greatest interest was caused by works of a moral, instructive nature, as well as historical works.
Answer: The beginning of Old Russian literature dates back to the 10th century, when writing appeared in Rus'.
Question: Listen to the material and answer the question: how does ancient Russian literature differ from modern literature?
Teacher: The specific features of Old Russian literature are:
1. Until 1564, Russian literature was handwritten.
The problem of book printing existed for a long time, until the 18th century, so the creation of a book was a long-term endeavor. Until the 17th century, all works were distributed by correspondence. 2. The works were created on the basis of historical material. Old Russian literature did not know fiction. All texts are based on real historical facts
. The presence of fantastic elements in the texts suggests that people in ancient Rus' believed that these miracles actually happened.
3. The literature of Ancient Rus' preached Christian spirituality and ethics, that is, high morality.
Answer: 4. Old Russian literature remained anonymous for a long time.
Teacher: Now let's talk about the genres of ancient Russian literature. Old Russian literature is diverse in its genre composition: weather records, stories, parables (about the prodigal son), lives– these are works that told about the lives of saints (the first life is Boris and Gleb, these are the sons of Vladimir), legends (about the founding of Kyiv), teachings(this is a genre of solemn eloquence, they denounced vices, welcomed virtues, instructed believers in Christian morality, for example, the teaching of Vladimir Monomakh), walking or travel (Afanasy Nikitin) - works describing the journeys of pilgrims to the shrines of Palestine and Byzantium.
Chronicles, lives of saints and monks, sermons and several secular stories written in 1030-1240 have reached us. The most famous of the chronicle works is The Tale of Bygone Years. This work was created at the beginning of the 12th century by the monk of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, Nestor the Chronicler. The chronicle tells about the origin of the Russian land, the first Russian princes and the most important historical events. The peculiarity of the story is its poetry, its author masterfully mastered the word, the text uses various artistic means to make the story more convincing.
Question: How did you understand what a chronicle is?
Answer: weather description of events that took place in Rus' over several centuries.
Answer: Nestor the chronicler.
"THE TALE OF BYE YEARS"(Continuation)
Now we must consider the written foundations of the “Tale of Bygone Years” - its roots in Russian writing of the 11th - early 12th centuries. The reader became a co-author, and the co-author was also the “maker of the book” - its copyist. The Middle Ages did not know “copyright”, copyright ownership in our sense of the word. last years. It is as a result of this kind of connections in the chronicles of previous chronicles that it turns out that one or another chronicle speaks twice, and sometimes three times, about the same event: by combining several previous chronicles into one, the chronicler might not notice that he repeated his story , “duplicated” the news based on several sources. The “consolidated” nature of Russian chronicles is not only clarified by careful and painstaking comparison of lists, making it possible to find out from which sources this or that chronicle was compiled, but sometimes it is directly stated by the chronicler himself. The compiler of the Synodal list of the Pskov Chronicle in the very first lines refers to some kind of “this book”. There is a reference to the “old chroniclers” in the chronicle of Avraamki under 1421. In the First Sofia Chronicle there are references in the margins to the “Kyiv chronicler”. The compiler of the code also indicates his sources Boris Alexandrovich. This character of vaults is possessed not only by Russian chronicles, but also by other historical works of Ancient Rus'. The same vaults as the chronicle are chronographs (Hellenic chroniclers of all types, Russian chronographs of all editions), pales - chronographic, explanatory, historical, patericon, hagiography. Many Russian stories of a historical nature are sometimes grouped into vaults according to local characteristics. The cycle of Ryazan legends about the icon of Nikola Zarazsky combines a military story about the devastation of Ryazan by Batu, a reworking of the epic about Evpatiy Kolovrat, a church legend about the transfer of the icon of Nikola from Korsun, a number of inserted episodes of the 14th-16th centuries, a story about a miracle from the icon in Kolomna, genealogy of the “servants” of this icon, etc. Separate local vaults also compile Murom stories , Novgorod stories, kite legends, etc. The nature of the vaults that ancient Russian historical works have is a feature not only of their form. The very form of the vaults in which ancient Russian historical works were clothed was closely connected with the special historical consciousness of their authors. Medieval collections of previous historical material were compiled primarily for the sake of preserving their original text as a kind of document in a new work. The medieval reader valued historical works primarily for their documentary nature. The Old Russian reader in literary works was looking for what was “in reality”; he was interested not in the realism of the image, but in reality itself, not in the plot, but in the events themselves, although in assessing and understanding historical events he was often alien to realism, taking for what actually happened stories about miracles, signs, phenomena, etc. In this regard, the ancient Russian historian gave his new author's text mainly about contemporary events, about those that he could have witnessed or which he could know about from witnesses. We can rarely indicate in ancient Russian literature, the original text of which would have been written a century or more after the events described. Medieval authors did not write new works about the more or less distant past; they preferred to combine and rework old works, compile codes, preserve all the old factual basis, valuing document and authenticity in old works. No matter how much work the chronicler puts into compiling his chronicle code, the chronicler’s personal, author’s text will cover only the last part of this code. Chronicle works were constantly supplemented and expanded with new entries. History up to the 16th century. did not have completed periods for the Russian people, but always continued with modernity. Each chronicler has always strived to bring the chronicle records “to the current prince,” to his time. And these final records of the chroniclers usually contain especially valuable historical material: here the chronicler does not write with excerpts from other people's works , if it covered several years, he divided it by year and placed each part under its own year, etc. The construction of the chronicle by year gave him a convenient network for distributing more and more new works into it. This work was not mechanical: the chronicler sometimes had to eliminate contradictions, sometimes carry out complex chronological research in order to place each event under its own year. Based on his political ideas, the chronicler sometimes omitted this or that news, made a tendentious selection of these news, occasionally accompanied them with his own brief political commentary, but did not compose new news. Having completed his work as a compiler, the chronicler supplemented this material with his own notes about the events of recent years. , but in your own words. This is why the chronicle actually has no end; its end in an ever-evolving and ongoing present. The present as a continuation of history, as a living and ever-continuing result - this unique historical perception was also reflected in the very form of the vaults, connecting old, documented valuable material and continuing it with new records to the events contemporary to the chronicler. So, the chronicle is a code.(pestilence, drought, etc.), also depicted in their etiquette expressions. Like the consolidated nature of the chronicles, this “stringing” of different types of stylistic stencils in the same chronicle leads us to a different, deeply different from the modern idea of both the author’s text (the unity of which was not at all mandatory) and the author’s point of view on events . Chronicles are collections, and not only collections of previous works, not only collections of various stencils of writer’s “etiquette,” but also collections of ideas. They reflect various ideologies.) In fact, it has long been indisputably established that “the hand of the chronicler was controlled by political passions and worldly interests.” The chroniclers themselves repeatedly declare the political purpose of their chronicles. In 1241, the Galician prince Daniil ordered his printer Cyril to "cover up the robbery of the wicked boyars", and this report of Cyril formed the main part of the princely chronicle of Daniil. In another case (1289), Prince Mstislav Danilovich ordered the sedition of the inhabitants of Berestye to be recorded in the chronicle. In the Trinity Chronicle of the early 15th century, which burned in 1812. under 1392, according to the testimony of N.M. Karamzin, bitter reproaches were read to the Novgorodians regarding their disobedience to the great princes of Moscow: “Besha, people are harsh, unruly, stubborn, undefeated... no one has angered the prince or whoever the prince has pleased them ? Also the great Alexander Yaroslavich (Nevsky. - D.L. c.), etc. The prefaces to the chronicles also speak about the purely “worldly” - political - tasks that the chroniclers set for themselves. The compiler of the “Chronicle of the reign of the Tfer faithful great princes of Tfer” (the collection of the Tver prince Boris Alexandrovich) writes in the preface to his work that he fulfilled it at the command of the “piety of the trembler” Prince Boris Alexandrovich, that he devotes his work to the glorification of “the honor of the wise Michael, the God-loving prince,” that is, Mikhail Alexandrovich Tverskoy. I will get silver and gold with my squad, just as my grandfather and my father searched for gold and silver with a squad” (in “The Tale of Bygone Years” under 996). The opposition of the squad to wealth is felt especially clearly in the story “The Tale of Bygone Years” from 971 about the gifts of Tzimiskes to Svyatoslav: Svyatoslav did not even look at the gold and pavoloks, but took the weapon and welcomed it. The same contrast is noticeable in the story under 1073 about Izyaslav’s flight to Poland “with a lot of property,” about which Izyaslav, deceived, thought: “I’ll climb in.” Finally, the same opposition of gold to the squad is heard both in the “Preface” of the Primary Code preceding the “Tale of Bygone Years”, and in the words of Yaroslav the Wise in the Primary Code, addressed to his squad, under 1016: “My beloved and honest squad, Yesterday in my madness, you won’t repay them with gold first.” The course of the chronicler's narrative, his specific historical ideas very often go beyond the boundaries of religious thinking and are purely pragmatic in nature. The chronicler largely receives his providentialism in a ready-made form, and does not reach it himself; for him it is not a consequence of the peculiarities of his thinking. The chronicler receives his religious ideas in all their details from the outside; as a result, they may largely diverge from his personal experience, from his practical activities as a historian. Russian political thought found expression in close connection with the real relations of its time. She specifically relied on the facts of modern history. It is not characterized by independent abstract constructions of Christian thought, which led the chronicler away from the earthly world to abstract questions of the upcoming break with earthly existence and the structure of the other world. That is why, fortunately for the historical knowledge of Ancient Rus', the chronicler was not so often guided by his philosophy of history and did not completely subordinate his narrative to it. It is important to note that in the choice of moments on which the chronicler found it necessary to give religious and didactic comments, the same medieval “etiquette” of the writing craft, which we discussed above, was reflected. The chronicler's religious and didactic comments always evoked the same phenomena of the life he described: crop failures, pestilence, fires, devastation from enemies, sudden death or heavenly “signs.” So, the religious moment did not permeate the entire chronicle presentation. However, many of the researchers of the chronicles, and primarily academician A. A. Shakhmatov, considered the “ideological” side of the chronicle only in connection with the political concepts of a particular feudal center where the chronicle was compiled. From the point of view of A. A. Shakhmatov, the chronicle reflected the political concepts of Kyiv, Vladimir, Novgorod, and subsequently Moscow, Tver, Nizhny Novgorod, etc. Meanwhile, the chronicle reflects not only the ideology of certain feudal centers, but also class ideology and class. We saw above that the Tale of Bygone Years reflects the stories of old warriors - Vyshata Ostromirich and Yan Vyshatic. Along with them, elements of druzhina ideology penetrated into The Tale of Bygone Years. This squad ideology is reflected not only in the stories of Vyshata and Yan. So, for example, under 1075, in the story about the arrival of the German embassy in Kyiv, the idea was conveyed that a squad is more valuable than any wealth. “It’s worth nothing, it’s lying dead,” the ambassadors say about Svyatoslav’s wealth. - This is the essence of kmetye (brave men) luche. Men are afraid of looking for more than this.” Vladimir Svyatoslavich speaks in similar terms in the chronicle when the murmur of his squad reached him: “The imam did not fill the squad with silver and gold, but not in the smoothness of the seams and not in the destruction of traces of masonry, but in the integrity and harmony of the entire large chronicle building as a whole, in a single thought that enlivens the entire composition. The chronicle is a work of monumental art; it is mosaic. Viewed closely, point-blank, it gives the impression of a random collection of pieces of precious smalt, but, looking at it as a whole, it amazes us with the strict thoughtfulness of the entire composition, the consistency of the narrative, the unity and grandeur of the idea, and the pervasive patriotism of the content. Like any chronicle, The Tale of Bygone Years is a collection. In fact, in The Tale of Bygone Years we are by no means dealing with a single author’s text belonging to one author. It is clear, for example, that the texts of the treaties between the Russians and the Greeks in 907, 912, 945 and 971. they were not invented by the chronicler, that these are documents only included by the chronicler in his chronicle. Translated sources also stand out quite clearly in The Tale of Bygone Years. Chroniclers used various translated works as historical sources, made selections from them, painstakingly recreating the historical past of Rus' on the basis of documents. These translations have reached us in full; therefore, it is not difficult to establish where, from what place in this or that work, the chronicler took any text and how it was processed for inclusion in the chronicle. From the translated sources of the chronicler’s historical information, we will indicate first of all the “Chronicle of George Amartol” (that is, the “sinner”) and its Greek successor, unknown to us by name. The chronicler himself refers to this Chronicle: “George said in the chronicle...” The chronicler also refers to the Chronograph (under 1114), from which he also provides excerpts in various places in the Tale of Bygone Years. This Chronograph was probably similar in type to the Russian Hellenic and Roman chronicler, compiled on the basis of the translated chronicles of Amartol and John Malala. In any case, excerpts from the Chronicle of George Amartol are given in the Tale of Bygone Years in a number of places in the same combination with excerpts from the Chronicle of John Malala as in this Greek and Roman chronicler. The chronicler uses the “Chronicle Soon” of the Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople as a historical source, from where he borrows a chronological account for the year 852. From the translated Greek “Life” of Vasily the New, the chronicler gives a description of Igor’s military actions near Constantinople under 941. The chronicler also refers to the authority of the “Revelation” of Methodius, Bishop of Pataria in 1096 (“Methodius testifies about them...” - about the Polovtsians; “as Methodius of Pataria said about them, saying...”). The chronicler gives extensive excerpts from Methodius of Patara. There is no doubt that the great Legend about the beginning of Slavic literacy in 898 was also not invented by the chronicler, but was cited by him from some West Slavic sources. It is more difficult to identify individual Russian legends included in the “Tale of Bygone Years”: about the baptism and death of Olga, about the first Varangian martyrs, about the baptism of Rus' with the “philosopher’s speech”, about Boris and Gleb, etc. It is even more difficult to determine those chronicles that preceded the Tale of Bygone Years, which were used by its compiler and his predecessors. What was the composition of these chronicles that preceded the Tale of Bygone Years? Which extra-chronicle historical sources did each of the chroniclers use? When were these chronicles compiled? It is not easy to answer all these questions; for the most part, only assumptions are possible here - some more convincing, others less, but it is necessary to answer these questions, since the degree of reliability of the information they provide depends on this. The restoration of the chronicle codes that preceded the “Tale of Bygone Years” belongs to the most fascinating pages of philological science. Let us cite just a few of the considerations that make it possible to restore the work of the predecessors of the compiler of The Tale of Bygone Years. literary work Chronicles of Amartol, all four treaties with the Greeks, etc.? It ended with a description of this invasion; it began with reflections on the causes of the misfortunes of the Russian people. In the introduction to the Initial Code, the chronicler wrote that God was executing the Russian land for the “insatiability” of modern princes and warriors. The chronicler contrasts them, greedy and selfish, with the ancient princes and warriors, who did not ruin the people with judicial exactions, supported themselves with booty on long campaigns, and cared about the glory of the Russian land and its princes. And indeed, traces of this insertion are clearly noticeable in the chronicle. XI century Abbot of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nikon continued chronicling and by 1073 compiled a second chronicle. In 1093-1095 in the same Kiev-Pechersk monastery, the third chronicle code, conventionally called the Initial one, was compiled. Finally, at the beginning of the 12th century, not all at once, but in several stages, the “Tale of Bygone Years” that has come down to us was compiled (we will return to the history of its creation). For his time, A. A. Shakhmatov’s general understanding of the history of Russian chronicles was distinguished by progressive features. A. A. Shakhmatov was the first to introduce a historical approach into the subtle but formal philological analysis of bourgeois philology. He drew attention to the politically acute and by no means dispassionate nature of the chronicles, to their connection with the feudal struggle of his time. Only on these premises was A. A. Shakhmatov able to create a history of chronicling. However, the historical approach of A. A. Shakhmatov was not always correct. In particular, A. A. Shakhmatov did not study the chronicle as a literary monument and did not notice purely genre changes in it. The genre of the chronicle and the methods of writing it seemed to A. A. Shakhmatov unchanged, always the same.
