Modern Russian historical science about ancient Rus' is built on the basis of ancient chronicles written by Christian monks, and on handwritten copies that are not available in the originals. Can you trust such sources for everything?
"The Tale of Bygone Years" is called the oldest chronicle code, which is an integral part of most of the chronicles that have reached us (and in total about 1500 of them have survived). "Tale" covers events up to 1113, but its earliest listing was made in 1377 monk Lawrence and his assistants at the direction of the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod Prince Dmitry Konstantinovich.
It is unknown where this chronicle was written, which was named Laurentian after the creator: either in the Annunciation Monastery Nizhny Novgorod, or in the Nativity Monastery of Vladimir. In our opinion, the second option looks more convincing, and not only because the capital is from Rostov North-Eastern Rus' moved specifically to Vladimir.
In the Vladimir Nativity Monastery, according to many experts, the Trinity and Resurrection Chronicles were born; the bishop of this monastery, Simon, was one of the authors of a wonderful work of ancient Russian literature "Kievo-Pechersk Patericon"- a collection of stories about the life and exploits of the first Russian monks.
One can only guess what kind of list from the ancient text the Laurentian Chronicle was, how much was added to it that was not in the original text, and how many losses it suffered - VAfter all, each customer of the new chronicle strove to adapt it to his own interests and to discredit his opponents, which was quite natural in conditions of feudal fragmentation and princely enmity.
The most significant gap occurs in the years 898-922. The events of the “Tale of Bygone Years” are continued in this chronicle by the events of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' until 1305, but there are gaps here too: from 1263 to 1283 and from 1288 to 1294. And this despite the fact that the events in Rus' before the baptism were clearly disgusting to the monks of the newly brought religion.
Another famous chronicle - the Ipatiev Chronicle - is named after the Ipatiev Monastery in Kostroma, where it was discovered by our wonderful historian N.M. Karamzin. It is significant that it was again found not far from Rostov, which, along with Kiev and Novgorod, is considered the largest center of ancient Russian chronicles. The Ipatiev Chronicle is younger than the Laurentian Chronicle - it was written in the 20s of the 15th century and, in addition to the Tale of Bygone Years, includes records of events in Kievan Rus and Galician-Volyn Rus.
Another chronicle that is worth paying attention to is the Radziwill chronicle, which first belonged to the Lithuanian prince Radziwill, then entered the Koenigsberg library and under Peter the Great, and finally to Russia. It is a copy of the 15th century with more ancient list XIII century and talks about the events of Russian history from the settlement of the Slavs to 1206. It belongs to the Vladimir-Suzdal chronicles, is close in spirit to the Laurentian chronicles, but is much richer in design - it contains 617 illustrations.
They are called a valuable source "for the study of material culture, political symbolism and art Ancient Rus'" Moreover, some miniatures are very mysterious - they do not correspond to the text (!!!), however, according to researchers, they are more consistent with historical reality.
On this basis, it was assumed that the illustrations of the Radziwill Chronicle were made from another, more reliable chronicle, not subject to corrections by copyists. But we will dwell on this mysterious circumstance later.
Now about the chronology adopted in ancient times. Firstly, we must remember that before New Year began on September 1, and March 1, and only under Peter the Great, from 1700, on January 1. Secondly, chronology was carried out from the biblical creation of the world, which occurred before the birth of Christ by 5507, 5508, 5509 years - depending on what year, March or September, this event occurred, and in what month: until March 1 or until September 1 . Translating ancient chronology into modern times is a labor-intensive task, so special tables were compiled, which historians use.
It is generally accepted that chronicle weather records begin in the “Tale of Bygone Years” from the year 6360 from the creation of the world, that is, from the year 852 from the birth of Christ. Translated into modern language this message goes like this: “In the summer of 6360, when Michael began to reign, the Russian land began to be called. We learned about this because under this king Rus' came to Constantinople, as it is written about in the Greek chronicles. That’s why from now on we’ll start putting numbers down.”
Thus, the chronicler, in fact, established with this phrase the year of the formation of Rus', which in itself seems to be a very dubious stretch. Moreover, starting from this date, he names a number of other initial dates of the chronicle, including, in the entry for 862, the first mention of Rostov. But does the first chronicle date correspond to the truth? How did the chronicler come to her? Maybe he used some Byzantine chronicle in which this event is mentioned?
Indeed, Byzantine chronicles recorded the campaign of Rus' against Constantinople under Emperor Michael III, but the date of this event is not given. To derive it, the Russian chronicler was not too lazy to give the following calculation: “From Adam to the flood 2242 years, and from the flood to Abraham 1000 and 82 years, and from Abraham to the exodus of Moses 430 years, and from the exodus of Moses to David 600 years and 1 year , and from David to the captivity of Jerusalem 448 years, and from the captivity to Alexander the Great 318 years, and from Alexander to the birth of Christ 333 years, from christmas to Constantine there are 318 years, from Constantine to the aforementioned Michael 542 years.”
It would seem that this calculation looks so solid that checking it is a waste of time. However, historians were not lazy - they added up the numbers named by the chronicler and got not 6360, but 6314! An error of forty-four years, as a result of which it turns out that Rus' attacked Byzantium in 806. But it is known that Michael the Third became emperor in 842. So rack your brains, where is the mistake: either in the mathematical calculation, or did they mean another, earlier campaign of Rus' against Byzantium?
But in any case, it is clear that it is impossible to use “The Tale of Bygone Years” as a reliable source when describing the initial history of Rus'. And it's not just a matter of clearly erroneous chronology. “The Tale of Bygone Years” has long deserved to be looked at critically. And some independent-minded researchers are already working in this direction. Thus, the magazine “Rus” (No. 3-97) published an essay by K. Vorotny “Who and when created the Tale of Bygone Years?” » reliability. Let's name just a few such examples...
Why is there no information about the calling of the Varangians to Rus' - such an important historical event - in European chronicles, where this fact would certainly be focused on? N.I. Kostomarov also noted another mysterious fact: not a single chronicle that has reached us contains any mention of the struggle between Rus' and Lithuania in the twelfth century - but this is clearly stated in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” Why are our chronicles silent? It is logical to assume that at one time they were significantly edited.
In this regard, the fate of “Russian History from Ancient Times” by V.N. Tatishchev is very characteristic. There is a whole series of evidence that after the death of the historian it was significantly corrected by one of the founders of the Norman theory, G.F. Miller; under strange circumstances, the ancient chronicles used by Tatishchev disappeared.
Later, his drafts were found, which contain the following phrase:
“The monk Nestor was not well informed about the ancient Russian princes.” This phrase alone makes us take a fresh look at the “Tale of Bygone Years,” which serves as the basis for most of the chronicles that have reached us. Is everything in it genuine, reliable, and weren’t those chronicles that contradicted the Norman theory deliberately destroyed? True story We still don’t know Ancient Rus'; we have to restore it literally bit by bit.
Italian historian Mavro Orbini in his book " Slavic kingdom", published back in 1601, wrote:
“The Slavic family is older than the pyramids and so numerous that it inhabited half the world.” This statement is in clear contradiction with the history of the Slavs as set out in The Tale of Bygone Years.
In working on his book, Orbini used almost three hundred sources, of which we know no more than twenty - the rest disappeared, disappeared, or perhaps were deliberately destroyed as undermining the foundations of the Norman theory and casting doubt on the Tale of Bygone Years.
Among other sources he used, Orbini mentions the extant chronicle history of Rus', written by the thirteenth-century Russian historian Jeremiah. (!!!) Many other early chronicles and works of our initial literature have also disappeared, which would have helped answer where the Russian land came from.
Several years ago, for the first time in Russia, the historical study “Sacred Rus'” by Yuri Petrovich Mirolyubov, a Russian emigrant historian who died in 1970, was published. He was the first to notice "Isenbek boards" with the text of the now famous Veles book. In his work, Mirolyubov cites the observation of another emigrant, General Kurenkov, who found the following phrase in an English chronicle: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no decoration in it... And they went overseas to foreigners.” That is, an almost word-for-word coincidence with the phrase from “The Tale of Bygone Years”!
Y.P. Mirolyubov made a very convincing assumption that this phrase found its way into our chronicle during the reign of Vladimir Monomakh, who was married to the daughter of the last Anglo-Saxon king Harald, whose army was defeated by William the Conqueror.
This phrase from the English chronicle, which fell into his hands through his wife, as Mirolyubov believed, was used by Vladimir Monomakh to substantiate his claims to the grand-ducal throne. Court chronicler Sylvester, respectively "corrected" Russian chronicle, laying the first stone in the history of the Norman theory. From that very time, perhaps, everything in Russian history that contradicted the “calling of the Varangians” was destroyed, persecuted, hidden in inaccessible hiding places.
"The Tale of Bygone Years" is called the oldest chronicle code, which is an integral part of most of the chronicles that have reached us (and in total about 1500 of them have survived). "Tale" covers events up to 1113, but its earliest listing was made in 1377 monk Lawrence and his assistants at the direction of the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod Prince Dmitry Konstantinovich.
It is unknown where this chronicle was written, which was named Laurentian after the creator: either in the Annunciation Monastery of Nizhny Novgorod, or in the Nativity Monastery of Vladimir. In our opinion, the second option looks more convincing, and not only because the capital of North-Eastern Rus' moved from Rostov to Vladimir.
In the Vladimir Nativity Monastery, according to many experts, the Trinity and Resurrection Chronicles were born; the bishop of this monastery, Simon, was one of the authors of a wonderful work of ancient Russian literature "Kievo-Pechersk Patericon"- a collection of stories about the life and exploits of the first Russian monks.
One can only guess what kind of list from the ancient text the Laurentian Chronicle was, how much was added to it that was not in the original text, and how many losses it suffered - VAfter all, each customer of the new chronicle strove to adapt it to his own interests and to discredit his opponents, which was quite natural in conditions of feudal fragmentation and princely enmity.
The most significant gap occurs in the years 898-922. The events of the “Tale of Bygone Years” are continued in this chronicle by the events of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' until 1305, but there are gaps here too: from 1263 to 1283 and from 1288 to 1294. And this despite the fact that the events in Rus' before the baptism were clearly disgusting to the monks of the newly brought religion.
Another famous chronicle - the Ipatiev Chronicle - is named after the Ipatiev Monastery in Kostroma, where it was discovered by our wonderful historian N.M. Karamzin. It is significant that it was again found not far from Rostov, which, along with Kiev and Novgorod, is considered the largest center of ancient Russian chronicles. The Ipatiev Chronicle is younger than the Laurentian Chronicle - it was written in the 20s of the 15th century and, in addition to the Tale of Bygone Years, includes records of events in Kievan Rus and Galician-Volyn Rus.
Another chronicle that is worth paying attention to is the Radziwill chronicle, which first belonged to the Lithuanian prince Radziwill, then entered the Koenigsberg library and under Peter the Great, and finally to Russia. It is a 15th century copy of an older 13th century copy and talks about the events of Russian history from the settlement of the Slavs to 1206. It belongs to the Vladimir-Suzdal chronicles, is close in spirit to the Laurentian chronicles, but is much richer in design - it contains 617 illustrations.
They are called a valuable source “for the study of material culture, political symbolism and art of Ancient Rus'.” Moreover, some miniatures are very mysterious - they do not correspond to the text (!!!), however, according to researchers, they are more consistent with historical reality.
On this basis, it was assumed that the illustrations of the Radziwill Chronicle were made from another, more reliable chronicle, not subject to corrections by copyists. But we will dwell on this mysterious circumstance later.
Now about the chronology adopted in ancient times. Firstly, we must remember that previously the new year began on September 1 and March 1, and only under Peter the Great, from 1700, on January 1. Secondly, chronology was carried out from the biblical creation of the world, which occurred before the birth of Christ by 5507, 5508, 5509 years - depending on what year, March or September, this event occurred, and in what month: until March 1 or until September 1 . Translating ancient chronology into modern times is a labor-intensive task, so special tables were compiled, which historians use.
It is generally accepted that chronicle weather records begin in the “Tale of Bygone Years” from the year 6360 from the creation of the world, that is, from the year 852 from the birth of Christ. Translated into modern language, this message sounds like this: “In the summer of 6360, when Michael began to reign, the Russian land began to be called. We learned about this because under this king Rus' came to Constantinople, as it is written about in the Greek chronicles. That’s why from now on we’ll start putting numbers down.”
Thus, the chronicler, in fact, established with this phrase the year of the formation of Rus', which in itself seems to be a very dubious stretch. Moreover, starting from this date, he names a number of other initial dates of the chronicle, including, in the entry for 862, the first mention of Rostov. But does the first chronicle date correspond to the truth? How did the chronicler come to her? Maybe he used some Byzantine chronicle in which this event is mentioned?
Indeed, Byzantine chronicles recorded the campaign of Rus' against Constantinople under Emperor Michael III, but the date of this event is not given. To derive it, the Russian chronicler was not too lazy to give the following calculation: “From Adam to the flood 2242 years, and from the flood to Abraham 1000 and 82 years, and from Abraham to the exodus of Moses 430 years, and from the exodus of Moses to David 600 years and 1 year , and from David to the captivity of Jerusalem 448 years, and from the captivity to Alexander the Great 318 years, and from Alexander to the birth of Christ 333 years, from the birth of Christ to Constantine 318 years, from Constantine to the aforementioned Michael 542 years.”
It would seem that this calculation looks so solid that checking it is a waste of time. However, historians were not lazy - they added up the numbers named by the chronicler and got not 6360, but 6314! An error of forty-four years, as a result of which it turns out that Rus' attacked Byzantium in 806. But it is known that Michael the Third became emperor in 842. So rack your brains, where is the mistake: either in the mathematical calculation, or did they mean another, earlier campaign of Rus' against Byzantium?
But in any case, it is clear that it is impossible to use “The Tale of Bygone Years” as a reliable source when describing the initial history of Rus'. And it's not just a matter of clearly erroneous chronology. “The Tale of Bygone Years” has long deserved to be looked at critically. And some independent-minded researchers are already working in this direction. Thus, the magazine “Rus” (No. 3-97) published an essay by K. Vorotny “Who and when created the Tale of Bygone Years?” » reliability. Let's name just a few such examples...
Why is there no information about the calling of the Varangians to Rus' - such an important historical event - in European chronicles, where this fact would certainly be focused on? N.I. Kostomarov also noted another mysterious fact: not a single chronicle that has reached us contains any mention of the struggle between Rus' and Lithuania in the twelfth century - but this is clearly stated in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” Why are our chronicles silent? It is logical to assume that at one time they were significantly edited.
In this regard, the fate of “Russian History from Ancient Times” by V.N. Tatishchev is very characteristic. There is a whole series of evidence that after the death of the historian it was significantly corrected by one of the founders of the Norman theory, G.F. Miller; under strange circumstances, the ancient chronicles used by Tatishchev disappeared.
Later, his drafts were found, which contain the following phrase:
“The monk Nestor was not well informed about the ancient Russian princes.” This phrase alone makes us take a fresh look at the “Tale of Bygone Years,” which serves as the basis for most of the chronicles that have reached us. Is everything in it genuine, reliable, and weren’t those chronicles that contradicted the Norman theory deliberately destroyed? The real history of Ancient Rus' is still not known to us; it has to be reconstructed literally bit by bit.
Italian historian Mavro Orbini in his book " Slavic kingdom", published back in 1601, wrote:
“The Slavic family is older than the pyramids and so numerous that it inhabited half the world.” This statement is in clear contradiction with the history of the Slavs as set out in The Tale of Bygone Years.
In working on his book, Orbini used almost three hundred sources, of which we know no more than twenty - the rest disappeared, disappeared, or perhaps were deliberately destroyed as undermining the foundations of the Norman theory and casting doubt on the Tale of Bygone Years.
Among other sources he used, Orbini mentions the extant chronicle history of Rus', written by the thirteenth-century Russian historian Jeremiah. (!!!) Many other early chronicles and works of our initial literature have also disappeared, which would have helped answer where the Russian land came from.
Several years ago, for the first time in Russia, the historical study “Sacred Rus'” by Yuri Petrovich Mirolyubov, a Russian emigrant historian who died in 1970, was published. He was the first to notice "Isenbek boards" with the text of the now famous Veles book. In his work, Mirolyubov cites the observation of another emigrant, General Kurenkov, who found the following phrase in an English chronicle: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no decoration in it... And they went overseas to foreigners.” That is, an almost word-for-word coincidence with the phrase from “The Tale of Bygone Years”!
Y.P. Mirolyubov made a very convincing assumption that this phrase found its way into our chronicle during the reign of Vladimir Monomakh, who was married to the daughter of the last Anglo-Saxon king Harald, whose army was defeated by William the Conqueror.
This phrase from the English chronicle, which fell into his hands through his wife, as Mirolyubov believed, was used by Vladimir Monomakh to substantiate his claims to the grand-ducal throne. Court chronicler Sylvester, respectively "corrected" Russian chronicle, laying the first stone in the history of the Norman theory. From that very time, perhaps, everything in Russian history that contradicted the “calling of the Varangians” was destroyed, persecuted, hidden in inaccessible hiding places.
Now let us turn directly to the chronicle record for the year 862, which reports on the “calling of the Varangians” and mentions Rostov for the first time, which in itself seems significant to us:
“In the summer of 6370. They drove the Varangians overseas, and did not give them tribute, and began to rule over themselves. And there was no truth among them, and generation after generation rose up, and there was strife among them, and they began to fight with themselves. And they said to themselves: “Let’s look for a prince who would rule over us and judge us by right.” And they went overseas to the Varangians, to Rus'. Those Varangians were called Rus, just as others are called Swedes, and some Normans and Angles, and still others Gotlanders - that’s how these were called. The Chud, Slavs, Krivichi and all said to Rus': “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it. Come reign and rule over us."
It was from this record that the Norman theory of the origin of Rus' sprouted, degrading the dignity of the Russian people. But let's read it carefully. After all, it turns out to be absurd: the Novgorodians drove the Varangians overseas, did not give them tribute - and then immediately turned to them with a request to own them!
Where is the logic?
Considering that our entire history was again ruled in the 17-18th century by the Romanovs, with their German academicians, under the dictation of the Jesuits of Rome, the reliability of the current “sources” is low.
What features of the chronicles can you identify?
The chronicle arose back in Kievan Rus from the need of Russian society to have its own written history, and this was associated with the growth of the national self-awareness of the people. The chronicle was a historical document that included texts or transcriptions of treaty documents, wills of princes, resolutions of feudal congresses and other documents. Events of not only domestic but also world history and their interrelation became the subject of interest for chroniclers. This was especially evident in The Tale of Bygone Years, in which the question of the origin of the Russian people was explored in connection with global history. The chronicle was kept year by year, had collective authorship, and therefore in it we find diverse opinions about historical events, wider coverage, and a direct reflection of the people's point of view on these events. In it one can even notice differences in the political views and literary skills of its compilers.
Chroniclers often used folklore and book sources. One of the first chronicle vaults— “The Tale of Bygone Years” is a monument of collective creativity, on which, starting from the reign of Yaroslav the Wise in the 30s of the 11th century, more than one generation of Russian chroniclers, usually monks or representatives of the princely-boyar environment, worked on it. The Monk Nestor, a monk of the Kiev Pechersk Monastery, gained the greatest fame as a chronicler.
Chronicles, and especially “The Tale of Bygone Years,” allowed for a mixture of genres within one work. Thus, as part of the “Tale...” we find chronicle legends (for example, about the death of Prince Oleg from his horse, later used by A. S. Pushkin), closeness to hagiographic literature (about the transfer of the relics of Saints Boris and Gleb, about the repose of Theodosius of Pechersk) . In the depths of the chronicle, a military story begins to take shape, for example, about Yaroslav’s revenge on Svyatopolk the Accursed. The Tale of Bygone Years also included the Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh. However, with all the eventual and genre mosaic of the chronicle, it is distinguished by thematic unity - the depiction of individual milestones in the history of Russia, the presentation of events in a strict time sequence. The chronological connection of events was supported in the chronicle by a genealogical line, that is, by showing the continuity of power of the Rurik princes. The chronicler necessarily points out the family relations between the princes, whose glory each of them inherits.
The chronicles proclaim as their main ideas the assertion of the independence of Russia, the superiority of Christianity over paganism, the inseparability of Russian history from universal history, a call for unity of action in the fight against enemies, and the spiritual unity of Russian society.
Can you name distinctive features genre "educational"?
In Ancient Rus', oratorical prose developed, which, in turn, is divided into solemn and teacher eloquence. Teaching belongs to teacher eloquence. Its purpose is instruction (edification), information, polemics. It is small in volume, often devoid of rhetorical embellishments, and was written or pronounced in the generally accessible, living, spoken Old Russian language.
“The monuments of didactic prose, often artless in style, contained many vivid everyday realities and scenes of “low” reality, especially in the description of human vices... Fostering Christian morality, “educational” literature condemned vices and glorified virtues, reminding believers of the day Last Judgment and the inescapable torment that is prepared for sinners after death in hell.
Among the works of didactic eloquence, a group of “words” on the topic of “plagues of God” stands out, where any disaster that has befallen the country: drought or flood, epidemic or enemy invasion<…>regarded as Divine retribution for sins. Another group of “teachings” and “conversations” is addressed to monks and contains a number of rules that a monk must strictly follow: fasting, being meek in character, performing feats of prayer, resorting to repentance and communion as often as possible.” (L. A. Olshevskaya, S. N. Travnikov)
The first Russian chronicles
"The Tale of Bygone Years" which is also called "Nestor's Chronicle" named after its compiler (c. 1110–1113), known in two editions;
- "Laurentian Chronicle"(manuscript 1377), on which is the name of its copyist, monk Lawrence, who supplemented it with a chronicle of events in North-Eastern Rus' until 1305;
And later (beginning of the 15th century) "Ipatiev Chronicle" discovered in the Ipatiev Monastery in Kostroma. It also includes "The Tale of Bygone Years" to which is added a chronicle of events that took place in Kyiv, Galich and Volyn until 1292.
According to the outstanding philologist A. A. Shakhmatov, "The Tale of Bygone Years" is a chronicle collection that combines:
The first Kyiv chronicle, dating back to 1037–1039;
Its continuation, written by the monk Nikon from the Pechersk Monastery in Kyiv (c. 1073);
The story of the adoption of Christianity by Vladimir and his people - “The Tale of the Baptism of Rus'”;
- new vault, everyone the texts listed above, compiled in the same monastery ca. 1093–1095;
Final edition of Nestor.
After the death of Prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavich in 1113, the monk Sylvester from the Mikhailovsky Vydubitsky Monastery, on behalf of Vladimir Monomakh, rewrote "The Tale of Bygone Years" bringing the story to 1117.
Gaps in the narrative were filled with borrowings from Byzantine chronographs (George Amartol) and from folk legends (for example, the story of Olga’s revenge on the Drevlyans).
From the book Rus' and the Horde. Great Empire of the Middle Ages authorChapter 1 Russian Chronicles and the Miller-Romanov version of Russian history 1. The first attempts to write ancient Russian history A good overview of the history of writing Russian history is given by V.O. Klyuchevsky, p. 187–196. This story is little known and very interesting. We will bring
From the book Rus' and the Horde. Great Empire of the Middle Ages author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich5. Other Russian chronicles describing history up to the 13th century In addition to the Radzivilov list, today we have several more lists of ancient Russian chronicles. The main ones are: Laurentian Chronicle, Ipatiev Chronicle, Moscow Academic
From the book Reconstruction of World History [text only] author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich2. RUSSIAN AND WESTERN EUROPEAN CHRONICLES From the very beginning, an important circumstance should be emphasized. As we will see, Russian and Western European sources describe, in general, the same history of a single Great = “Mongol” Empire of the 14th–16th centuries. The center of which
From the book Book 1. New chronology of Rus' [Russian Chronicles. "Mongol-Tatar" conquest. Battle of Kulikovo. Ivan groznyj. Razin. Pugachev. The defeat of Tobolsk and author Nosovsky Gleb VladimirovichChapter 1 Russian Chronicles and the Miller-Romanov version of Russian history 1. The first attempts to write ancient Russian history A good overview of the history of writing Russian history is given by V.O. Klyuchevsky, p. 187–196. She is little known and very interesting. We'll put it here
From the book New Chronology and the Concept of the Ancient History of Rus', England and Rome author Nosovsky Gleb VladimirovichChapter 1. Russian chronicles and traditional Russian history The first attempts to write ancient Russian history A good overview of the history of writing Russian history is given by V. O. Klyuchevsky, see, pp. 187–196. This story is little known and very interesting. We will present it here following
From the book Rus' and Rome. Reconstruction of the Battle of Kulikovo. Parallels of Chinese and European history. author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich2. Russian chronicles and the Romanov version of Russian history The first attempts to write ancient Russian history. A small but very rich overview of the historiography of Russian history was given by V.O. Klyuchevsky (“Unpublished works.” M., 1983). This "story of writing"
From the book Mister Veliky Novgorod. Did the Russian land come from Volkhov or the Volga? author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich4. Russian chronicles It is well known from Russian history that the Novgorodians sailed a lot along the Volga River. Not along Volkhov, but precisely along the Volga! It is believed that the Novgorodians ruled the Volga as if they were at home. This looks strange if we consider that Veliky Novgorod was located on
From the book The Path from the Varangians to the Greeks. A thousand-year-old mystery of history author Zvyagin Yuri YurievichA. Russian chronicles To begin with, let us remember that there are practically no Russian chronicle sources independent in their first part from the Tale of Bygone Years (PVL - a work hypothetically identified by historians after studying all the chronicles of the 12th century). Eat
From the book The Rus' That Was-2. Alternative version of history author Maksimov Albert VasilievichRUSSIAN CHRONICLES ABOUT THE INITIAL PERIOD In the Pushkin and Trinity Chronicles it is written: “... the oldest Rurik came... and the other Sineus came to Beloozero, and the third Izborst Truvor.” The place where Rurik came to reign is omitted from the chronicles. None of the historians paid attention to this, but
author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich5.2. Russian Chronicles: a dispute in the council of Ivan the Terrible - is it worth starting the Livonian Campaign? After the successful Kazan War, Ivan the Terrible decides to go to war with Livonia and its allied states Western Europe. The campaign was considered by the king as a punishment.
From the book The Conquest of America by Ermak-Cortez and the Rebellion of the Reformation through the eyes of the “ancient” Greeks author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich7.1. Russian chronicles about the sailing of Ermak As soon as Ermak sailed, one of the Siberian rulers attacked the Stroganovs' possessions. Ivan the Terrible decided that the Stroganovs’ sending of Ermak’s detachment to Siberia, which had not been coordinated with the royal court, was to blame, which provoked the conflict. Tsar
From the book Rus'. China. England. Dating of the Nativity of Christ and the First Ecumenical Council author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich From the book Siberian Odyssey by Ermak author Skrynnikov Ruslan Grigorievich From the book Russian Mystery [Where did Prince Rurik come from?] author Vinogradov Alexey EvgenievichRussian chronicles and the “Varangian Prussian land” However, the bulk of Russian sources of the 16th and most of the 17th centuries. they also definitely indicate the southern Baltic, but still different, territory from which the legendary Rurik and his brothers came. So, in the Resurrection Chronicle
From the book Book 1. Western myth [“Ancient” Rome and the “German” Habsburgs are reflections of the Russian-Horde history of the 14th–17th centuries. Heritage Great Empire into a cult author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich2. Russian and Western European chronicles Let us emphasize an important circumstance. As we will see, Russian and Western European sources describe, in general, the same “Mongol” Empire of the 13th–16th centuries. The center of which is first Vladimir-Suzdal Rus'-Horde, and then
From the book Diplomacy of Svyatoslav author Sakharov Andrey NikolaevichByzantine chronicles and Russian chronicles The main sources on this topic are the “History” of Leo the Deacon, a Byzantine author of the second half of the 10th century, who described in detail the Russian-Bulgarian and Russian-Byzantine wars, the Byzantine chronicles of Skylitzes (XI century) and Zonara (XII century
monthly literary, scientific and political magazine, Petrograd, 1915-17. Founded by M. Gorky, it united writers and publicists of a socialist orientation who opposed the continuation of the war, nationalism, and chauvinism.
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
CHRONICLES
in Rus' were carried out from the 11th to the 18th centuries. Until sep. XVI century, the time of Ivan the Terrible, they were the main type of historical narration, only from that time on “giving way to another historiographic genre - chronographs. Chronicles were compiled in monasteries, at the courts of princes (and then kings), in the offices of metropolitans. Chroniclers almost were never private individuals, but carried out instructions or orders from spiritual or secular rulers, and reflected the interests of certain groups of people.That is why L. often contradicted each other not only in their assessments of events, but also in their actual factual basis, which creates significant difficulties for chronicle researchers and historians, on the basis of L. recreating the actual course of events. In their structure, Old Russian L. represented collections of weather articles, that is, reports about events that occurred in each year. Most often, the chronicler limited himself to brief information about what happened, For example: “In the summer of 6751 (1143). Vsevolod married his son Svyatoslav to Vasilkovna, Prince of Polotsk. The same winter, Izyaslav went to his army (uncle - Ya. L.) Gyurgy and, not having settled with him, went to his brother Smolinsk, and from there he went to his other brother Svyatopolk Novugorod, there and winter.” But in a number of cases the chronicler resorted to literary form presentation, creating a plot narrative about the most significant events national history. It is from L. that we know in detail about the campaign, capture and escape from captivity of Prince Igor Svyatoslavich, about the tragedy of the Battle of Kalka, about the Battle of Kulikovo, the circumstances of the capture of Moscow by Tokhtamysh, about the feudal war of the 15th century, the culminating episode of which was the capture and blinding of the great Prince Vasily II Vasilyevich, etc. Even in weather records, chroniclers often include addresses of princes, their dialogues, and widely use literary cliches in them: stable speech formulas, colorful epithets, rhetorical turns, etc. L. not only the main sources on political history of Rus', but also the most extensive monuments of ancient Russian secular literature, and chronicle writing is one of its leading genres. Russian chronicle has a long history. With the current level of knowledge, it is not yet possible to establish when they began to keep records of historical events, replacing the previous form of historical knowledge - oral stories, traditions and legends. According to the majority of scientists, followers of Acad. A. A. Shakhmatova, L. takes on a stable form and begins to be carried out systematically from the middle. XI century The oldest book that has come down to us is the Tale of Bygone Years. Already this chronicle of the beginning. XII century distinguished by the combination of actual weather records with monuments of other genres and even documents. The Tale of Bygone Years contains texts of treaties with Byzantium, legends about the emergence of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, a presentation of sacred history in the form of a story by a “philosopher” who encouraged Prince Vladimir to adopt the Christian religion, etc. L. would retain such a syncretic character later in the century. further. Of particular interest are the so-called chronicle stories - plot stories about the most significant events in Russian history. Several hundred lists of chronicles have been preserved to this day (some chronicles are known in several lists, others in only one), and scientists have identified at least several dozen chronicle collections. Strictly speaking, each book is a collection, since it combines in itself - in a revised, abbreviated or, on the contrary, expanded form - the previous book and records of events recent years or decades belonging to the chronicler himself. The consolidated nature of L. made possible the path of chronicle research that was discovered and developed by Academician. Shakhmatov. If two or more L. coincide with each other before a certain year, then it follows that either one was copied from the other (this is rare), or they had a common source that reached that year. Shakhmatov and his followers managed to identify a whole chain of chronicle vaults that preceded the 14th-17th centuries that have come down to us: vaults of the 14th, 15th and earlier centuries, up to the 11th century. Of course, the definition exact date and the place where the collections were compiled is hypothetical in nature, but these hypotheses, based on the texts that have actually reached us and the relationships between them, allow us to navigate the monuments included in the series that has been published for one and a half hundred years - “The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles” (PSRL). Chronicle collection containing a statement ancient history Rus', is the Tale of Bygone Years. L. South Russian principalities of the XII-XIII centuries. came to us as part of the Ipatievskaya L. (see Ipatievskaya Chronicle). Chronicles of Rostov the Great, Vladimir and Pereyaslavl of Suzdal late XII - early. XIII century best preserved as part of the Laurentian and Radzivilovskaya L. (see Laurentian Chronicle, Radzivilovskaya Chronicle), as well as the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl of Suzdal. The chronicle collection associated with Metropolitan Cyprian and brought up to 1408, reached the Trinity Leningrad, which burned in the Moscow fire of 1812. Its text was reconstructed by M. D. Priselkov (Trinity Chronicle: Reconstruction of the text - M.; Leningrad, 1950 ). Around 1412, a chronicle corpus was created in Tver, reflecting an expanded revision of the all-Russian chronicle corpus of the late 14th and early 14th centuries. XV century, close to the Trinity L. It was reflected in the Simeonovskaya L. (PSRL. - T. 18) and the Rogozh chronicler (PSRL. - T. 15. - Issue 1). Another source of the Rogozhsky chronicler was the Tver code of 1375, which was also reflected in the Tver collection of the 16th century. (PSRL.-T. 15). Of particular interest is the all-Russian, so-called Novgorod-Sophia codex, compiled, apparently, in the 30s. XV century (often defined as “the code of 1448”) and included expanded chronicle stories about the battle of Kalka, Batu’s invasion and stories about the struggle of the Tver princes with the Tatars that were absent in Trinity Leningrad, lengthy editions of stories about the Battle of Kulikovo, the story about the invasion of Tokhtamysh, “THE WORD ON THE LIFE OF DMITRY DONSKY”, etc. This collection, compiled, apparently, at the metropolitan see during the feudal war in Moscow, combined the all-Russian chronicle with the Novgorod one. The code was published in Sofia I L. (PSRL.-T. 5; 2nd edition not completed: in 1925 only the first issue of this volume was published) and Novgorod IV L. (Vol. 4, issues 1 and 2; 2nd ed. not completed). The first monuments of the Moscow grand-ducal chronicle that have come down to us were formed no earlier than the middle. XV century The chronicle collection of 1472 was reflected in Vologda-Perm Leningrad (PSRL.-T. 26) and Nikanorovskaya Leningrad (PSRL.-T. 27). It was based on the Novgorod-Sophia codex, edited by the grand ducal chronicler (who excluded, in particular, the mention of Novgorod liberties). A more radical revision of the previous chronicle was carried out by the Grand Duke's compilers in the late 70s. XV century: The Novgorod-Sofia vault was connected with a vault close to the Trinity Leningrad (with censorship of the material from both sources), and with other monuments. The Grand Duke's Moscow Chronicle of 1479 , which reflected this revision, formed the basis of the entire official chronicle of the late 15th-16th centuries. It is preserved in a list from the 18th century that has not yet been published. (in the Hermitage collection in the Russian National Library), and its later edition, brought up to 1492, was published in the 25th volume of PSRL. The chronicle compilation, which formed the basis of the Moscow code of 1479, was reflected in the first part of the Ermolinskaya L. (PSRL.-T 23), named so by Shakhmatov due to the fact that it contains a selection of news about the activities of the architect V. D. Ermolin in 1462-1472. The second part of the book contains material independent of the grand-ducal chronicle and apparently goes back to the collection compiled in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. The same code was reflected in the so-called Abbreviated Chronicles of the late 15th century. (PSRL.-T. 27). Rostov archbishop's code of the 80s. The 15th century was reflected in Typografskaya L. (PSRL.- T. 24). In Sophia II (PSRL.-T 6) and Lvov (PSRL.-T. 20) Leningrad, the code of 1518 was reflected, which in turn was based on a certain chronicle code of the 80s. XV century, compiled in unofficial church circles. At the end of the 20s. XVI century at the Moscow Metropolitan See, a chronicle was compiled covering the events of 1437-1520, named after its owner Joasaph (its text was published in 1967 by A. A. Zimin in a separate edition). The same years also included the compilation of the first edition of the largest of the Russian chronicles, the Nikon Chronicle (see Nikon Chronicle). Between 1542-1544 Another extensive chronicle was compiled - the Resurrection Chronicle (PSRL - T. 7-8). In the 2nd half. 50s of the 16th century. the initial edition of Nikon's L. was combined with extracts from the Resurrection L. and the Chronicler of the Beginning of the Kingdom (the chronicle outlining the events of 1533-1552, that is, the beginning of the great reign, and then the reign of Ivan the Terrible). Finally, in 1568-1576. under Ivan the Terrible, a multi-volume illustrated book was created - the so-called Facial Vault. These were the last all-Russian chronicle collections, which then gave way to another type of historiographical work - chronographs (see Russian Chronograph). Chronicles, conducted in the 17th-18th centuries, were not monuments of all-Russian, but rather local provincial chronicles. Publisher: Complete collection of Russian chronicles. - St. Petersburg; M, 1843; M., 1989.-T. 1-38; Novgorod first chronicle of the older and younger editions. - M.; L., 1950; Pskov Chronicles.-M, L., 1941-1955.-Iss. 1-2; Stories of Russian chronicles of the XII-XIV centuries / Translation and explanations by T. N. Mikhelson. - M., 1968; 2nd ed. - M., 1973; Stories from Russian chronicles of the 15th-17th centuries / Translation and explanations by T. N. Michelson - M., 1976, Northern Russian chronicle code of 1472 / Preparation of text and comments by Ya S. Lurie; Translation by V, V Kolesov // PLDR: Second half of the 15th century.-M., 1982.-P. 410-443, 638-655. Lit.: Sukhomlinov M.I. On the ancient Russian chronicle as a literary monument. - St. Petersburg, 1856; Shakhmatov A. A. Review of Russian chronicles of the XIV-XVI centuries - M., Leningrad, 1938, Priselkov M. D. History of Russian chronicles of the XI-XV centuries - Leningrad, 1940; L i-khachev D.S. Russian chronicles and their cultural and historical significance. - M; L., 1947; Dmitrieva R.P. Bibliography of Russian chronicles. - M.; L., 1962; Nasonov A. N. History of Russian chronicles of the 11th - early 18th centuries. - M.. 1969, Tvorogov O. V. Plot narration in chronicles of the 11th-13th centuries. // Origins of Russian fiction.-S. 31-66, Lurie Y. S.; I) To the study of the chronicle genre // TODRL.- 1972.- T. 27.- P. 76-93; 2) All-Russian Chronicles of the XIV-XV centuries - L., 1976; 3) Two stories of Rus' in the 15th century. St. Petersburg, 1994; Koretsky V.I. History of Russian chronicles of the second half of the 16th - early 17th centuries. - M., 1986. For articles on individual chronicles, see: Dictionary of Bookmakers. - Issue. 1.-S. 234-251; Vol. 2, part 2.-S. 17-18, 20-69. See also: Novgorod Chronicles, Pskov Chronicles, Ipatiev Chronicle, Laurentian Chronicle, Nikon Chronicle, Radzivilov Chronicle, Facial Vault, Tale of Bygone Years. Y. S. Lurie