Chronicle – An ancient Russian essay on Russian history, consisting of weather news. For example: “In the summer of 6680. The blessed prince Gleb of Kievsky passed away” (“In 1172. The blessed prince Gleb of Kyiv died”). News can be short or lengthy, including lives, stories and legends.
Chronicler – a term that has two meanings: 1) the author of the chronicle (for example, Nestor the Chronicler); 2) a chronicle that is small in volume or thematic scope (for example, the Vladimir Chronicler). Monuments of local or monastic chronicles are often called chroniclers.
Chronicle collection - a stage in the history of chronicle reconstructed by researchers, which is characterized by the creation of a new chronicle by combining (“compiling”) several previous chronicles. All-Russian chronicles of the 17th century are also called vaults, the compilative nature of which is undoubted.
The most ancient Russian chronicles have not been preserved in their original form. They survived in later revisions, and the main task in studying them is to reconstruct the earlier ones (XI-XII centuries) on the basis of later chronicles (XIII-XVII centuries).
Almost all Russian chronicles in their initial part contain a single text that tells about the Creation of the world and then about Russian history from ancient times (from the settlement of the Slavs in the East European valley) to the beginning of the 12th century, namely until 1110. Further The text differs in different chronicles. It follows from this that the chronicle tradition is based on a certain chronicle that is common to all, brought to the beginning of the 12th century.
At the beginning of the text, most chronicles have a title beginning with the words “This is the Tale of Bygone Years...”. In some chronicles, for example, the Ipatiev and Radziwill Chronicles, the author is also indicated - a monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery (see, for example, reading the Radziwill Chronicle: "The Tale of Bygone Years of the Monk of the Fedosiev Pechersk Monastery..."). In the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon among the monks of the 11th century. “Nestor, like Papis the chronicler” is mentioned, and in the Khlebnikov list of the Ipatiev Chronicle the name of Nestor appears already in the title: “The Tale of Bygone Years of the Monk Nester Feodosyev of the Pechersk Monastery...”.
Reference
The Khlebnikov list was created in the 16th century. in Kyiv, where they knew the text of the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon well. In the most ancient list of the Ipatiev Chronicle, the Ipatiev Chronicle, the name of Nestor is absent. It is possible that it was included in the text of the Khlebnikov list when creating the manuscript, guided by the instructions of the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. One way or another, already historians of the 18th century. Nestor was considered the author of the oldest Russian chronicle. In the 19th century researchers became more cautious in their judgments about the ancient Russian chronicle. They no longer wrote about Nestor’s chronicle, but about the general text of Russian chronicles and called it “The Tale of Bygone Years,” which over time became a textbook monument of ancient Russian literature.
It should be borne in mind that in reality, The Tale of Bygone Years is a research reconstruction; By this name they mean the initial text of most Russian chronicles before the beginning of the 12th century, which has not reached us in its independent form.
Already in the so-called “Tale of Bygone Years” there are several contradictory indications of the time of the chronicler’s work, as well as individual inconsistencies. It is obvious that this stage of the beginning of the 12th century. preceded by other chronicles. Only a remarkable philologist at the turn of the 19th–20th centuries was able to understand this confusing situation. Alexey Alexandrovich Shakhmatov (1864–1920).
A. A. Shakhmatov hypothesized that Nestor is not the author of “The Tale of Bygone Years,” but of earlier chronicle texts. He proposed calling such texts codes, since the chronicler combined materials from previous codes and extracts from other sources into a single text. The concept of the chronicle code today is key in the reconstruction of the stages of ancient Russian chronicle writing.
Scientists identify the following chronicle codes that preceded the “Tale of Bygone Years”: 1) The most ancient code (hypothetical date of creation - about 1037); 2) Code 1073; 3) Initial arch (before 1093); 4) "The Tale of Bygone Years" edition before 1113 (possibly associated with the name of the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor): 5) "The Tale of Bygone Years" edition 1116 (associated with the name of the abbot of the Mikhailovsky Vydubitsky Monastery Sylvester): 6) "The Tale of Bygone Years" edition of 1118 (also associated with the Vydubitsky Monastery).
Chronicle of the 12th century. represented by three traditions: Novgorod, Vladimir-Suzdal and Kyiv. The first is restored according to the Novgorod I Chronicle (senior and younger editions), the second - according to the Laurentian, Radziwill and Chroniclers of Pereyaslavl of Suzdal, the third - according to the Ipatiev Chronicle with the involvement of the Vladimir-Suzdal chronicle.
Novgorod chronicle is represented by several vaults, the first of which (1132) is considered by researchers to be princely, and the rest - created under the Novgorod archbishop. According to the assumption of A. A. Gippius, each archbishop initiated the creation of his own chronicler, which described the time of his priesthood. Arranged sequentially one after another, the lord's chroniclers form the text of the Novgorod chronicle. Researchers consider one of the first lordly chroniclers to be Domestic Anthony of the Kirik Monastery, who wrote the chronological treatise “The Teaching of Him to Tell Man the Number of All Years.” The chronicle article of 1136, describing the rebellion of the Novgorodians against Prince Vsevolod-Gabriel, provides chronological calculations similar to those read in Kirik’s treatise.
One of the stages of Novgorod chronicle writing occurs in the 1180s. The name of the chronicler is also known. Article 1188 details the death of the priest of the Church of St. James, Herman Vojata, and states that he served in this church for 45 years. Indeed, 45 years before this news, in article 1144, news is read from the first person, in which the chronicler writes that the archbishop made him a priest.
Vladimir-Suzdal chronicle known in several vaults of the second half of the 12th century, of which two seem most likely. The first stage of the Vladimir chronicle brought its presentation up to 1177. This chronicle was compiled on the basis of records that were kept from 1158 under Andrei Bogolyubsky, but were combined into a single set already under Vsevolod III. The latest news of this chronicle is a lengthy story about the tragic death of Andrei Bogolyubsky, a story about the struggle of his younger brothers Mikhalka and Vsevolod with his nephews Mstislav and Yaropolk Rostislavich for the reign of Vladimir, the defeat and blinding of the latter. The second Vladimir vault is dated to 1193, since after this year the series of dated weather news ends. Researchers believe that the records for the end of the 12th century. date back to the arch of the early 13th century.
Kiev chronicle represented by the Ipatiev Chronicle, which was influenced by the northeastern chronicle. Nevertheless, researchers manage to identify at least two vaults in the Ipatiev Chronicle. The first is the Kiev codex, compiled during the reign of Rurik Rostislavich. It ends with the events of 1200, the last of which is a solemn speech by the abbot of the Kyiv Vydubitsky monastery Moses with words of gratitude addressed to the prince who built the stone fence in the Vydubitsky monastery. In Moses they see the author of the code of 1200, who set the goal of exalting his prince. The second code, unmistakably identified in the Ipatiev Chronicle, refers to the Galician-Volyn chronicle of the end of the 13th century.
The oldest Russian chronicles are valuable, and for many subjects, and the only historical source on the history of Ancient Rus'.
"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 was another, earlier campaign of Rus' against Byzantium in mind?
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.
Chronicles are the focus of the history of Ancient Rus', its ideology, understanding of its place in world history - they are one of the most important monuments of writing, literature, history, and culture in general. Only the most literate, knowledgeable, wise people took on the task of compiling chronicles, i.e., weather reports of events, capable of not only setting out various affairs year after year, but also giving them an appropriate explanation, leaving for posterity a vision of the era as the chroniclers understood it.
The chronicle was a state matter, a princely matter. Therefore, the order to compile a chronicle was given not just to the most literate and intelligent person, but also to the one who would be able to implement ideas close to this or that princely branch, this or that princely house. Thus, the chronicler’s objectivity and honesty came into conflict with what we call “social order.” If the chronicler did not satisfy the tastes of his customer, they parted with him and transferred the compilation of the chronicle to another, more reliable, more obedient author. Alas, work for the needs of power arose already at the dawn of writing, and not only in Rus', but also in other countries.
Chronicles, according to the observations of domestic scientists, appeared in Rus' shortly after the introduction of Christianity. The first chronicle may have been compiled at the end of the 10th century. It was intended to reflect the history of Rus' from the time of the emergence of a new dynasty there, the Rurikovichs, and until the reign of Vladimir with his impressive victories, with the introduction of Christianity in Rus'. From this time on, the right and duty to keep chronicles were given to Church leaders. It was in churches and monasteries that the most literate, well-prepared and trained people were found - priests and monks. They had a rich book heritage, translated literature, Russian records of ancient tales, legends, epics, traditions; They also had the grand ducal archives at their disposal. The best thing for them was to carry out this responsible and important work: to create a written historical monument of the era in which they lived and worked, connecting it with past times, with deep historical origins.
Scientists believe that before chronicles appeared - large-scale historical works covering several centuries of Russian history, there were separate records, including church, oral stories, which initially served as the basis for the first generalizing works. These were stories about Kiev and the founding of Kiev, about the campaigns of Russian troops against Byzantium, about the journey of Princess Olga to Constantinople, about the wars of Svyatoslav, the legend about the murder of Boris and Gleb, as well as epics, lives of saints, sermons, traditions, songs, various kinds of legends .
Later, already during the existence of the chronicles, more and more new stories were added to them, tales about impressive events in Rus' like the famous feud of 1097 and the blinding of the young prince Vasilko or about the campaign of the Russian princes against the Polovtsians in 1111. The chronicle also included memoirs Vladimir Monomakh about life - his “Teachings to Children”.
The second chronicle was created under Yaroslav the Wise at the time when he united Rus' and founded the Church of Hagia Sophia. This chronicle absorbed the previous chronicle and other materials.
Already at the first stage of creating chronicles, it became obvious that they represent collective creativity, are a collection of previous chronicles, documents, and various types of oral and written historical evidence. The compiler of the next chronicle acted not only as the author of the corresponding newly written parts of the chronicle, but also as a compiler and editor. It was his ability to direct the idea of the arch in the right direction that was highly valued by the Kyiv princes.
The next chronicle was created by the famous Hilarion, who wrote it, apparently under the name of the monk Nikon, in the 60-70s. XI century, after the death of Yaroslav the Wise. And then the vault appeared already during the time of Svyatopolk, in the 90s. XI century
The vault, which was taken up by the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor and which entered our history under the name “The Tale of Bygone Years,” thus turned out to be at least the fifth in a row and was created in the first decade of the 12th century. at the court of Prince Svyatopolk. And each collection was enriched with more and more new materials, and each author contributed to it his talent, his knowledge, his erudition. Nestor's codex was in this sense the pinnacle of early Russian chronicle writing.
In the first lines of his chronicle, Nestor posed the question “Where did the Russian land come from, who was the first to reign in Kyiv, and where did the Russian land come from?” Thus, already in these first words of the chronicle it speaks of the large-scale goals that the author set for himself. And indeed, the chronicle did not become an ordinary chronicle, of which there were many in the world at that time - dry, dispassionately recording facts - but an excited story of the historian of that time, introducing into the narrative philosophical and religious generalizations, his own figurative system, temperament, and style. Nestor depicts the origin of Rus', as we have already said, against the backdrop of the development of the entire world history. Rus' is one of the European nations.
Using previous codes and documentary materials, including, for example, treaties between Rus' and Byzantium, the chronicler develops a wide panorama of historical events that cover both the internal history of Rus' - the formation of all-Russian statehood with its center in Kiev, and the international relations of Rus'. A whole gallery of historical figures passes through the pages of the Nestor Chronicle - princes, boyars, mayors, thousands, merchants, church leaders. He talks about military campaigns, the organization of monasteries, the foundation of new churches and the opening of schools, religious disputes and reforms of internal Russian life. Nestor constantly concerns the life of the people as a whole, their moods, expressions of dissatisfaction with the princely policies. On the pages of the chronicle we read about uprisings, murders of princes and boyars, and brutal social battles. The author describes all this thoughtfully and calmly, trying to be objective, as objective as a deeply religious person can be, guided in his assessments by the concepts of Christian virtue and sin. But, frankly speaking, his religious assessments are very close to universal human assessments. Nestor condemns murder, betrayal, deception, perjury uncompromisingly, but extols honesty, courage, loyalty, nobility, and other wonderful human qualities. The entire chronicle was imbued with a sense of the unity of Rus' and a patriotic mood. All the main events in it were assessed not only from the point of view of religious concepts, but also from the standpoint of these all-Russian state ideals. This motive sounded especially significant on the eve of the beginning of the political collapse of Rus'.
In 1116–1118 the chronicle was rewritten again. Vladimir Monomakh, who was then reigning in Kyiv, and his son Mstislav were dissatisfied with the way Nestor showed the role of Svyatopolk in Russian history, on whose order the “Tale of Bygone Years” was written in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery. Monomakh took the chronicle from the Pechersk monks and transferred it to his ancestral Vydubitsky monastery. His abbot Sylvester became the author of the new code. Positive assessments of Svyatopolk were moderated, and all the deeds of Vladimir Monomakh were emphasized, but the main body of the Tale of Bygone Years remained unchanged. And in the future, Nestor’s work was an indispensable component both in the Kiev chronicles and in the chronicles of individual Russian principalities, being one of the connecting threads for the entire Russian culture.
Later, with the political collapse of Rus' and the rise of individual Russian centers, the chronicles began to fragment. In addition to Kyiv and Novgorod, their own chronicle collections appeared in Smolensk, Pskov, Vladimir-on-Klyazma, Galich, Vladimir-Volynsky, Ryazan, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl-Russky. Each of them reflected the peculiarities of the history of its region, bringing its own princes to the fore. Thus, the Vladimir-Suzdal chronicles showed the history of the reign of Yuri Dolgoruky, Andrei Bogolyubsky, Vsevolod the Big Nest; Galician chronicle of the beginning of the 13th century. became, in essence, a biography of the famous warrior prince Daniil Galitsky; the Chernigov branch of the Rurikovichs was mainly narrated in the Chernigov Chronicle. And yet, even in the local chronicles, all-Russian cultural origins were clearly visible. The history of each land was compared with the entire Russian history; The Tale of Bygone Years was an indispensable part of many local chronicles. Some of them continued the tradition of Russian chronicle writing in the 11th century. So, shortly before the Mongol-Tatar invasion, at the turn of the 12th–13th centuries. In Kyiv, a new chronicle was created, which reflected the events that took place in Chernigov, Galich, Vladimir-Suzdal Rus', Ryazan and other Russian cities. It is clear that the author of the code had at his disposal the chronicles of various Russian principalities and used them. The chronicler also knew European history well. He mentioned, for example, Frederick Barbarossa's Third Crusade. In various Russian cities, including Kiev, in the Vydubitsky monastery, entire libraries of chronicle collections were created, which became sources for new historical works of the 12th–13th centuries.
The preservation of the all-Russian chronicle tradition was shown by the Vladimir-Suzdal chronicle code of the beginning of the 13th century, which covered the history of the country from the legendary Kiy to Vsevolod the Big Nest.
Most of the chronicles have not survived in the form of originals, but their copies and partial revisions have been preserved - the so-called lists, created in the 14th-18th centuries. By list is meant a “rewriting” (“copying”) from another source. These lists, based on the place of compilation or the place of the events depicted, are exclusively or predominantly divided into categories (original Kiev, Novgorod, Pskov, etc.). Lists of the same category differ from each other not only in expressions, but even in the selection of news, as a result of which the lists are divided into editions (editions). So, we can say: The original Chronicle of the southern edition (the Ipatievsky list and similar ones), the initial Chronicle of the Suzdal edition (the Lavrentievsky list and similar ones). Such differences in the lists suggest that the chronicles are collections and that their original sources have not reached us. This idea, first expressed by P. M. Stroev, now constitutes a general opinion. The existence in a separate form of many detailed chronicle legends, as well as the possibility of pointing out that in the same story stitchings from different sources are clearly indicated (bias mainly manifests itself in sympathy for one or the other of the warring parties) - further confirm this is an opinion.
Basic chronicles
Nestorov's list
There are also separate legends: “The Tale of the Murder of Andrei Bogolyubsky,” written by his follower (probably mentioned in it by Kuzmishch Kiyanin). The same separate legend should have been the story of the exploits of Izyaslav Mstislavich; at one point in this story we read: “I spoke the same word as before I heard it; the place does not go to the head, but the head to the place" From this we can conclude that the story about this prince was borrowed from the notes of his comrade-in-arms and interspersed with news from other sources; fortunately, the stitching is so clumsy that the parts can be easily separated. The part that follows the death of Izyaslav is dedicated mainly to the princes from the Smolensk family who reigned in Kyiv; Perhaps the source that the compiler mainly used is not devoid of connections with this family. The presentation is very close to “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” - as if a whole literary school had developed then. News from Kyiv later than 1199 are found in other chronicle collections (mainly from north-eastern Rus'), as well as in the so-called “Gustyn Chronicle” (latest compilation). In the “Suprasl Manuscript” (published by Prince Obolensky) there is a brief Kiev chronicle dating back to the 14th century.
Galician-Volyn chronicles
Closely connected with “Kievskaya” is “Volynskaya” (or Galician-Volynskaya), which is even more distinguished by its poetic flavor. It, as one can assume, was written at first without years, and the years were placed later and arranged very unskillfully. So, we read: “When Danilov came from Volodymyr, there was silence in the summer of 6722. In the summer of 6723, by God’s command, the princes of Lithuania were sent.” It is clear that the last sentence must be connected to the first, as indicated by the form of the dative independent and the absence in some lists of the sentence “there was silence”; therefore, two years, and this sentence are inserted after. The chronology is mixed up and applied to the chronology of the Kyiv Chronicle. Roman was killed in 1205, and the Volyn chronicle dates his death to 1200, since the Kiev chronicle ends in 1199. These chronicles were connected by the last compiler; was it not he who arranged the years? In some places there is a promise to tell this or that, but nothing is told; therefore, there are gaps. The chronicle begins with vague hints about the exploits of Roman Mstislavich - obviously, these are fragments of a poetic legend about him. It ends at the beginning of the 14th century and does not lead to the fall of the independence of Galich. For a researcher, this chronicle, due to its inconsistency, presents serious difficulties, but due to the detail of its presentation, it serves as precious material for studying the life of Galich. It is curious in the Volyn chronicle that there is an indication of the existence of an official chronicle: Mstislav Danilovich, having defeated the rebellious Brest, imposed a heavy fine on the inhabitants and in the letter adds: “and the chronicler described their king.”
Chronicles of North-Eastern Rus'
The chronicles of northeastern Rus' probably began quite early: from the 13th century. In the “Epistle of Simon to Polycarp” (one of the components of the Patericon of Pechersk), we have evidence of the “old chronicler of Rostov”. The first collection of the northeastern (Suzdal) edition that has survived to us dates back to the same time. His lists before the beginning of the 13th century are Radziwill, Pereyaslav-Suzdal, Lavrentievsky and Troitsky. At the beginning of the 13th century, the first two ceased, the rest differed from each other. The similarity up to a certain point and the difference further indicate a common source, which, therefore, extended to the beginning of the 13th century. News from Suzdal can be found earlier (especially in the Tale of Bygone Years); Therefore, it should be recognized that the recording of events in the land of Suzdal began early. We do not have purely Suzdal chronicles before the Tatars, just as we do not have purely Kyiv ones. The collections that have come down to us are of a mixed nature and are designated by the predominance of events in one or another area.
Chronicles were kept in many cities of the Suzdal land (Vladimir, Rostov, Pereyaslavl); but by many signs it should be recognized that most of the news was recorded in Rostov, which for a long time was the center of education in northeastern Rus'. After the invasion of the Tatars, the Trinity List became almost exclusively Rostov. After the Tatars, in general, the traces of local chronicles become clearer: in the Laurentian list we find a lot of Tver news, in the so-called Tver Chronicle - Tver and Ryazan, in the Sophia Vremennik and Resurrection Chronicle - Novgorod and Tver, in the Nikon Chronicle - Tver, Ryazan, Nizhny Novgorod, etc. All these collections are of Moscow origin (or at least for the most part); original sources - local chronicles - have not survived. Regarding the transition of news in the Tatar era from one area to another, I. I. Sreznevsky made an interesting discovery: in the manuscript of Ephraim the Syrian in 1377, he came across a note from a scribe who talks about the attack of Arapsha (Arab Shah), which took place in the year of writing. The story is not finished, but its beginning is literally similar to the beginning of the chronicle story, from which I. I. Sreznevsky correctly concludes that the scribe had the same legend in front of him, which served as material for the chronicler. From fragments partially preserved in Russian and Belarusian chronicles of the 15th-16th centuries, the Smolensk Chronicle is known.
Moscow Chronicles
The chronicles of northeastern Rus' are distinguished by the absence of poetic elements and rarely borrow from poetic legends. “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev” is a special work, only included in some collections. From the first half of the 14th century. in most of the northern Russian arches, Moscow news begins to predominate. According to the remark of I. A. Tikhomirov, the beginning of the Moscow Chronicle itself, which formed the basis of the vaults, should be considered the news of the construction of the Church of the Assumption in Moscow. The main vaults containing Moscow news are the “Sofia Vremennik” (in its last part), the Resurrection and Nikon Chronicles (also beginning with vaults based on ancient vaults). There is the so-called Lvov Chronicle, a chronicle published under the title: “Continuation of the Nestor Chronicle”, as well as “Russian Time” or the Kostroma Chronicle. The chronicle in the Moscow state increasingly acquired the significance of an official document: already at the beginning of the 15th century. the chronicler, praising the times of “that great Seliverst of Vydobuzhsky, who wrote unadornedly,” says: “our first rulers without anger commanded all the good and bad things that happened to be written.” Prince Yuri Dimitrievich, in his quest for the grand-ducal table, relied on old chronicles in the Horde; Grand Duke John Vasilyevich sent clerk Bradaty to Novgorod to prove to the Novgorodians their lies with the old chroniclers; in the inventory of the royal archive of the times of Ivan the Terrible we read: “black lists and what to write for the chronicler of modern times”; in the negotiations between the boyars and the Poles under Tsar Mikhail it is said: “and we will write this in the chronicler for future generations.” The best example of how carefully one must treat the legends of the chronicle of that time is the news of the tonsure of Solomonia, the first wife of Grand Duke Vasily Ioanovich, preserved in one of the chronicles. Based on this news, Solomonia herself wanted to take a haircut, but the Grand Duke did not agree; in another story, also judging by the solemn, official tone, we read that the Grand Duke, seeing the birds in pairs, thought about Solomonia’s infertility and, after consulting with the boyars, divorced her. According to Herberstein, the divorce was initiated by Vasily.
Evolution of Chronicles
Not all chronicles, however, represent the types of official chronicle. In many, there is occasionally a mixture of official narration and private notes. Such a mixture is found in the story about the campaign of Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich to the Ugra, combined with the famous letter of Vasian. Becoming more and more official, the chronicles finally moved into category books. The same facts were entered into the chronicles, only with the omission of small details: for example, stories about the campaigns of the 16th century. taken from grade books; only news of miracles, signs, etc. were added, documents, speeches, and letters were inserted. There were private rank books in which well-born people noted the service of their ancestors for the purposes of localism. Such chronicles also appeared, an example of which we have in the “Norman Chronicles”. The number of individual tales that turn into private notes has also increased. Another way of transmission is to supplement the chronographs with Russian events. This is, for example, the legend of Prince Katyrev-Rostov, placed in a chronograph; in several chronographs we find additional articles written by supporters of different parties. Thus, in one of the chronographs of the Rumyantsev Museum there are voices dissatisfied with Patriarch Filaret. In the chronicles of Novgorod and Pskov there are curious expressions of displeasure with Moscow. From the first years of Peter the Great there is an interesting protest against his innovations under the title “Chronicle of 1700”.
Degree book
Already in the 16th century, attempts to pragmatize appeared: this included the Degree Book and partly the Nikon Chronicle. Along with the general chronicles, local ones were kept: Arkhangelsk, Dvina, Vologda, Ustyug, Nizhny Novgorod, etc., especially monastic ones, into which local news was entered in a brief form. Of these chronicles, the Siberian ones stand out the most.
Facial chronicle vault
The front chronicle collection is a chronicle collection of events in world and especially Russian history, created in the 40-60s. 16th century (probably in 1568-1576) especially for the royal library of Ivan the Terrible in a single copy.
Siberian Chronicles
Main article: Siberian Chronicles
The beginning of the Siberian chronicle is attributed to Cyprian, Metropolitan of Tobolsk. Several Siberian chronicles have reached us, more or less deviating from one another:
- Kungurskaya (late 16th century), written by one of the participants in Ermak’s campaign;
- Stroganovskaya (“On the capture of the Siberian land”; 1620-30 or 1668-83), based on unsurvived materials from the patrimonial archive of the Stroganovs, their correspondence with Ermak;
- Esipovskaya (1636), compiled by Savva Esipov, clerk of Archbishop Nektary in memory of Ermak;
- Remezovskaya (late 17th century), owned by S. U. Remezov, Russian cartographer, geographer and historian of Siberia.
Belarusian-Lithuanian chronicles
An important place in Russian chronicles is occupied by the so-called Lithuanian (rather Western Russian or Belarusian, since until the 16th century there was no Lithuanian writing and historiography; the official language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was Old Belarusian) chronicles, existing in two editions: “Brief”, starting with the death of Gediminas or, rather, , Olgerd and ending in 1446 and “Detailed”, from fabulous times to 1505. The source of the “Brief” chronicle is the tales of contemporaries. So, on the occasion of Skirgaila’s death, the author speaks for himself: “I don’t know that I was so small then.” Kyiv and Smolensk can be considered the place where news was recorded; There is no noticeable bias in their presentation. The “detailed” chronicle (the so-called Bykhovets Chronicle) presents a number of fabulous tales at the beginning, then repeats the “Brief” one and, finally, concludes with memoirs of the early 16th century. Its text contains many tendentious stories about various noble Lithuanian families. The Belarusian-Lithuanian Chronicle of 1446 is noteworthy, telling about the events of Rus', the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ukraine from the mid-9th to the mid-15th centuries.
Ukrainian chronicles
Ukrainian (actually Cossack) chronicles date back to the 17th and 18th centuries. V.B. Antonovich explains their late appearance by the fact that these are rather private notes or sometimes even attempts at pragmatic history, and not what we now mean by a chronicle. Cossack chronicles, according to the same scientist, contain mainly the affairs of Bohdan Khmelnytsky and his contemporaries.
Of the chronicles, the most significant are: Lvov, begun in the middle of the 16th century, completed until 1649 and setting out the events of Chervonnaya Rus; the chronicle of Samovidets (from 1648 to 1702), according to the conclusion of Professor Antonovich, is the first Cossack chronicle, distinguished by the completeness and vividness of the story, as well as reliability; an extensive chronicle of Samuil Velichko, who, serving in the military chancellery, could know a lot; Although his work is arranged by year, it partly has the appearance of a scholarly work; Its disadvantage is considered to be the lack of criticism and florid presentation. The chronicle of the Gadyach colonel Grabyanka begins in 1648 and extends to 1709; It is preceded by a study about the Cossacks, whom the author derives from the Khazars.
The sources were partly the chronicle, and partly, it is assumed, foreigners. In addition to these detailed compilations, there are many short, mainly local chronicles (Chernigov, etc.); there are attempts at pragmatic history (for example, “History of the Russians”) and there are all-Russian compilations: the Gustyn Chronicle, based on the Ipatiev Chronicle and continued until the 16th century, Safonovich’s “Chronicle,” “Synopsis.” All this literature ends with the “History of the Russians,” the author of which is unknown. This work more clearly expressed the views of the Ukrainian intelligentsia of the 18th century than others.
see also
Notes
Bibliography
See Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles
Other editions of Russian chronicles
- Buganov V.I. Brief Moscow chronicler of the late 17th century. from the Ivanovo Regional Museum of Local Lore. // Chronicles and Chronicles - 1976. - M.: Nauka, 1976. - P. 283.
- Zimin A. A. Brief chroniclers of the XV-XVI centuries. // Historical archive. - M., 1950. - T. 5.
- Chronicle of Joasaph. - M.: ed. USSR Academy of Sciences, 1957.
- Kyiv Chronicle of the first quarter of the 17th century. // Ukrainian Historical Journal, 1989. No. 2, p. 107; No. 5, p. 103.
- Koretsky V.I. Solovetsky chronicler of the late 16th century. // Chronicles and Chronicles - 1980. - M.: Nauka, 1981. - P. 223.
- Koretsky V.I., Morozov B. N. Chronicler with new news from the 16th - early 17th centuries. // Chronicles and Chronicles - 1984. - M.: Nauka, 1984. - P. 187.
- Chronicle of a self-witness based on newly discovered copies with the appendix of three Little Russian chronicles: Khmelnitsky, “A Brief Description of Little Russia” and “Historical Collection”. - K., 1878.
- Lurie Ya. S. A brief chronicler of the Pogodin collection. // Archaeographic Yearbook - 1962. - M.: ed. USSR Academy of Sciences, 1963. - P. 431.
- Nasonov A. N. Chronicle collection of the 15th century. // Materials on the history of the USSR. - M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1955. - T. 2. - P. 273.
- Petrushevich A. S. Consolidated Galician-Russian chronicle from 1600 to 1700. - Lvov, 1874.
Great philosophers have often repeated that people who do not know their past have no future. You should know the history of your family, your people, your country, if only so that you don’t have to make the same discoveries and make the same mistakes.
Sources of information about past events include official state documents, records of religious, social, and educational institutions, preserved eyewitness accounts, and much more. Chronicles are considered the most ancient documentary source.
Chronicle is one of the genres of Old Russian literature, which existed from the 11th to the 17th centuries. At its core, it is a sequential presentation of significant events in history. The records were kept by year; in terms of volume and details of the presentation of the material, they could vary greatly.
What events deserved mention in the chronicles?
Firstly, these are turning points in the biography of Russian princes: marriage, the birth of heirs, the beginning of a reign, military exploits, death. Sometimes Russian chronicles described miracles occurring from the relics of deceased princes, such as Boris and Gleb, the first Russian saints.
Secondly, chroniclers paid attention to describing celestial eclipses, solar and lunar, epidemics of serious diseases, earthquakes, etc. Chroniclers often tried to establish a relationship between natural phenomena and historical events. For example, defeat in a battle could be explained by the special position of the stars in the sky.
Thirdly, ancient chronicles told about events of national importance: military campaigns, attacks by enemies, the construction of religious or administrative buildings, church affairs, etc.
Common features of famous chronicles
1) If you remember what a chronicle is, you can guess why this genre of literature received such a name. The fact is that instead of the word “year” the authors used the word “summer”. Each entry began with the words “In the summer,” followed by the year and a description of the event. If, from the chronicler’s point of view, nothing significant happened, then a note was written: “There was silence in the summer of XXXX.” The chronicler had no right to completely omit the description of a particular year.
2) Some Russian chronicles begin not with the emergence of the Russian state, which would be logical, but with the creation of the world. In this way, the chronicler sought to fit the history of his country into universal human history, to show the place and role of his homeland in his modern world. Dating was also carried out from the creation of the world, and not from the Nativity of Christ, as we do now. The interval between these dates is 5508 years. Therefore, the entry “In the summer of 6496” contains a description of the events of 988 - the Baptism of Rus'.
3) For work, the chronicler could use the works of his predecessors. But he not only included the materials they left behind in his narrative, but also gave them his own political and ideological assessment.
4) The chronicle differs from other genres of literature in its special style. The authors did not use any artistic devices to decorate their speech. The main thing for them was documentation and information content.
The connection between the chronicle and literary and folklore genres
The special style mentioned above, however, did not prevent chroniclers from periodically resorting to oral folk art or other literary genres. Ancient chronicles contain elements of legends, traditions, heroic epics, as well as hagiographic and secular literature.
Turning to the toponymic legend, the author sought to explain where the names of the Slavic tribes, ancient cities and the entire country came from. Echoes of ritual poetry are present in the description of weddings and funerals. Epic techniques could be used to depict the glorious Russian princes and their heroic deeds. And to illustrate the life of rulers, for example, the feasts they organize, there are elements of folk tales.
Hagiographic literature, with its clear structure and symbolism, provided chroniclers with both material and a method for describing miraculous phenomena. They believed in the intervention of divine forces in human history and reflected this in their writings. The authors used elements of secular literature (teachings, stories, etc.) to reflect and illustrate their views.
Texts of legislative acts, princely and church archives, and other official documents were also woven into the fabric of the narrative. This helped the chronicler to give the most complete picture of important events. What is a chronicle if not a comprehensive historical description?
The most famous chronicles
It should be noted that chronicles are divided into local, which became widespread during the times of feudal fragmentation, and all-Russian, describing the history of the entire state. The list of the most famous is presented in the table:
Until the 19th century, it was believed that “The Tale of Bygone Years” was the first chronicle in Rus', and its creator, monk Nestor, was the first Russian historiographer. This assumption was refuted by A.A. Shkhmatov, D.S. Likhachev and other scientists. “The Tale of Bygone Years” has not survived, but its individual editions are known from lists in later works - the Laurentian and Ipatiev Chronicles.
Chronicle in the modern world
By the end of the 17th century, the chronicles had lost their historical significance. More accurate and objective ways of recording events have emerged. History began to be studied from the standpoint of official science. And the word “chronicle” acquired additional meanings. We no longer remember what a chronicle is when we read the headings “Chronicles of life and work N”, “Chronicle of a museum” (theater or any other institution).
There is a magazine, a film studio, a radio program called “Chronicles,” and fans of computer games are probably familiar with the game “Arkham Chronicles.”
