ancient chronicle. Tale of Bygone Years

  CHRONICLE(from other Russian summer - year) - historical genre ancient Russian literature XI-XVII centuries, which is a weather record of events.

The text of the annals is divided into articles corresponding to one year. Replenished over the centuries with more and more news, chronicles are the most important sources scientific knowledge about Ancient Russia.

Most often, the compiler or copyist of the chronicle was a learned monk. By order of the prince, bishop or abbot of the monastery, he spent the writing of the chronicle long years. It was customary to begin a story about the history of their land with ancient times, gradually moving on to the events of recent years. Therefore, the chronicler relied on the works of his predecessors.

If the compiler of the chronicle had at his disposal not one, but several chronicle texts at once, then he “brought together” (connected) them, choosing from each text what he considered necessary to include in his own work. Often, when mixing and rewriting chronicle texts, they changed a lot - they were reduced or expanded, replenished with new materials. But at the same time, the chronicler tried to convey the text of the predecessors as accurately as possible. The composition or gross distortion of chronicle news was considered a grave sin.

The chronicler considered history to be a manifestation of the will of God, punishing or pardoning people for their deeds. The chronicler saw his task in conveying to the descendants the deeds of God. When describing the events of his time, the chronicler was guided by his own records, memoirs or testimonies of the participants in the events, the stories of knowledgeable people, sometimes he could use documents stored in the princely or episcopal archives. This great work became a chronicle. After some time, this code was continued by other chroniclers or was used in compiling a new code.

The chronicle carried the memory of the past, was a textbook of wisdom. The rights of dynasties and states were substantiated on the pages of chronicles.

Creating a chronicle was not only difficult, but also expensive. Until the appearance in the XIV century. chronicle papers were written on parchment - specially dressed thin skin. There are two known chronicles (Radzivillovskaya and Facial Vault), in which the text is accompanied by colorful miniatures.

The first chronicles in Russia began to be created no later than the 1st floor. XI century, however, only the vaults of the 2nd floor have come down to us. the same century. The center of early chronicle writing was Kyiv - the capital Old Russian state, but short chronicles were also kept in other cities. The first chronicle, divided into annual articles, was a code compiled in the 70s. 11th century within the walls of the Kiev Caves Monastery. Its compiler, as researchers believe, was the abbot of this monastery Nikon the Great (? -1088). The work of Nikon the Great formed the basis of another chronicle collection, which arose in the same monastery in the 90s. 11th century In the scientific literature, this collection received the conditional name of the Initial (fragments of the Initial Code were preserved as part of the Novgorod First Chronicle). The unknown compiler of the Initial Code not only supplemented Nikon's code with news last years, but also expanded it by attracting chronicles from other Russian cities, as well as materials, among which were, presumably, the works of Byzantine chroniclers. The third and most significant monument of early chronicle writing was The Tale of Bygone Years, created in the 10s. 12th century

After the collapse of the Old Russian state, chronicle writing continued in many Russian principalities. The annalistic monuments of the Russian lands of the era of fragmentation differ in their literary style, range of interests, and methods of work. The verbose chronicle of Southern Russia is not at all like the laconic and businesslike Novgorod. And the annals of the North-East are distinguished by their tendency to eloquent philosophizing. Local chroniclers began to close themselves within the boundaries of individual principalities and looked at all events through the prism of the political interests of their prince or city. Princely annals, telling about the life and exploits of one or another ruler, became widespread. Chronicle monuments of this time are the Ipatiev, Novgorod First and Laurentian Chronicles.

Mongol-Tatar invasion of the 30s. 13th century inflicted swipe and according to the annals of Russia. In many cities, chronicle writing was interrupted altogether. The centers of chronicle work during this period were the Galicia-Volyn land, Novgorod, Rostov.

In the XIV century. an independent chronicle appeared in Moscow. In this century, the princes of Moscow have become the most powerful rulers in the north-east of Russia. Under their hand, the gathering of Russian lands and the struggle against the Horde dominion began. Along with the revival of the idea of ​​a single state, the idea of ​​an all-Russian chronicle gradually began to revive. One of the first all-Russian annalistic collections of the period of the formation of the Russian state was the Moscow collection of 1408, the initiative to create which belonged to Metropolitan Cyprian. The creator of the code in 1408 drew on chronicle materials from many Russian cities - Tver and Novgorod the Great, Nizhny Novgorod and Ryazan, Smolensk and, of course, Moscow itself. The code of 1408 was preserved in the Trinity Chronicle early. XV century, which died in the Moscow fire of 1812. Unifying ideas also appeared in subsequent Moscow vaults of the XV century. They substantiated the idea that the Muscovite princes are the legitimate sovereigns and heirs of all the lands that previously constituted Kievan Rus. Gradually, the Moscow chronicle became more and more solemn and official. In the XVI century. in Moscow, grandiose in terms of volume chronicle codes were created (Nikon Chronicle, Facial Code, etc.). In them, the Muscovite state was portrayed not only as the successor of Kievan Rus, but also as the heir to the great kingdoms of the past, the only stronghold of the Orthodox faith. Entire artels of scribes, editors, scribes and artists worked on the creation of chronicle vaults in Moscow. At the same time, the chroniclers of that time gradually lost their religious awe before the truth of the fact. Sometimes, when editing, the meaning of chronicle messages changed to the opposite (this was especially true of stories about recent events). Having survived the heyday in the middle. XVI century., Moscow chronicle already in the 2nd half. century has declined. By this time, local chronicle traditions were also interrupted or crushed. The compilation of chronicles continued into the 17th century, but by the 18th century. this genre of historical literature was gradually fading into the past.

The "historical memory" of the East Slavic tribes extended several centuries in depth: from generation to generation, legends and legends were passed on about the settlement of Slavic tribes, about the clashes of the Slavs with the Avars ("frames"), about the founding of Kyiv, about the glorious deeds of the first Kyiv princes, about Kiya's distant campaigns, about wisdom prophetic Oleg, about the cunning and decisive Olga, about the warlike and noble Svyatoslav.

In the XI century. next to the historical epic there is chronicle writing. It was the annals that were destined for several centuries, up to the time of Peter the Great, to become not just a meteorological record of current events, but one of the leading literary genres in the depths of which Russian storytelling developed, and at the same time a journalistic genre, sensitively responding to the political demands of its time.

The study of chronicles of the XI-XII centuries. presents considerable difficulties: the oldest of the chronicles that have come down to us date back to the 13th (the first part of the Novgorod first chronicle of the older version) or to the end of the 14th century. (Laurentian chronicle). But thanks to the fundamental research of A. A. Shakhmatov, M. D. Priselkov and D. S. Likhachev, a fairly well-founded hypothesis about initial stage Russian annals, which undoubtedly will be made some additions and clarifications over time, but which is unlikely to change in essence.

According to this hypothesis, the chronicle originates in the time of Yaroslav the Wise. At this time, Christianized Russia began to be weary of Byzantine guardianship and sought to justify its right to church independence, which was invariably combined with political independence, for Byzantium was inclined to consider all Christian states as the spiritual flock of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and as a kind of vassals of the Byzantine Empire. It is precisely this that Yaroslav's resolute actions resist: he seeks the establishment of a metropolitanate in Kyiv (which raises the church authority of Russia), seeks the canonization of the first Russian saints - princes Boris and Gleb. In this situation, apparently, the first historical work, the forerunner of the future chronicle, is a collection of stories about the spread of Christianity in Russia. Kievan scribes argued that the history of Russia repeats the history of other great powers: "divine grace" descended on Russia in the same way as once upon Rome and Byzantium; in Russia there were forerunners of Christianity - for example, Princess Olga, who was baptized in Constantinople in the days of the convinced pagan Svyatoslav; there were their own martyrs - a Christian Varangian, who did not give his son to "slaughter" to idols, and the prince-brothers Boris and Gleb, who died, but did not violate the Christian precepts of brotherly love and obedience to the "eldest". There was also in Russia its “Equal-to-the-Apostles” prince Vladimir, who baptized Russia and thereby equaled the great Constantine, who declared Christianity the state religion of Byzantium. To substantiate this idea, according to the assumption of D.S. Likhachev, a set of traditions about the emergence of Christianity in Russia was compiled. It includes stories about the baptism and death of Olga, a legend about the first Russian martyrs - the Varangian Christians, a legend about the baptism of Russia (including the Philosopher's Speech, which briefly outlined the Christian concept world history), the legend of the princes Boris and Gleb, and extensive praise to Yaroslav the Wise under 1037. All six of these works "reveal their belonging to one hand ... the closest relationship between them: compositional, stylistic and ideological." This set of articles (which D.S. Likhachev proposed to conditionally call "The Tale of the Spread of Christianity in Russia") was compiled, in his opinion, in the first half of the 40s. 11th century scribes of the Kyiv Metropolis.

Probably, at the same time, the first Russian chronographic code was created in Kyiv - "Chronograph according to the great exposition." He represented summary world history (with a clearly expressed interest in the history of the church), compiled on the basis of Byzantine chronicles - "Chronicles of George Amartol" and "Chronicles of John Malala"; it is possible that already at that time in Russia other translated monuments were becoming known, outlining world history or containing prophecies about the coming “end of the world”: “The Revelation of Methodius of Patara”, “Interpretations” of Hippolytus on the books of the prophet Daniel, “The Tale of Epiphanius of Cyprus about six days of creation, etc.

The next stage in the development of Russian chronicle writing falls on the 60-70s. 11th century and is associated with the activities of the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Nikon.

It was Nikon who added to the "Tale of the Spread of Christianity in Russia" the legends about the first Russian princes and stories about their campaigns against Constantinople. It is possible that Nikon also introduced the “Korsun legend” into the chronicle (according to which Vladimir was baptized not in Kyiv, but in Korsun), and finally, the chronicle owes the same Nikon the inclusion of the so-called Varangian legend in it. This legend reported that the princes of Kyiv allegedly descended from the Varangian prince Rurik, invited to Russia to stop the internecine strife of the Slavs. The inclusion of the legend in the chronicle had its own meaning: by the authority of legend, Nikon tried to convince his contemporaries of the unnaturalness of internecine wars, of the need for all princes to obey the Grand Duke of Kyiv - the heir and descendant of Rurik. Finally, according to the researchers, it was Nikon who gave the chronicle the form of weather records.

Initial code. Around 1095, a new annalistic code was created, which A. A. Shakhmatov proposed to call "Initial". From the moment of the creation of the “Initial Code”, it becomes possible to conduct a proper textual study of the most ancient chronicle. A. A. Shakhmatov drew attention to the fact that the description of events up to the beginning of the XII century. different in the Laurentian, Radzivilov, Moscow-Academic and Ipatiev Chronicles, on the one hand, and in the Novgorod First Chronicle, on the other. This gave him the opportunity to establish that the Novgorod First Chronicle reflected the previous stage of chronicle writing - the "Initial Code", and the rest of the named chronicles included a revision of the "Initial Code", a new chronicle monument - "The Tale of Bygone Years".

The compiler of the "Initial Code" continued the chronicle description of the events of 1073-1095, giving his work, especially in this part, supplemented by him, a clearly journalistic character: he reproached the princes for internecine wars, complained that they did not care about the defense of the Russian land, do not listen to the advice of “smart men”.

Tale of Bygone Years. At the beginning of the XII century. The “Initial Code” was again revised: the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor, a scribe with a broad historical outlook and great literary talent (he also wrote “The Life of Boris and Gleb” and “The Life of Theodosius of the Caves”) creates a new chronicle code - “The Tale of Bygone Years ". Nestor set himself a significant task: not only to set out the events of the turn of the 11th-12th centuries, which he was an eyewitness, but also to completely rework the story about the beginning of Russia - “where did the Russian land come from, who in Kyiv began before the princes”, as he himself formulated this task in the title of his work (PVL, p. 9).

Nestor introduces the history of Russia into the mainstream of world history. He begins his chronicle with biblical legend about the division of the land between the sons of Noah, while placing the Slavs in the list of peoples ascending to the "Chronicle of Amartol" (in another place in the text, the Slavs are identified by the chronicler with the "Noriks" - the inhabitants of one of the provinces of the Roman Empire, located on the banks of the Danube). Nestor slowly and thoroughly talks about the territory occupied by the Slavs, about the Slavic tribes and their past, gradually focusing the attention of readers on one of these tribes - the meadows, on the land of which Kyiv arose, the city that in his time became the "mother of Russian cities". Nestor clarifies and develops the Varangian concept of the history of Russia: Askold and Dir, mentioned in the "Initial Code" as "some" Varangian princes, are now called the "boyars" of Rurik, they are credited with the campaign against Byzantium during the time of Emperor Michael; Oleg, referred to in the "Initial Code" as governor of Igor, in "The Tale of Bygone Years" "returned" (in accordance with history) his princely dignity, but it is emphasized that it is Igor who is the direct heir of Rurik, and Oleg - a relative of Rurik - reigned only in the years of Igor's infancy.

Nestor is even more of a historian than his predecessors. He tries to arrange the maximum of events known to him on the scale of absolute chronology, draws on documents for his narrative (texts of treaties with Byzantium), uses fragments from the Chronicle of Georgy Amartol and Russian historical legends (for example, the story of Olga's fourth revenge, the legend of the "Belgorod jelly "and about the young man-kozhemyak). “We can safely say,” D.S. Likhachev writes about Nestor’s work, “that never before or later, until the 16th century, did Russian historical thought rise to such a height of scientific inquisitiveness and literary skill.”

Around 1116, on behalf of Vladimir Monomakh, The Tale of Bygone Years was revised by the abbot of the Vydubitsky monastery (near Kyiv) Sylvester. In this new (second) edition of the Tale, the interpretation of the events of 1093–1113 was changed: they were now presented with a clear tendency to glorify the deeds of Monomakh. In particular, the story about the blinding of Vasilko Terebovlsky was introduced into the text of the Tale (in the article of 1097), for Monomakh acted as a champion of justice and brotherly love in the inter-princely strife of these years.

Finally, in 1118, The Tale of Bygone Years underwent another revision, carried out at the direction of Prince Mstislav, the son of Vladimir Monomakh. The narrative was continued until 1117, some articles for earlier years were changed. We call this edition of The Tale of Bygone Years the third edition. Such are the modern ideas about the history of ancient chronicle writing.

As already mentioned, only relatively late lists of annals have been preserved, in which the mentioned ancient codes were reflected. Thus, the “Initial Code” was preserved in the Novgorod First Chronicle (lists of the 13th–14th and 15th centuries), the second edition of the Tale of Bygone Years is best represented by the Lavrentiev (1377) and Radzivilov (15th century) chronicles, and the third edition came to us as part of the Ipatiev Chronicle. Through the "Tver vault of 1305" - a common source of the Laurentian and Trinity Chronicles - The Tale of Bygone Years of the second edition became part of the majority of Russian chronicles of the 15th-16th centuries.

Beginning with mid-nineteenth in. researchers have repeatedly noted the high literary skill of Russian chroniclers. But private observations on the style of chronicles, sometimes quite deep and fair, were replaced by holistic ideas only relatively recently in the works of D. S. Likhachev and I. P. Eremin.

Thus, in the article “The Kyiv Chronicle as a literary monument”, I. P. Eremin draws attention to the different literary nature of the various components of the chronicle text: weather records, chronicle stories and chronicle stories. In the latter, according to the researcher, the chronicler resorted to a special "hagiographic", idealizing manner of narration.

D. S. Likhachev showed that the difference stylistic devices that we find in the annals is explained primarily by the origin and specifics of the annalistic genre: in the annals, articles created by the chronicler himself, telling about the events of his contemporary political life, side by side with fragments from epic traditions and legends, which have their own special style, a special manner of storytelling. In addition, the "style of the era" had a significant influence on the stylistic devices of the chronicler. It is necessary to dwell on this last phenomenon in more detail.

Describe the "style of the era", i.e. some general trends in worldview, literature, art, norms public life etc. is extremely difficult. Nevertheless, in the literature of the XI-XIII centuries. The phenomenon that D.S. Likhachev called “literary etiquette” manifests itself quite thoroughly. Literary etiquette - this is the refraction in literary creativity"style of the era", features of the worldview and ideology. Literary etiquette, as it were, defines the tasks of literature and already - its themes, principles of construction literary plots and, finally, the visual means themselves, highlighting the circle of the most preferred speech turns, images, metaphors.

The concept of literary etiquette is based on the idea of ​​an unshakable and orderly world, where all the deeds of people are, as it were, predetermined, where for each person there is a special standard of his behavior. Literature, on the other hand, must accordingly assert and demonstrate this static, “normative” world. This means that its subject should primarily be the depiction of "normative" situations: if a chronicle is written, then the focus is on descriptions of the prince's accession to the throne, battles, diplomatic actions, the death and burial of the prince; moreover, in this latter case, a peculiar summary of his life is summed up in an obituary description. Similarly, the hagiographies must necessarily tell about the childhood of the saint, about his path to asceticism, about his “traditional” (precisely traditional, almost obligatory for every saint) virtues, about the miracles he performed during life and after death, etc.

At the same time, each of these situations (in which the hero of the chronicle or life most clearly appears in his role - a prince or a saint) should have been depicted in similar, traditional speech turns: it was always said about the parents of the saint that they were pious, about the child - the future saint, that he shunned games with his peers, the battle was narrated in traditional formulas such as: “and there was a slash of evil”, “others were cut, and others were killed” (that is, some were cut down with swords, others were captured), etc.

That chronicle style, which most corresponded to the literary etiquette of the 11th-13th centuries, was called by D.S. Likhachev “the style of monumental historicism”. But at the same time, it cannot be argued that the entire chronicle narrative is sustained in this style. If we understand style as general characteristics attitude of the author to the subject of his narration, then one can undoubtedly speak of the all-encompassing nature of this style in the annals - the chronicler really selects for his narration only the most important events and deeds of national importance. If, on the other hand, one demands from the style and indispensable observance of certain linguistic features (that is, stylistic devices proper), then it turns out that far from every line of the annals will be an illustration of the style of monumental historicism. Firstly, because the various phenomena of reality - and the chronicle could not help but correlate with it - could not fit into the previously invented scheme of "etiquette situations", and therefore we find the most striking manifestation of this style only in the description of traditional situations: in the image of the parish prince “on the table”, in the description of battles, in obituary characteristics, etc. Secondly, two genetically different layers of narration coexist in the annals: along with the articles compiled by the chronicler, we find there fragments introduced by the chronicler into the text. Among them significant place constitute folk legends, legends, many of which are part of the "Tale of Bygone Years" and - albeit to a lesser extent - subsequent chronicles.

If the actual chronicle articles were a product of their time, bore the stamp of the “style of the era”, were sustained in the traditions of the style of monumental historicism, then the oral legends included in the chronicle reflected a different - epic tradition and, naturally, had a different stylistic character. The style of folk legends included in the chronicle was defined by D.S. Likhachev as the “epic style”.

"The Tale of Bygone Years", where the story of the events of our time is preceded by recollections of deeds glorious princes past centuries - Oleg the Prophetic, Igor, Olga, Svyatoslav, Vladimir, combines both of these styles.

In the style of monumental historicism, for example, a presentation of the events of the time of Yaroslav the Wise and his son, Vsevolod, is being conducted. Suffice it to recall the description of the battle on Alta (PVL, pp. 97–98), which brought Yaroslav victory over the “cursed” Svyatopolk, the murderer of Boris and Gleb: Svyatopolk came to the battlefield “heavy in strength”, Yaroslav also gathered “many howls, and left against him on Lto. Before the battle, Yaroslav prays to God and his slain brothers, asking for their help "against this murderer and the proud." And now the troops moved towards each other, "and covering the field of Letskoe wallpaper from a multitude of howls." At dawn (“the rising sun”) “there was a slaughter of evil, as if it had not been in Russia, and by the hands of it I was sechahus, and stepping down three times, as if in the valley [valleys, hollows] of the mother-in-law’s blood.” By evening, Yaroslav won, and Svyatopolk fled. Yaroslav ascended the throne of Kyiv, "wiped sweat with his retinue, showing victory and great work." Everything in this story is intended to emphasize the historical significance of the battle: both the indication of the large number of troops, and the details that testify to the fierceness of the battle, and the pathetic ending - Yaroslav triumphantly ascends the throne of Kyiv, obtained by him in military labor and struggle for a “just cause”.

And at the same time, it turns out that we have before us not so much the impression of an eyewitness about a particular battle, but rather the traditional formulas that described other battles in the same Tale of Bygone Years and in subsequent chronicles: the turnover “slashing evil” is traditional, the ending is traditional , telling who is “overcome” and who is “running”, usually for the annalistic narrative an indication of the large number of troops, and even the formula “as if by the mother-in-law’s blood” is found in descriptions of other battles. In a word, we have before us one of the samples of the "etiquette" image of the battle.

With special care, the creators of The Tale of Bygone Years write out the obituary characteristics of the princes. For example, according to the chronicler, Prince Vsevolod Yaroslavich was “mockingly God-loving, loving the truth, looking after the wretched [took care of the unfortunate and poor], honoring the bishop and presbyter [priests], loving the Chernoristsy in excess, and making a demand to them” (PVL, with .142). This type of annalistic obituary would be used more than once by chroniclers of the 12th and subsequent centuries. The use of literary formulas, prescribed by the style of monumental historicism, gave the annalistic text a special artistic flavor: not the effect of surprise, but, on the contrary, the expectation of a meeting with the familiar, familiar, expressed in a “polished”, consecrated by tradition form - this is what had the power of aesthetic impact on the reader . The same technique is well known to folklore - let's recall the traditional plots of epics, three repetitions of plot situations, constant epithets, and the like. artistic means. The style of monumental historicism, therefore, is not evidence of limited artistic possibilities, but, on the contrary, evidence of a deep awareness of the role poetic word. But at the same time, this style, naturally, fettered the freedom of plot narration, for it sought to unify, express various life situations in the same speech formulas and plot motifs.

For the development of the plot narrative, the oral folk legends fixed in the annalistic text played a significant role, each time differing in the unusual and “amusing” of the plot. The story about the death of Oleg is widely known, the plot of which was the basis of the famous ballad of A. S. Pushkin, stories about Olga's revenge on the Drevlyans, etc. It was in this kind of legend that not only princes, but also insignificant in their social status, could act as heroes people: an old man who saved the people of Belgorod from death and Pecheneg captivity, a young man-kozhemyak who defeated the Pecheneg hero. But the main thing, perhaps, is something else: it is in such annalistic stories, which were genetically oral historical traditions, that the chronicler uses a completely different method of depicting events and characterizing characters compared to stories written in the style of monumental historicism.

In works of verbal art, there are two opposite methods of aesthetic impact on the reader (listener). In one case piece of art affects precisely by its dissimilarity to everyday life and, let's add, to the "everyday" story about her. Such a work is distinguished by a special vocabulary, rhythm of speech, inversions, special visual means (epithets, metaphors) and, finally, a special “unusual” behavior of the characters. We know that people in life do not speak like that, do not act like that, but it is this unusualness that is perceived as art. The literature of the style of monumental historicism also stands on the same position.

In another case, art, as it were, strives to become like life, and the narrative strives to create an "illusion of authenticity", to bring itself as close as possible to the eyewitness's story. The means of influencing the reader here are completely different: in this kind of narrative, the “plot detail” plays a huge role, a well-found everyday detail that, as it were, awakens the reader’s own life impressions, helps him see what is being described with his own eyes and thereby believe in the truth of the story.

Here it is necessary to make an important reservation. Such details are often called "elements of realism", but it is significant that if in the literature of modern times these realistic elements are a means for reproducing real life(and the work itself is intended not only to depict reality, but also to comprehend it), then in ancient times “plot details” are nothing more than a means to create an “illusion of reality”, since the story itself can tell about a legendary event, a miracle, in a word, about what the author depicts as really having been, but which may not be so.

In The Tale of Bygone Years, the stories performed in this manner make extensive use of a “everyday detail”: either this is a bridle in the hands of a Kievan boy who, pretending to be looking for a horse, runs with it through the camp of enemies, then a mention of how, testing himself before a duel with Pecheneg hero, a young man-kozhemyak pulls out (with professionally strong hands) from the side of a bull that ran past “skin from meat, like a hand for him”, then a detailed, detailed (and skillfully slowing down the story) description of how the Belgorod people “taking honey onion”, which they found “in the princes of medush”, how they diluted the honey, how they poured the drink into the “kad”, etc. These details evoke vivid visual images in the reader, help him to imagine what is being described, to become, as it were, a witness to the events.

If in the stories, executed in the manner of monumental historicism, everything is known to the reader in advance, then in the epic legends the narrator skillfully uses the effect of surprise. The wise Olga, as it were, takes seriously the courtship of the Drevlyansk prince Mal, secretly preparing a terrible death for his ambassadors; the prediction given to Oleg the Prophet, it would seem, did not come true (the horse from which the prince was supposed to die had already died himself), but nevertheless the bones of this horse, from which the snake would crawl out, would bring death to Oleg. It’s not a warrior who goes to a duel with a Pecheneg hero, but a lad-kozhemyaka, moreover, “medium in body”, and the Pecheneg hero - “great and terrible” - chuckles at him. And despite this “exposure”, it is the lad who overcomes.

It is very significant to note that the chronicler resorts to the method of "reproducing reality" not only in retelling epic traditions, but also in narrating about contemporary events. An example of this is the story "The Tale of Bygone Years" under 1097 about the blinding of Vasilko Terebovlsky (p. 170–180). It is no coincidence that it was on this example that the researchers considered the “elements of realism” of the Old Russian narrative, it was in it that they found the skillful use of “strong details”, it was here that they discovered the masterful use of “narrative direct speech”.

The climactic episode of the story is the scene of the blinding of Cornflower. On the way to the Terebovl volost assigned to him at the Lubech princely congress, Vasilko settled down for the night not far from Vydobych. Kyiv Prince Svyatopolk, yielding to the persuasion of David Igorevich, decides to lure Vasilko and blind him. After persistent invitations ("Do not go from my name day") Vasilko arrives at the "prince's yard"; David and Svyatopolk lead the guest into the "istobka" (hut). Svyatopolk persuades Vasilko to visit, and David, frightened by his own malice, “sits down like a dumbass.” When Svyatopolk came out of the exhaustion, Vasilko tries to continue the conversation with David, but, says the chronicler, “there was no voice in Davyd, no obedience [hearing].” This is a very rare example for early chronicle writing when the mood of the interlocutors is conveyed. But then David comes out (allegedly in order to call Svyatopolk), and the prince's servants burst into the vent, they rush at Vasilko, knock him to the floor. And the terrible details of the ensuing struggle: in order to keep the mighty and desperately resisting Vasilka, they remove the board from the stove, put it on his chest, sit on the board and press their victim to the floor so, “like perse [breasts] troskotati” - and the mention that “ torchin Berendi", who was supposed to blind the prince with a knife, missed and cut the unfortunate face - all these are not simple details of the narrative, but precisely artistic "strong details" that help the reader visually imagine the terrible scene of blinding. According to the plan of the chronicler, the story was supposed to excite the reader, turn him against Svyatopolk and David, convince Vladimir Monomakh of the rightness, who condemned the cruel massacre of the innocent Vasilko and punished the perjurer-perjurer princes.

Literary influence The Tale of Bygone Years has been clearly felt for several centuries: chroniclers continue to apply or vary those literary formulas that were used by the creators of The Tale of Bygone Years, imitate its characteristics, and sometimes quote the Tale, introducing fragments from this into their text. monument. The Tale of Bygone Years has retained its aesthetic charm to our time, eloquently testifying to the literary skill of the ancient Russian chroniclers.

Objectives: to update the personal meaning of students to the study of the topic; to give an idea of ​​the concepts of “letter”, “chronicle”, “eyewitness”; expand knowledge about the history of the creation of chronicles and the work of chroniclers; to promote the development of skills to use scientific methods of cognition; to cultivate spiritual and moral culture, patriotic feelings.

Equipment: book exhibition, computer, multimedia, reports.

1. Organizational moment

Teacher: I want to start today's lesson with the words of an old Russian chronicler: “Great is the benefit of book teaching!” Love for the mother tongue mother tongue, national literature and native history cannot be instilled without knowledge of the history of the creation of native writing, the history of the language and the history of books in the native language

2. Introduction to the topic of the lesson

- As in the life of every person, in the history of states there is birth, youth, maturity and death. Where is the beginning of all the beginnings of Russian history, where is the offshoot from which the sprawling and mighty “tree of the Russian state” has grown?

- This is truly a question of questions and a problem of problems, over the solution of which the best minds of historical science struggled. Today in the lesson we will try to understand it. For this purpose, the following studies were carried out:

1. Learn from the dictionary the meanings of words: chronicle, eyewitness, letter, chronicler
2. Gather information about when the first chronicles, birch bark letters appeared
3. Find out who was their author

In order to answer this series of questions, the students of our class worked on the following topics: “Chronicle. What the chronicles tell about”, “Literary monuments of Ancient Russia”, “Novgorod birch bark letters”.

1. Explanation by the teacher

In 1380, Prince Dmitry Ivanovich defeated the hordes of Khan Mamai on the Don, for which he was nicknamed Donskoy.
How did we know this?
So, we give the floor to our historians.

2. Communication of students "historians"

From chronicles - historical works in which the narration was conducted over the years. What you just can’t read on the pages of chronicles - about the reign of princes, about battles and campaigns, the construction of churches, unusual and terrible natural phenomena, terrible epidemics.

For the first time in Russia, they began to record information about the events that took place almost a thousand years ago, in the eleventh century. The chroniclers also tried to find out about the events that took place long before the beginning of the chronicle: they collected folk legends, asked old people, searched for ancient documents. And all this was reflected in the annals.

The following have survived to this day: “The Life of Boris and Gleb”, and other saints, “Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh”, “Russian Truth”, “The Tale of the Murder of Andrei Bogolyubsky”, “The Legend of the Battle of Mamaev”, “Journey Beyond the Three Seas”.

The creation of chronicles was considered a very important matter: it was not for nothing that each prince sought to have his own chronicler. And after the formation of a unified Russian state, at the end of the fifteenth century, the keeping of annals became a state matter.

The chronicle is a purely Russian phenomenon, unique for world culture, it is a record of events over the years.

The Slavic word "summer" corresponds to our "year". They were written by people who were called chroniclers. From year to year, in the monasteries and at the courts of the princes, records were kept of the most important events in the state and in a separate principality.

Only a few of these treasures of Russian culture have survived to our time. They died in the fire of fires, during enemy raids and civil strife. It is known that in 1382, during the invasion of Khan Tokhtamysh on Moscow, many thousands of books were brought to the city from the surrounding villages and monasteries - so many that the Kremlin churches were crammed with them to the very vaults. All of them burned down in a fire.

The Novgorod chronicles of the 12th-13th centuries have been preserved. From them, scientists learned about the life of a rich, noisy city, about fires, floods and other events.

1. When compiling his code, each chronicler took care to get into his hands the works of his predecessors, treaties, messages, etc., etc. Having collected all the material, the chronicler united it.
2. Gives special value personal experience its creators, direct observations, political topicality - this is the value of the Russian chronicle.
3. Chronicle is a fruit collective labor, unique monument Ancient Russia.

3. Work with the textbook

What do you think literary monuments are?
Read the text of the textbook on p.63, answer the questions.
And now we give the floor to our writers

4. Messages from students of "writers"

The most famous Russian chronicler was Nestor. The main work of Nestor is “The Tale of Bygone Years” (“The Tale of Past Times”).

<Slide number 9 about what it tells>

It was not just a chronicle. Nestor describes the history of Russia and connects it with the history of the Slavs and neighboring peoples. It begins with three questions: “Where did the Russian land come from and where did it come from? Who in Kyiv began to reign first? And since when did the Russian land begin to eat?

There is a deep meaning in this triad. The first question is clear - it is the main one. “Russian land” is a territory, and a people, and, of course, a state. And the state in the Middle Ages was associated in the minds of people with the personality of its ruler. Hence the second question. The answer to the third question was to show the history of Russia in development. From The Tale of Bygone Years, we also learn how Slavic writing appeared. This happened in 863, when the princes Rostislav, Svyatopolk and Kotsel sent ambassadors to the Byzantine king Michael with the following words: “Our land is baptized, but we do not have a teacher who would instruct and teach us, and explained the holy books. After all, we do not know Greek or Latin; some teach us in this way, and others in another way, because of this we do not know either the outline of the letters or their meaning. And send us teachers who could tell us about book words and their meaning.”

Then Tsar Michael summoned two learned brothers, Constantine and Methodius, and “the king persuaded them, and sent them to the Slavic land to Rostislav, Svyatopolk and Kotsel. When these brothers arrived, they began to compose Slavic alphabet and translated the Apostle and the Gospel.” The grandiose historical canvas created by the chronicler became extremely popular in Ancient Russia.

It is The Tale of Bygone Years that remains the main source that tells about the birth of the Old Russian state.

At the beginning of the XII century. (apparently, around 1117), Prince Vladimir Monomakh of Kyiv writes a “Teaching” addressed to his sons, but at the same time to those Russian princes who would like to heed his advice. “Instruction” is also surprising in that Monomakh discovers in it not only the state outlook and rich life experience, but also a high literary education and unconditional writing talent. Both the “Instruction” and the surviving letter of Monomakh to Oleg Svyatoslavich are not only literary monuments, but also important monuments of social thought: one of the most authoritative Kyiv princes is trying to convince his contemporaries of the perniciousness of feudal strife - Russia, weakened by strife, will not be able to actively resist external enemies. This basic idea of ​​the work of Monomakh echoes the "Tale of Igor's Campaign".

In the XI - the beginning of the XII century. the first Russian lives are created: two lives of Boris and Gleb, “The Life of Theodosius of the Caves”, “The Life of Anthony of the Caves” (not preserved until modern times). Their writing was not only a literary fact, but also an important link in the ideological policy of the Russian state. At this time, the Russian princes persistently sought the rights of the Patriarch of Constantinople to canonize their Russian saints, which would significantly increase the authority of the Russian Church. The creation of a life was an indispensable condition for the canonization of a saint.

We will consider here one of the lives of Boris and Gleb - “Reading about the life and destruction” of Boris and Gleb and “The Life of Theodosius of the Caves”.

They say that Prince Vladimir of Kyiv, who was about to go on a campaign against the Pechenegs who attacked Russia, fell ill. He sends his son Boris at the head of his squad. In the absence of Boris old prince dies. The chronicler cites the traditional obituary praise of the deceased prince and then proceeds to the story of the fate of his sons (in the Laurentian Chronicle it is highlighted with a special heading: “On the murder of Borisov”).

"The Tale of Igor's Campaign" is the most significant work of literature of Kievan Rus. And at the same time, it is a monument of an exceptionally difficult fate. The only copy of the Lay that has survived to modern times perished in 1812, and this circumstance led to the fact that more than once there were doubts about the antiquity of the Lay or even the assertion that this monument was just a brilliant imitation of antiquity, a work of the 18th century. , the author of which is either a genius not yet discovered by us, or, on the contrary, famous person, for example, Joel Bykovsky, archimandrite of the Spaso-Yaroslavl Monastery.

“The Tale of Igor's Campaign” is dedicated to a historical event - the campaign of Prince Igor Svyatoslavich Novgorod-Seversky against the Polovtsians in 1185. in short (besides with a number of factual inaccuracies) in the chronicles of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus, reflected in the Laurentian, Radzivilov and other chronicles.

For us, ancient chronicles are extremely important, they tell about the life of our country for a whole millennium, they will always be precious treasures of history.

We walk, we walk
We raise our hands higher
We don't lower our heads
We breathe evenly, deeply.

(Walking in place with hands up)

We will spread our hands to the sides
And we'll show you how to swim.

(Imitation of swimming movements)

The boat is sailing on the sea
Show who rows how.
Rested? Not tired?
Breathe, stand up straight.
Well, let's continue our lesson,
We must do everything on time.

1. Working with the textbook

What do you think the names of the records of the same year are?
What is the red line for?
Read the text about the discovery in the Ipatiev Monastery on pages 61-62 of the textbook under the heading “This wonderful world…”.

2. Conversation on questions

What did the book look like?
Why did scientists establish that several people wrote it?
What were the bright red capital letters for?

3. Vocabulary work

The chronicler opened the beginning of the narrative with a large, intricately painted, beautiful letter, which was written out with a slight indent from the left edge of the page. You sometimes see such letters in books even now. The red letter (and the word red used to mean “beautiful”) gave life to the expression to write from a red line.

What are records of one year called?
How did they separate?
Why is The Tale of Bygone Years called a literary monument?

4. Differentiated work

Card 1
Define the terms: chronicler, chronicle, red line, eyewitness.

Card 2
Write answers to the following questions:

1. What was the name of the first Russian chronicler?
2. What century do the earliest chronicles date from?
3. What was the name of the chronicle, which describes the origin and history of the Russian land?

5. Teacher's word

Speaking of literary monuments Ancient Russia, it is impossible not to mention the birch bark letters. The most mysterious phenomenon of Russian history. They open up almost limitless possibilities of knowing the past in those departments of historical science where the search for new types of sources was recognized as hopeless. Therefore, we give the floor to our archaeologists.

6. The message of the “archaeologists”

The first Novgorod birch bark was found on July 26, 1951 at archaeological excavations in the quarter on Dmitrovskaya Street. In the Middle Ages, this street was called Kholopya.

The letter was found right on the pavement of the XIV century, in the gap between two planks of the flooring.

Birch bark letters are very diverse in content. After all, they were written by people of different social levels and occupations, different inclinations, embraced by different worries and different moods. Sometimes the hand of the writer was driven by anger, sometimes by fear. Birch bark preserves everything - from the first timid steps in mastering the letter to the spiritual will and death notice.

There are very few letters related to the long-distance trade of Novgorod and the merchant class as a special class.

The main theme, which is devoted to the vast majority of birch bark texts of the XII century, is money.

I would like to tell a lot more about the Novgorod charters.

Each letter is interesting in its own way. How many more letters will be found? What unknown pages of the past will they tell us about.

7. Work with the textbook

It is best to finish the story about the finds of birch bark letters with the text from the textbook on p.65
Read the rubric “Give your guess” on page 61 of the textbook.

From what sources do we learn about the distant past history of the country in which we live?
Why do we like to read historical books, watch films on historical plots?
Why did a person need to learn to read and write?
Can you imagine modern life without education, upbringing and cultural values?

Complete task 10-11 on p. 8, write a letter to a friend and tell about your life in modern Russia.

Complete one of the phrases: “Today I learned that…”
“Today I realized that…”

Temporary Years” was written at a time when one social structure was replaced by another: the outgoing patriarchal-communal new, feudal. Two historical consciousnesses are connected with this - epic and annalistic. "" was created as a work of writing, but, in essence, reflects the oral folk art. Based on the oral tradition of its time, The Tale of Bygone Years creates a written literary language, a written history of Russia.

Oral sources provided mainly material, content and ideas for the construction of Russian history, partly its stylistic design - language. ( This material will help to write competently on the topic What is the Russian chronicle and its features. Summary does not make it clear the whole meaning of the work, so this material will be useful for a deep understanding of the work of writers and poets, as well as their novels, short stories, stories, plays, poems.) The traditions of writing introduced all this material into the compositional framework familiar to medieval literacy. Chroniclers worked with the usual methods of medieval scribes. In The Tale of Bygone Years, the skills of handling material, typical of medieval writers and not at all similar to the writing skills of modern times, affected.

The medieval Russian book outwardly, in its composition, differs sharply from the books of modern times - the 18th-20th centuries. In medieval literature, it was rare to find a work of one author or one work bound in a separate binding, separated into a separate independent book. It is impossible to imagine that on the bookshelf of a medieval lover of reading stood side by side in separate bindings "The Tale of Igor's Campaign", "The Prayer of Daniel the Sharpener", "Instructions of Monomakh", etc. The medieval Russian book was originally parchment (that is, written on a special leather), and at the end of the 14th century, paper, covered with wooden covers, covered with leather, fastened with copper clasps, multi-sheeted and heavy - was most often a collection.

Indeed, a careful and thorough study of the numerous texts of Russian chronicles shows that the chroniclers compiled the chronicles as collections - "compilations" of previous chronicle materials with the addition of their records in recent years. It is precisely as a result of such combinations in the annals of previous chronicle materials that sometimes it turns out that this or that chronicle speaks twice, and sometimes three times about the same event: combining several previous annals into one, the chronicler might not notice that he repeated his story, "duplicated" the news on the basis of several sources.

So, the chronicle is a code,. Compiling his collection, the chronicler first of all took care to get into his hands the works of his predecessors - the same chroniclers, then historical documents - treaties, messages, testaments of princes, historical stories, lives of Russian saints, etc. etc. Having collected all the material available to him, sometimes numerous and varied, sometimes only two or three works, the chronicler put it together in a consistent presentation for years. Chronicles he connected year with year. The document placed under the year to which it belonged, the life of the saint - under the year of the death of this saint, the historical story, if it spanned several years, divided it into years and placed each part under its own year, etc. The construction of the annalistic presentation by years gave him a convenient network for entering more and more new works into it. This work was not mechanical: the chronicler sometimes had to eliminate contradictions, sometimes to carry out complex chronological research in order to place each event under its own year. Based on his political ideas, the chronicler sometimes skipped this or that news, made a tendentious selection of these news, occasionally accompanied them with his own brief political commentary, but did not compose new news. Having finished his work as a "recorder", the chronicler supplemented this material with his own records of the events of recent years.

Composed of pieces from different times, from works of different genres, the chronicle outwardly seems motley, complex, and heterogeneous. However, on the whole, the chronicle is still one, like a single building built of large, roughly hewn stones. There is even a special beauty in this - the beauty of strength, enormity, monumentality.

The unity of the chronicle, as a historical and literary work, is not in the smoothing of the seams and not in the destruction of traces of masonry, but in the integrity and harmony of the entire large chronicle building as a whole, in a single thought that enlivens the entire composition. Chronicle - a work of monumental art, it is mosaic. Viewed closely, point-blank, it gives the impression of a random collection of pieces of precious smalt, but, taken in its entirety, it amazes us with the strict thoughtfulness of the entire composition, the consistency of the narrative, the unity and grandiosity of the idea, and the all-penetrating patriotism of the content.

Introduction

1. The concept of chronicle

3. Methods for studying the chronicle

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Chronicles, historical works of the XI-XVII centuries, in which the narration was carried out by year. The story about the events of each year in the chronicles usually began with the words: “in the summer” - hence the name - chronicle. The words “chronicle” and “chronicler” are equivalent, but the compiler of such a work could also be called a chronicler. Chronicles are the most important historical sources, the most significant monuments of social thought and culture of Ancient Russia. Usually the annals outlined Russian history from its beginning, sometimes the annals opened with biblical history and continued with ancient, Byzantine and Russian history. Chronicles played an important role in the ideological substantiation of princely power in Ancient Russia and in promoting the unity of the Russian lands. The chronicles contain significant material about the origin of the Eastern Slavs, about their state power, about the political relations of the Eastern Slavs among themselves and with other peoples and countries.

Purpose of the study- study of the chronicle historical source, methods of their study.

Research objectives:

1) to reveal the concept of chronicle;

2) consider the content of the chronicle;

3) identify methods for studying the chronicle.

1. The concept of chronicle

In Kyiv in the XII century. the annals were kept in the Kiev-Pechersk and Vydubitsky Mikhailovsky monasteries, as well as at the princely court. Galicia-Volyn chronicle in the XII century. concentrated at the courts of the Galician-Volyn princes and bishops. The South Russian chronicle was preserved in the Ipatiev Chronicle, which consists of the Tale of Bygone Years, continued mainly by the Kyiv News (ending in 1200), and the Galicia-Volyn Chronicle (ending in 1289-92). In the Vladimir-Suzdal land, the main centers of chronicle writing were Vladimir, Suzdal, Rostov and Pereyaslavl. The monument of this chronicle is the Laurentian Chronicle, which begins with The Tale of Bygone Years, continued by the Vladimir-Suzdal News until 1305, as well as the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl-Suzdal (ed. 1851) and the Radziwill Chronicle, decorated with a large number of drawings. Chronicle writing was greatly developed in Novgorod at the court of the archbishop, at monasteries and churches.

The Mongol-Tatar invasion caused a temporary decline in chronicle writing. In the XIV-XV centuries. it develops again. The largest centers of chronicle writing were Novgorod, Pskov, Rostov, Tver, Moscow. In the annalistic vaults reflected ch. local events (the birth and death of princes, the election of posadniks and thousand in Novgorod and Pskov, military campaigns, battles, etc.), church events (the appointment and death of bishops, abbots of monasteries, the construction of churches, etc.), crop failure and famine , epidemics, remarkable natural phenomena, etc. Events that go beyond local interests are poorly reflected in such annals. Novgorod Chronicle XII-XV centuries. most fully represented by the Novgorod First Chronicle of the older and younger editions. The older, or earlier, version has been preserved in the only Synodal parchment (charate) list of the 13th-14th centuries; the younger edition came in the lists of the 15th century. In Pskov, chronicle writing was associated with the posadniks and the state chancellery at the Trinity Cathedral. In Tver, chronicle writing developed at the court of the Tver princes and bishops. An idea about him is given by the Tver collection and the Rogozhsky chronicler. In Rostov, the chronicle was kept at the court of bishops, and the chronicles created in Rostov are reflected in a number of codes, incl. in the Yermolinsky chronicle of the XV century.

New phenomena in the annals are noted in the 15th century, when the Russian state was taking shape with its center in Moscow. Politics of Moscow led. princes was reflected in the all-Russian annals. The first Moscow all-Russian collection is given by the Trinity Chronicle n. 15th century (disappeared in a fire in 1812) and the Simeon Chronicle in the list of the 16th century. The Trinity Chronicle ends in 1409. Various sources were used to compile it: Novgorod, Tver, Pskov, Smolensk, and others. The all-Russian annalistic code, compiled in Smolensk in the end of the 15th century, was the so-called. Annals of Abraham; another code is the Suzdal Chronicle (late 15th century).

An annalistic code based on the rich Novgorodian writing, the Sophia Timepiece, appeared in Novgorod. A large annalistic code appeared in Moscow in the XV - n. 16th century Especially known is the Resurrection Chronicle, ending in 1541 (the compilation of the main part of the chronicle refers to 1534-37). It includes many official records. The same official records were included in the extensive Lviv Chronicle, which included “The Chronicler of the Beginning of the Kingdom of the Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich”, until 1560. chronicle, including drawings corresponding to the text. The first 3 volumes of the Facial Code are devoted to world history (compiled on the basis of the Chronograph and other works), the next 7 volumes are devoted to Russian history from 1114 to 1567. Last volume The front vault, dedicated to the reign of Ivan the Terrible, was called the “Royal Book”. The text of the Facial Code is based on an earlier one - the Nikon Chronicle, which was a huge compilation of various chronicle news, stories, lives, etc. In the 16th century. chronicle writing continued to develop not only in Moscow, but also in other cities. The most famous is the Vologda-Perm chronicle. Chronicles were also kept in Novgorod and Pskov, in the Caves Monastery near Pskov. In the XVI century. new species emerged historical narrative, already departing from the annalistic form, - “The Power Book of the Royal Genealogy” and “The History of the Kazan Kingdom”.

In the 17th century there was a gradual withering away of the chronicle form of narration. At this time, local chronicles appeared, of which the Siberian chronicles are the most interesting. The beginning of their compilation refers to the 1st floor. 17th century Of these, the Stroganov Chronicle and the Esipov Chronicle are better known. In the end of the XVII century. Tobolsk boyar son S.U. Remezov compiled "Siberian History". In the 17th century chronicle news are included in the power books and chronographs. The word "chronicle" continues to be used according to tradition even for such works that faintly resemble the Chronicles of the past. Such is the New Chronicler, who tells about the events of the end of the 16th century. 17th century (Polish-Swedish intervention and peasant war), and "Chronicle of many rebellions".

A characteristic feature of the Chronicle is the belief of the chroniclers in the intervention of divine forces. New Chronicles were usually compiled as sets of previous Chronicles and various materials(historical novels, lives, messages, etc.) and included records of contemporary events to the chronicler. At the same time, literary works were used as sources in the Chronicle. Traditions, epics, treaties, legislative acts, documents of the princely and church archives were also woven into the fabric of the narrative by the chronicler. Rewriting the materials included in the Chronicle, he sought to create a single narrative, subordinating it to a historical concept that corresponded to the interests of the political center where he wrote (the courtyard of the prince, the office of the metropolitan, the bishop, the monastery, the posadnik's hut, etc.). However, along with the official ideology, the Chronicle reflected the views of their direct compilers, sometimes very democratically progressive. In general, the Chronicles testify to the high patriotic consciousness of the Russian people in the 11th-17th centuries. Great importance was attached to the compilation of the Chronicle, they were addressed in political disputes, in diplomatic negotiations. The mastery of historical narration has reached a high level of perfection in the Chronicle. At least 1500 lists of the Chronicle have survived. Many works of ancient Russian literature have been preserved in the Chronicle: The Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh, The Legend of the Battle of Mamaev, Athanasius Nikitin’s Journey across the Three Seas, and others. Ancient Chronicles XI-XII centuries survived only in later lists. The most famous of the early chronicles, which has come down to our time, is The Tale of Bygone Years. Its creator is considered to be Nestor, a monk of the Pechersky Monastery in Kyiv, who wrote his work around 1113.

Feudal fragmentation of the XII-XIV centuries. is also reflected in the annals: the vaults of this time express local political interests. In Kyiv in the XII century. the chronicle was kept in the Caves and Vydubitsky monasteries, as well as at the princely court. Galician-Volyn chronicle in the XIII century. (see Galicia-Volyn Chronicle) is concentrated at the courts of Galicia-Volyn princes and bishops. The South Russian chronicle was preserved in the Ipatiev Chronicle, which consists of the "Tale of Bygone Years", continued mainly by the Kyiv News (ending 1200), and the Galicia-Volyn Chronicle (ending 1289-92) (PSRL, vol. 2, Chronicle according to the Ipatiev list). In the Vladimir-Suzdal land, the main centers of chronicle writing were Vladimir, Suzdal, Rostov and Pereyaslavl. The monument of this chronicle is the Laurentian Chronicle, which begins with The Tale of Bygone Years, continued by the Vladimir-Suzdal News until 1305 (PSRL, vol. 1, Chronicles according to the Laurentian List), as well as the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl-Suzdal (edition 1851) and the Radziwill Chronicle, decorated lots of drawings. Chronicle writing was greatly developed in Novgorod at the court of the archbishop, at monasteries and churches.

The Mongol-Tatar invasion caused a temporary decline in chronicle writing. In the XIV-XV centuries. it develops again. The largest centers of chronicle writing were Novgorod, Pskov, Rostov, Tver, Moscow. The chronicles mainly reflected local events (the birth and death of princes, the election of posadniks and thousandths in Novgorod and Pskov, military campaigns, battles, etc.), church events (the appointment and death of bishops, abbots of monasteries, the construction of churches, etc.). ), crop failure and famine, epidemics, remarkable natural phenomena, etc. Events that go beyond local interests are poorly reflected in such Chronicles. Novgorod Chronicle XII-XV centuries. The Novgorod First Chronicle of the older and younger editions is most fully represented (see Novgorod Chronicles). The older, or earlier, version has been preserved in the only Synodal parchment (charate) list of the 13th-14th centuries; the younger edition came in the lists of the 15th century. (Novgorod First Chronicle of the senior and junior editions, PSRL, vol. 3). In Pskov, chronicle writing was associated with posadniks and the state chancellery at the Trinity Cathedral (PSRL, vols. 4-5; Pskov Chronicles, v. 1-2, 1941-55). In Tver, chronicle writing developed at the court of the Tver princes and bishops. An idea about him is given by the Tver collection (PSRL, vol. 15) and the Rogozhsky chronicler (PSRL, vol. 15, v. 1). In Rostov, the chronicle was kept at the court of bishops, and the chronicles created in Rostov are reflected in a number of codes, including the Yermolinsky chronicle of con. 15th century

An annalistic code based on the rich Novgorodian writing, the Sophia Timepiece, appeared in Novgorod. A large chronicle code appeared in Moscow at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries. Especially famous is the Resurrection Chronicle, ending in 1541 (the main part of the Chronicle was compiled in 1534-37). It includes many official records. The same official records were included in the extensive Lviv Chronicle, which included "The Chronicler of the Beginning of the Kingdom of the Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich", until 1560. At the court of Ivan the Terrible in the 40-60s. 16th century the Front Chronicle Code was created, i.e., the chronicle, including drawings corresponding to the text. The first 3 volumes of the front set are devoted to world history (compiled on the basis of the Chronograph and other works), the next 7 volumes are devoted to Russian history from 1114 to 1567. The last volume of the front set, dedicated to the reign of Ivan the Terrible, was called the "Royal Book". The text of the front set is based on an earlier one - the Nikon Chronicle, which was a huge compilation of various chronicle news, stories, lives, etc. In the 16th century. chronicle writing continued to develop not only in Moscow, but also in other cities. The most famous is the Vologda-Perm chronicle. Chronicles were also kept in Novgorod and Pskov, in the Caves Monastery near Pskov. In the XVI century. new types of historical narrative appeared, already departing from the annalistic form - "The Power Book of the Royal Genealogy" and "The History of the Kazan Kingdom".

In the 17th century there was a gradual withering away of the chronicle form of narration. At this time, local Chronicles appeared, of which the Siberian Chronicles are the most interesting. The beginning of their compilation dates back to the 1st half of the 17th century. Of these, the Stroganov Chronicle and the Esipov Chronicle are better known. At the end of the XVII century. The Tobolsk boyar son S. U. Remezov compiled the Siberian History (Siberian Chronicles, 1907). In the 17th century chronicle news are included in the power books and chronographs. The word "Chronicles" continues to be used according to tradition even for such works that faintly resemble the Chronicles of the past. Such is the New Chronicler, who tells about the events of the late 16th - early 17th centuries. (Polish-Swedish intervention and peasant war), and "Chronicle of many rebellions".

Chronicle writing, which has received significant development in Russia, in lesser degree was developed in Belarus and Ukraine, which were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The most interesting work of this chronicle of the beginning of the 16th century. is the "Short Kyiv Chronicle", containing the Novgorod and Kyiv abbreviated Chronicles (1836). Ancient history Russia is presented in this Chronicle on the basis of earlier chronicles, and the events of the late XV - early XVI centuries. described by a contemporary. Chronicle writing also developed in Smolensk and Polotsk in the 15th-16th centuries. Belarusian and Smolensk Chronicles formed the basis of some Chronicles on the history of Lithuania. Sometimes Chronicles are also called some Ukrainian historical works of XVIII in. (Chronicle of the Seer, etc.). Chronicle writing was also carried out in Moldova, Siberia, Bashkiria.

Chronicles serve as the main source for studying the history of Kievan Rus, as well as Russia, Ukraine, Belarus in the XIII-XVII centuries, although they mainly reflected the class interests of the feudal lords. Only in the Chronicle have such sources been preserved as treaties between Russia and the Greeks of the 10th century, Russkaya Pravda in a short edition, etc. Chronicles are of great importance for the study of Russian writing, language and literature. The chronicles also contain valuable material on the history of other peoples of the USSR.

The study and publication of the Chronicle in Russia and the USSR has been going on for more than two hundred years: in 1767, a chronicle text was published in the Russian Historical Library, containing ancient chronicles and all sorts of notes, and from 1841 to 1973 the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles was published.

V.N. Tatishchev and M.M. Shcherbatov laid the foundation for the study of the Chronicle For forty years he devoted to the study of "The Tale of Bygone Years" by A. Schletser, clearing the chronicle of errors and typos, explaining the "dark" places. P.M. Stroev considered chronicles as collections or "codes" of previous material. Using the technique of Schlozer and Stroev, M.P. Pogodin and I. I. Sreznevsky enriched science with many facts that facilitated the study of the history of the Russian Chronicle

I.D. Belyaev classified the Chronicles into state, family, monastic and chronicle collections and pointed out that the position of the chronicler was determined by his territorial and estate position. M.I. Sukhomlinov in his book "On the Ancient Russian Chronicle as a Literary Monument" (1856) tried to establish the literary sources of the initial Russian chronicle. K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin in his work "On the composition of Russian chronicles until the end of the 14th century." (1868) for the first time decomposed the chronicle text into annual records and legends. A real revolution in the study of the Chronicle was made by Acad. A. A. Shakhmatov. He used comparison various lists, subtly and deeply analyzing the material, and made this method the main one in his work on the study of the Chronicle, Chess attached great importance to clarifying all the circumstances of the creation of the Chronicle, each list and code, paid attention to the study of various chronological indications found in the Chronicle, specifying the time of their compilation and correcting factual inaccuracies. Chess extracted a lot of data from the analysis of slips of the pen, language errors, and dialectisms. For the first time, he recreated an integral picture of Russian chronicle writing, presenting it as a genealogy of almost all lists and, at the same time, as a history of Russian social self-consciousness. Shakhmatov's method was developed in the works of M.D. Priselkov, who strengthened its historical side. A significant contribution to the study of the Russian Chronicle was made by the followers of Shakhmatov - N.F. Lavrov, A.N. Nasonov, Chronicles V. Cherepnin, D.S. Likhachev, S.V. Bakhrushin, A.I. Andreev, M.N. Tikhomirov, N.K. Nikolsky, V.M. Istrin and others. The study of the history of chronicle writing is one of the most difficult sections of source studies and philological science.

3. Methods for studying the chronicle

The methods of studying the history of chronicle writing, applied by Shakhmatov, formed the basis of modern textual criticism.

The restoration of the annalistic codes that preceded The Tale of Bygone Years belongs to the most fascinating pages of philological science.

So, for example, at the beginning of the lists of the Novgorod First Chronicle (except for the Novgorod First Chronicle according to the Synodal List, where the beginning of the manuscript is lost), a text is read that is partly similar, and partly different from The Tale of Bygone Years.

Examining this text, A.A. Shakhmatov came to the conclusion that it contained fragments of an older chronicle than The Tale of Bygone Years. Among the evidence A.A. Shakhmatov also cites the places noted above, where inserts are found in the text of The Tale of Bygone Years. So, under 946, in the Novgorod First Chronicle, there is no story about Olga’s fourth revenge and the narrative unfolds logically: “and the Drevlyans defeated and laid heavy tribute on them,” that is, exactly as, according to A.A. Shakhmatov, was read in the annals that preceded The Tale of Bygone Years.

In the same way, Svyatoslav's agreement with the Greeks is missing in the Novgorod Chronicle, which, as mentioned above, broke the phrase: “And the speech:“ I will go to Russia and bring more squads; and go in boats."

Based on these and many other considerations, A.A. Shakhmatov came to the conclusion that the basis of the initial part of the Novgorod First Chronicle is an annalistic code older than The Tale of Bygone Years. The chronicler who compiled The Tale of Bygone Years expanded it with new materials, various written and oral sources, documents (treaties with the Greeks), extracts from the Greek chronicles and brought the application up to its time.

However, the code that preceded the "Tale of Bygone Years" is only partially restored according to the Novgorod First Chronicle, for example, it does not contain a presentation of the events of 1016 - 1052. and 1074 - 1093. The code that formed the basis of both The Tale of Bygone Years and the Novgorod First Chronicle, A. A. Shakhmatov called "Initial", suggesting that it was with him that Russian chronicle writing began.

Step by step in various studies of A.A. Shakhmatov was able to fully restore its composition, establish the time of its compilation (1093-1095) and show the political situation in which it arose.

The initial summary was compiled under the fresh impression of the terrible Polovtsian invasion of 1093. It ended with a description of this invasion, and began with reflections on the causes of the misfortunes of the Russian people. In the introduction to the Primary Code, the chronicler wrote that God would execute the Russian land for the “gluttony” of modern princes and warriors. To them, greedy and self-serving, the chronicler contrasts the ancient princes and warriors, who did not ruin the people with judicial requisitions, supported themselves as prey on distant campaigns, cared about the glory of the Russian land and its princes.

Calling this code Initial, A.A. Shakhmatov did not expect that this name would soon turn out to be inaccurate. Further studies by A. A. Shakhmatov showed that the Initial Code also contains various layers and inserts. A.A. Shakhmatov managed to open two even more ancient arches at the base of the Primary Code.

Thus, the history of ancient Russian chronicle writing is represented by A.A. Shakhmatov in the following form.

In 1037-1039. the first Russian chronicle was compiled - the most ancient Kyiv code.

From the beginning of the 60s. XI century. hegumen of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Nikon continued to write chronicles and by 1073 compiled the second annalistic code.

In 1093-1095. in the same Kiev-Pechersk monastery, the third chronicle was compiled, conventionally called the Primary. Finally, at the beginning of the 12th century, not immediately, but in several stages, the “Tale of Bygone Years” that has come down to us was compiled.

A.A. Shakhmatov did not stop at clarifying key facts history of the initial Russian annals. He sought to restore the very text of each of the above codes. In "Research on the most ancient Russian annals" (1908) A.A. Shakhmatov gave the text of the most ancient code restored by him in the edition of 1073, that is, the text of Nikon's code of 1073, with the allocation in it with the help of a special font of those parts that were included in it from the Ancient code of 1037-1039. In his later work "The Tale of Bygone Years" (vol. 1, 1916) A.A. Shakhmatov gave the text of The Tale of Bygone Years, in which large print singled out those parts of it that go back to the Primary Code of 1093-1095.

It should be noted that in his extremely bold attempt to visualize the entire history of Russian chronicle writing, to restore the long-lost texts of A.A. Shakhmatov was faced with a whole series of questions for the solution of which sufficient material could not be found.

Therefore, in this last part of A.A. Shakhmatova - where he involuntarily had to, reconstructing the text, solve all the questions - even those that were almost impossible to answer - his conclusions were only conjectural in nature.

Along with the major advantages of A.A. Shakhmatova have, however, significant shortcomings. These shortcomings are primarily methodological in nature. For its time, the general understanding of A.A. Shakhmatov, the history of Russian chronicle writing was distinguished by progressive features. A.A. Shakhmatov was the first to introduce a historical approach into a subtle but formal philological analysis of bourgeois philology. He drew attention to the politically sharp and by no means impassive nature of the chronicles, to their connection with the feudal struggle of their time.

Only on these premises A.A. Chess was able to create a history of chronicle writing. However, the historical approach of A.A. Shakhmatova was not always correct. In particular, A.A. Shakhmatov did not study the chronicle as a literary monument, he did not notice purely genre changes in it. The genre of the chronicle, the methods of its maintenance were presented by A.A. Shakhmatov unchanged, always the same.

Following A.A. Shakhmatov, we would have to assume that already the first Russian chronicle combined all the features of Russian chronicle writing: the manner of compiling new records over the years, the peculiarities of the language, the widespread use of folklore data to restore Russian history, the very understanding of Russian history, its main milestones. We would have to assume also that the chronicle stood outside the social struggle of its time.

It goes without saying that such a beginning of the chronicle is unlikely. In fact, as we shall see below, the chronicle, its literary form and its ideological content grew gradually, changing under the influence of the ideas and trends of their time, reflecting the internal, social struggle of the feudalizing state.

In fact, insertions, alterations, additions, combinations of ideologically and stylistically heterogeneous material characterize the most ancient chronicle even in the form in which it is restored by A.A. Chess.

Conclusion

So, having studied the work of A.A. Shakhmatov, it should be noted that in his extremely bold attempt to visualize the entire history of Russian chronicle writing, to restore the long-lost texts of A.A. Chess has achieved significant success.

However, at the same time, he was faced with a number of issues for the solution of which sufficient material could not be found.

Along with the major advantages of A.A. Shakhmatova have, however, significant shortcomings. These shortcomings are primarily methodological in nature. For its time, the general understanding of A.A. Shakhmatov, the history of Russian chronicle writing was distinguished by progressive features. A.A. Shakhmatov was the first to introduce a historical approach into a subtle but formal philological analysis of bourgeois philology.

He drew attention to the politically sharp and by no means impassive nature of the chronicles, to their connection with the feudal struggle of their time.

Only on these premises A.A. Chess was able to create a history of chronicle writing. However, the historical approach of A.A. Shakhmatova was not always correct.

In particular, A.A. Shakhmatov did not study the chronicle as a literary monument, he did not notice purely genre changes in it. The genre of the chronicle, the methods of its maintenance were presented by A.A. Shakhmatov unchanged, always the same.

Bibliography

1. Danilevsky I.N. etc. Source study. - M., 2005. - 445 p.

2. Danilets A.V. Source study // History and politics. - 2009. - No. 5. - P.78-85.

3. Kovalchenko I. D. Methods of historical research. - M., 2003. - 438 p.

4. Likhachev D.S. Russian chronicles // Sat. Literature and art. - M.: Nauka, 1997. - 340 p.

5. Medushovskaya O.M. Theoretical problems of source studies. - M., 2005. - 86 p.

6. The Tale of Bygone Years. – M.: Academy. 1987. - 540 p.

7. Priselkov M. D. History of Russian Chronicle XI - XV centuries. - L .: Education, 1990. - 188 p.

Priselkov M.D. The history of Russian chronicle writing in the 11th - 15th centuries. - L .: Education, 1990. - P. 95.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.