The history of the creation of the works of the Borisoglebsk cycle. Some Observations on the Functions of Reminiscences from Holy Scripture in the Monuments of the Borisoglebsk Cycle

Completion of Stalin's Cycle A feature of the social sciences, among other things, is that the objects of their study usually speak for themselves. On the one hand, this is a blessing, but on the other hand, it is a source of additional difficulties and misconceptions. Because of this, the focus of the study

The origin of Svyatopolk the Accursed has been a subject of discussion among historians since the middle of the century before last, although the Tale of Bygone Years seems to call Svyatopolk's father Yaropolk, and not Vladimir, who took Yaropolkov's wife on his bed after the murder of her husband, and the Legend of the murder of Boris and Gleb reports Yaropolk's paternity is already obvious. And only in one ancient Russian monument - Reading about Boris and Gleb of Nestor, which also contains detailed information about the "second Cain", nothing is said about Yaropolk's paternity and Vladimir is named the parent of the murderer of Boris and Gleb. Nevertheless, even S. M. Solovyov considered Svyatopolk to be Vladimir's own son. Textological arguments in favor of the version of the unreliability of the news of the Tale of Bygone Years about Yaropolk and his wife, a Greek monk, not as about the parents of Svyatopolk, were brought about a hundred years later by N. N. Ilyin. He noticed that these news, contained in the articles under 6485 and 6488, are interpolations that violate the coherence of the chronicle text. Recently, L. Müller recognized these reports as inserts. L. Muller believed that the ancient Russian chronicler - the author of the insert about Svyatopolk and his father and mother - confused the Russian prince with his Polish namesake, prince Sventepulk, whose mother was, indeed, a nun, the daughter of Margrave Tiedrich. (Sventepulk and Svyatopolk were in the property, since Sventepulk's half-brother Boleslav was the father-in-law of the Russian prince.) Accordingly, Svyatopolk, as born of a nun who broke her vow, appeared to be the offspring of sin - the origins of the fratricide committed by Svyatopolk were allegedly discovered even in the circumstances associated with his conception and emergence. However, this bold assumption is unprovable. The historian S. M. Mikheev convincingly showed that the news of the Tale of Bygone Years under 6488 about the pregnancy of Svyatopolk's mother should be understood more as an indication of the paternity of Vladimir, and not Yaropolk; in the Old Russian original it is written: “Volodimer is the wife of his brother Grekinya. and not idol”, this statement means literally: “Vladimir began to sleep with his brother’s wife, a Greek woman, and she became pregnant”6. The author of the Tale of the Murder of Boris and Gleb understood this chronicle phrase as an indication of the paternity of Yaropolk, and not Vladimir, and therefore wrote that Vladimir took Yaropolkov's wife already pregnant with Svyatopolk. It was beneficial for the author of the Tale to whitewash Vladimir, not recognizing him as the father of the accursed Svyatopolk. The idea that the origin of Svyatopolk from Yaropolk (“from two fathers” and from a mother who violated a monastic vow) was “nothing more than a hagiographic motif”, designed to discredit the “second Cain” and break the “discrediting” family connection between him and the baptist of Russia, was expressed by the Polish historian A. Poppe. But in contrast to S. M. Mikheev, A. Poppe considers the hagiographic text of the news of the birth of Svyatopolk from Yaropolk to be primary in relation to the chronicle. Both L. Muller, and S. M. Mikheev, and A. Poppe, also settled down in the birth of Svyatopolk by a Greek woman - a former nun, suggesting that in reality she was a "Chechina" - one of the wives of Vladimir, named in the chronicle article under 6488 (in the version of this article known to us, the birth of only one son from Vladimir, Vysheslav, is attributed to the “Czekhina”). I will dwell first on the textual arguments of the supporters of the version of Vladimir's paternity. The news about Yaropolk's wife really breaks the whole text of the chronicle article about the feud between the Svyatoslavichs: “And Olga was buried in the place of the city of Vruchoga. and this is the grave of the ϵth and until this day, oh Vruchiy. and taking power ϵgo Yaropolk. oh Yaropolka is the wife of Grekini bѣ. and more was blueberries. bѣbo brought ѡ͠ts ϵgo S͠toslav. and I give for Yaropolk beauty for the sake of her face. Hearing Volodymyr in Novgorod. like Yaropolk oubi Olga. afraid of running across the sea. and Yaropolk put his own posadniks in Novgorod. and bѣ Volodya ϵdin in Russia. The message about the Greek woman in this fragment is clearly inappropriate.

Recently, M. Yu. Paramonova, assessing the direction of the works devoted to the veneration of the martyr princes Boris and Gleb, summarized: “The study of the cult of Boris and Gleb enjoyed priority attention in Russian medieval studies, partly due to the peculiarities of the corresponding hagiographic sources. The cult was the earliest officially established veneration of saints of Russian origin and gave rise to a vast and rich literary tradition. The most prominent Russian philologists, textologists and historians were involved in discussions about the sources of texts belonging to the Borisoglebsk cycle. For a long time the problem of the origin of the cult was usually reduced to the question of the origin, dating and authorship of individual texts.

It is only in recent decades that cult has begun to be seen as a complex phenomenon that has evolved through a system of various and intertwined (intricate) factors, including the Christian practice of venerating saints, pre-Christian (or non-Christian) beliefs and practices, the interaction between ecclesiastical and secular communities (communities). ) and the wider context of European dynastic and royal cults. In connection with the specific historical context in which the cult of the two holy princes arose in Kievan Rus, the question of possible external influences on this process also arises. In these lines, the main trends and lines of development in the study of both the veneration of the holy brothers and the texts dedicated to them are very accurately noted.

Ranchin Andrei Mikhailovich - Monuments of the Borisoglebsk cycle: textual criticism, poetics, religious and cultural context

M.: Russian Foundation for the Promotion of Education and Science, 2017. 512 p.

ISBN 978-5-91244-205-6

Ranchin Andrei Mikhailovich - Monuments of the Borisoglebsk cycle: textual criticism, poetics, religious and cultural context - Contents

Foreword

• Chapter first. To the question of the textology of the Borisoglebsk cycle
• Chapter two. On the question of the history of the text of the chronicle story about Boris and Gleb
• Chapter three. The Tale and Reading about Boris and Gleb as part of the Great Menaion of the Fourth Metropolitan Macarius
• Chapter Four. Spatial structure in chronicle stories of 1015 and 1019 and in the lives of Saints Boris and Gleb
• Chapter five. Poetics of antitheses and repetitions in the Tale of Boris and Gleb
• Chapter six. On the interpretation of the historical and theological introduction to the Reading about Boris and Gleb by St. Nestor: the semantic archetype of the lives of Boris and Gleb and examples for veneration
• Chapter seven. Some Observations on the Functions of Reminiscences from Holy Scripture in the Monuments of the Borisoglebsk Cycle
• Chapter eight. Biblical quotation-topos in the Tale of Boris and Gleb: traditional and individual in ancient Russian literature
• Chapter nine. About one strange comparison in the Tale of Boris and Gleb
• Chapter ten. Formation of the cult of the holy princes Boris and Gleb: motives for canonization
• Chapter Eleven. Monuments of the Borisoglebsk cycle in the Slavic and Western European context: an invariant plot of the murder of an innocent ruler
• Chapter twelve. The Sanctity of Boris and Gleb Against the Background of the Cults of Passion-Bearing Rulers: Pagan Relics and Christian Interpretation

APPS

• 1. Svyatopolk the Accursed: establishing paternity
• 2. To questions about the formation of the veneration of Saints Boris and Gleb, about the time of their canonization and about the reliability of the texts dedicated to them

Instead of an afterword

List of abbreviations

Bibliography

Name index

Ranchin Andrei Mikhailovich - Monuments of the Borisoglebsk cycle: textual criticism, poetics, religious and cultural context - Instead of an afterword

As Lermontov noted in the preface to the second edition of A Hero of Our Time: “In any book, the preface is the first and at the same time the last thing; it serves as an explanation of the purpose of the work, or justification and response to criticism. But usually readers do not care about the moral goal and to magazine attacks, and therefore they do not read prefaces.

In my case, not the preface, but the afterword is superfluous: everything that the author wanted to say is contained in the chapters of the book. To draw any general conclusions is not only unnecessary, but also premature, because the study of the monuments of the Borisoglebsk cycle continues, and many of the conclusions of the author of the book are more like conscious hypotheses than claim to be indisputable truth. Nevertheless, I will still express some considerations of a general nature.

A textual study of the monuments of the Borisoglebsk cycle leads me (not me the first) to the conclusion that the relationship between the works dedicated to the holy brothers is much more complex than the simple influence of one (one) on the other (the other). It can be assumed that the history of the formation of these monuments was more whimsical and intriguing than is usually thought. What were the reasons for this? It can be hypothetically assumed that this is due, for example, to some political reasons, a kind of censorship caused, for example, by references to the designation of Boris by his father, which originally existed in works that have not come down to us, and possibly by some other unfavorable news. for Yaroslav the Wise. (But definitely not news of Yaroslav's own involvement in this tragedy; there simply could not be such news - the version of him as the murderer of one or both brothers is untenable.)

The glorification of Boris and Gleb, apparently, refers to the reign of Yaroslav the Wise, and it is possible that by the time somewhat earlier than 1039, the veneration of Boris and Gleb was not formed as a “political” cult, religious motives proper were dominant. At the same time, the idea of ​​a “free sacrifice” in imitation of Christ was layered on a rich pre-Christian foundation, as was the case with the cults of other rulers or representatives of ruling dynasties who were victims in the struggle for power.

Boris and Gleb, of course, do not embody some purely Russian holiness - such saints are numerous in newly baptized Christian countries. However, in their veneration and in their life images there is a special emphasis on meekness and readiness to forgive their enemies with love. Church veneration and interpretation of the feat of the brothers in their lives is comprehended through numerous analogies from the Old Testament and, of course, in the light of the Christlikeness of the saints. The feat of Boris and Gleb was perceived in Russia as an exceptional event, equal in significance to the events of Sacred History.

At the same time, chronicle and hagiographic monuments about the passion-bearing brothers form a single tradition; in the Latin West, where the veneration of innocently killed kings and kings was formed, the historiographic (chronicles and sagas) and hagiographic lines did not always converge, sometimes they radically diverged in assessments and interpretations. The impact of both the baptism and the passion-bearing of Boris and Gleb on the consciousness of the ancient Russian ruling stratum turned out to be immeasurably deeper than similar events in the Frankish state or in Scandinavia: in Kievan Rus, the murders of rival princes in the struggle for power after 1015 come to naught. These are some preliminary results - conclusions that partially coincided with what was written before me.

The tragic fact of Russian history - the murder of the brothers Boris and Gleb by Svyatopolk the Accursed - had a wide resonance in ancient Russian society and led to the creation of a number of literary monuments on this topic. Despite the journalistic orientation of the works about the martyr princes, which were created, as the researchers proved, in the interests of Yaroslav the Wise, these works retained valuable historical evidence: their authors mention the circumstances, time and place of the death of Boris and Gleb, give the names of the prince's servants and hired servants. killers.

In the "Tale of Bygone Years" under 1015, it was reported that after the death of Prince Vladimir, one of his sons, the Pinsk (or Turov) prince Svyatopolk, seized the Kyiv table and brutally cracked down on other possible contenders for the grand prince's power. His victims were Prince Boris of Rostov and Prince Gleb of Murom, as well as his other brother, Svyatoslav. When Prince Vladimir died, Boris, who "we love our father more than all" sons, was not in Kyiv. He was returning from a campaign against the Pechenegs, and the news of his father's death found him on the Alta River. "Otnya" squad was ready to force the young prince to get the Kyiv table, but Boris refused to go to war against his older brother. Abandoned by the retinue (only a small detachment of faithful "youths" remained with him), Boris was killed on the orders of Svyatopolk. The "Russian Cain" sent a messenger to Gleb with a request to arrive in Kyiv as soon as possible, where his seriously ill father was allegedly waiting for him. On the way, Gleb learns the terrible truth: his father died, his brother was killed, and he himself is waiting for a quick death. And indeed, near Smolensk, hired killers attack the prince's ship, on whose orders the cook, "take out the knife, Gleba's stab, like fire is immaculate." Yaroslav rises to fight the fratricide, in a battle with whom Svyatopolk is defeated. With the help of the Polish king Boleslav, he briefly succeeds in regaining Kyiv. In 1019, Svyatopolk, who came to Russia with the Pechenegs "in the power of gravity", was finally defeated, fled abroad and soon died.

It is possible that already under Yaroslav the Wise, local veneration of Boris and Gleb arose in Vyshgorod, where the brothers were buried. The transfer of the relics of the martyr princes to the new temple by the sons of Yaroslav in 1072 is connected by scholars with the all-Russian canonization of the saints.

Researcher's opinion

In the scientific literature there is a point of view that at first the saints were venerated in the princely environment and, possibly, separately. According to the hypothesis of V. Bilenkin (USA), there was even a separate life of Gleb, and the cult itself was Glebo-Borisovsky, because the first miracles are associated with the name of the youngest of the brothers. If at first the saints were venerated as "sources of healing," then later, by the end of the 11th - the beginning of the 12th century, the cult of brother healers was transformed into the cult of warriors-defenders of the Russian land and became Boriso-Gleb, highlighting the elder brother, who was especially revered in the family of Vladimir Monomakh. The repeated transfer of the relics of the saints in 1115 reinforces precisely this form of worship. Boris and Gleb from now on become the most authoritative national saints. Russian princes invariably turn to them, as heavenly patrons, for help in battles. It was they who helped to defeat the knights of the army of Alexander Nevsky, warning of the approach of the enemy.

A whole cycle of works of ancient Russian literature is dedicated to Boris and Gleb. In addition to chronicle stories, it includes "Reading about the life and destruction" of Boris and Gleb written by Nestor, anonymous "Legend and passion and praise" to the saints, to which in the Assumption collection of the XII-XIII centuries. adjoins the "Tale of Miracles", which arose on the basis of records compiled at various times in the Vyshegorodsk church. Saints Boris and Gleb are also dedicated to short stories in the Prologue and "readings" included in the liturgical books - Paremias and Service Menaions.

Scientific discussion

The question of the relationship and chronology of the individual works that make up the Boriso-Gleb cycle is very complicated. Currently, there are several versions in science about the order of its formation. According to the concept, which was followed, in particular, by S. A. Bugoslavsky and I. P. Eremin, the "Tale" arose in the last years of the reign of Yaroslav the Wise, i.e. in the middle of the 11th century; later, the "Tale of Miracles" was added to it, compiled by various authors during 1089-1115, and already on this basis, around 1108, Nestor wrote a "Reading" about Boris and Gleb. A different point of view was defended in their works by A. A. Shakhmatov, D. I. Abramovich, N. N. Voronin, who believed that "Reading" is primary in relation to "Tale"; it arose in the 1080s. and, together with the chronicle story, served as a source for the author of the Tale, which initially included stories about the miracles of the saints and was created after 1115.

"Tale" and "Reading" about Boris and Gleb in their type are lives of martyrs however, the conflict in them is not so much religious as political. Boris and Gleb do not die at the hands of pagans or Gentiles; they are killed on the orders of a Christian brother obsessed with a criminal plan: "I will beat all my brothers and accept the power of the Russian one." The younger sons of Prince Vladimir preferred death to the fight against Svyatopolk. Thus, the works about Boris and Gleb asserted an important political the idea of ​​tribal seniority in the system of princely inheritance, thereby advocating the strengthening of the state legal order. This thought also permeates the testament of Yaroslav the Wise to his sons, placed in the "Tale of Bygone Years" under 1054: "Behold, I entrust a place in myself to my eldest son, your brother Izyaslav - Kiev, listen to this, as if you will listen to me." The theme of vassal fidelity was revealed in the lives of Boris and Gleb, both on the example of the tragic fate of the brothers, and through the description of the feat of the servant of Boris, who covered the prince with his body, exclaiming: and I will be like to end my life with you!

Experts consider the most perfect literary monument of the Borisoglebsk cycle "Story and Suffering and Praise to the Martyrs Saints Boris and Gleb", the author of which, unlike the chronicler, focused on the spiritual side of this historical drama. The task of the hagiographer is to depict the sufferings of the saints and show the greatness of their spirit in the face of imminent death. If in the chronicle story Boris does not immediately learn about the plan of Svyatopolk, then in the "Tale", having received news of the death of his father, he foresees that Svyatopolk "thinks about his beating." Boris is put by the hagiographer in a situation of moral choice: to go “to fight Kyiv” together with his retinue and kill Svyatopolk, as his father, Prince Vladimir, once did in the struggle for power, having dealt with his brother Yaropolk, or to initiate a new tradition in inter-princely relations by his own death - traditions of Christian humility and unconditional obedience to the elder in the family. The hero concentrated all his spiritual strength on worthily accepting martyrdom. In this decision, he is strengthened by examples from hagiographic literature that come to mind, when a righteous man was killed by his relatives. Boris recalls the "torment and passion" of Saints Nikita and Vyacheslav of Czech "and how Saint Barbara could have had her killer."

Although Boris goes to his death voluntarily and consciously, his soul is full of longing and confusion; heavy and terrible is the last dream of the prince; notes of pain and resentment against his brother break through in Boris' dying prayer when he calls on God to become a judge between him and Svyatopolk. From the author's commentary on Boris' actions, it is clear that conflicting feelings struggle in the hero: with a "contrite heart", crying, he awaits the killers, at the same time "rejoicing in his soul" that he was awarded a martyr's crown from God. The psychological complexity of the characterization of Boris makes the picture of his death vital and truly tragic.

To enhance the emotional impact on the reader, the author of the "Tale" repeats the scene of the murder of the prince three times. First, he is pierced with spears in the tent by Putsha, Talets, Elovich and Lyashko. Then, when the wounded prince "in a daze" runs out of the tent, the murderers call on each other to "end what was ordered." Finally, the body of Boris, wrapped in a tent, is taken on a cart, but it seems to Svyatopolk that the enemy is still alive and raises his head; terrified, he sends the Varangians, and they pierce Boris through the heart with a sword.

Scenes of the prince’s martyrdom now and then interrupt the hero’s lengthy prayers, forcing the killers with weapons raised over the victim to patiently wait for him to finish praying: “The artificiality of such collisions, of course, was understood by readers,” writes O. V. Tvorogov, “but they also accepted and the more verbose and inspired the righteous man prayed in his dying moments, the more insistently he asked God to forgive his destroyers their sin, the brighter the holiness of the martyr shone and the more vividly the ungodly cruelty of the tormentors was seen.

The expressive-emotional element that dominates the "Tale" is created by using primary lyrical genres. In addition to prayers and psalms, these include the lamentations and internal monologues of the heroes, who now and then "say in their hearts", "thinking in their minds". Boris's crying for his dead father is filled with a feeling of deep sorrow. Going back to the tradition of oral folk tales for the deceased, he gives rise to sympathy for the orphaned. Crying is built as an alternation of sentences of the same type in structure using anaphora, the repetition of the first word. It is full of rhetorical exclamations and questions-addresses: “Alas for me, the light of my eyes, the radiance and dawn of my face!.. Alas for me, my father and my lord!<...>My heart is burning, my soul is confusing and it’s not possible to whom to turn and to whom to extend this bitter sadness? ”Having learned about the death of his brother, Gleb weeps, bitterly complaining about his loneliness. Exclamation“ Alas! If only we could die with you..." sounds like a cry of despair in his weeping. The power of weeping doubles as Gleb mourns both his brother and his father. "Bitter sighs" and "plaintive lamentations" of Boris' faithful servants, for whom he was like " a guide to the blind, clothes to the naked, a staff to the elders, a mentor to the foolish", merge into a chorus and form a collective lament for the prince, "merciful and blessed". used by the author - the symbolism of water and the ship, associated with the ancient funeral rite, and a number of omens: under Gleb, who, at the call of Svyatopolk, hurries to Kyiv, the horse stumbles, as if warning the owner of the danger.

The Tale tends to individualization of the hagiographic hero, which was contrary to the canon, but corresponded to the truth of life. The image of the youngest of the martyr princes did not duplicate the characteristics of the elder. Gleb is more inexperienced than his brother, therefore he treats Svyatopolk with full confidence and goes to Kyiv at his call, not suspecting anything bad, while Boris is tormented by gloomy forebodings and suspicions. Later, Gleb cannot suppress the fear of death in himself, believes in the possibility of pitiful assassins, begging for mercy: “Do not touch me, my dear and dear brothers! Do not touch me, who has not done you any harm! What offense have I done to my brother and to you, my brethren and lords?<...>Do not destroy me, in the life of a young man, do not reap an ear that has not yet ripened, poured with the juice of malice! Do not cut the vine that has not yet grown, but has fruit! I beg you and surrender to your mercy." The hero utters these words with a "meek look", "bursting with tears and weakening his body", "sighing anxiously" "in heartfelt contrition". An unknown hagiographer created one of the first in Russian literature psychological portraits, rich in subtle emotional experiences of the hero, for whom the crown of a martyr is heavy and premature. The author deliberately strengthened the motive of Gleb's defenseless youth, the childishness of his actions and words. Drawing a verbal portrait of Boris, he emphasized the youth and beauty of the hero, seeing in this a reflection of purity and spiritual beauty: Boris is "beautiful in body, tall", but in soul "truthful and generous, quiet, short, modest." In fact, the brothers were not so young: they were born from a "Bulgarian", one of the wives of Vladimir the pagan, and about 28 years passed from the baptism of the prince to his death.

Psychologically reliable image in the "Tale" hagiographic antihero, in the role of which is Prince Svyatopolk. He is possessed by exorbitant envy and pride, he is burned by a thirst for power and hatred for his brothers. The appearance of the name Svyatopolk in the text is accompanied by constant epithets "cursed", "cursed", "bad", "evil", etc. The medieval writer explained his actions and thoughts not only by the enslavement of Svyatopolk by the devil, but also by real facts from the biography of the anti-hero. Svyatopolk is the embodiment of evil, since his origin is sinful. His mother, a blueberry, was stripped and taken as a wife by Yaropolk; after the murder of her husband by Prince Vladimir, she, being "not idle" (pregnant), became the wife of the latter, thus Svyatopolk is the son of two fathers who are brothers at once. The "generic sin" that turned Svyatopolk into the "second Cain" makes it possible to reveal the real origins of his hatred for his brothers.

For the crime committed, Svyatopolk bears a worthy punishment. Defeated in the "evil battle" by Yaroslav the Wise, he flees from the battlefield, but "relaxing his bones, as if he were not strong enough to ride a horse, and carry him on a litter". The tramp of Yaroslav's cavalry pursues the weakened Svyatopolk, and he hurries: "Let's run further, they are chasing! Woe to me!" Because of the fear of retribution, he cannot stay anywhere for a long time and dies, "running from no one knows whom", in a deserted place in a foreign land, somewhere between the Czech Republic and Poland. The name of Svyatopolk the Accursed becomes a common noun in ancient Russian literature, denoting a villain.

In the Tale, Svyatopolk is opposed not only to the "earthly angels" Boris and Gleb, but also to Yaroslav the Wise, who became an instrument of divine retribution against the murderer and an ideal ruler who put an end to "sedition" and "strife" in Russia. It is symbolic that he won a victory over Svyatopolk on the Alta River, where Boris was once killed. In some chronicle editions of the Tale, angels help Yaroslav to defeat Svyatopolk, and nature itself unleashes lightning, thunder and "great rain" on the fratricide.

In order to surround the heroes with an aura of holiness, the author of the Tale cites their posthumous miracles at the end of the work, and in the final words of praise puts Boris and Gleb on a par with authoritative figures of the Christian church. For example, he compares them, "defenders of the fatherland", with Demetrius of Thessalonica: "You are the weapons for us, the Russian land took away both the assertion and the sword is sharp for both sides, and we depose the impudence of the filthy and trample the devil's staggering into the lands."

Unlike the traditional life, "The Tale" does not describe the lives of heroes from birth to death, but gives a close-up of only one episode - the villainous murder of brothers. The author's attitude to the "historicism" of the narrative also prevented the recognition of the "Tale" as a life itself, therefore, according to IP Eremin, there was a need for a work about Boris and Gleb, where the hagiographic principle would be strengthened. So it appeared "Reading about the life and destruction of the blessed martyrs Boris and Gleb" by Nestor created in full accordance with the church canon.

The life opened with a lengthy rhetorical introduction, where the author turned to God with a request to enlighten his mind, and to the reader to forgive his rudeness. Outlining world history from Adam and Eve to the baptism of Russia, Nestor talked about the eternal struggle between the forces of good and evil. The journalistic mood of the preface to the life, where the Christianization of Russia was regarded as a turning point in national history, echoed Metropolitan Hilarion's Sermon on Law and Grace. Further, guided by the genre tradition, Nestor spoke about the childhood of the saints and their early piety. He likened the heroes to two bright stars in a dark sky. Boris and Gleb, as befits saints, surprised everyone with mercy and meekness, prayed a lot and tearfully, read the lives of the holy martyrs, as if foreseeing that they were destined to repeat their feat. The princes accepted death without hesitation, being champions of the Christian ideals of humility and brotherly love. In conclusion, miracles were cited that took place at the tomb of the saints.

As I. P. Eremin noted, in "Reading about Boris and Gleb" the images of the heroes are "drier, stricter, more schematic"; and if in the "Tale" they are imbued with "warm sentimental lyricism", then in Nestor - "solemn, almost liturgical pathos". "Reading" was not widely used in ancient Russian writing, while the "Tale" was very popular and has come down to us in a large number of lists.

BORISOGLEB CYCLE

TO THE PROBLEM OF EDITIONS OF THE TALE OF TIME YEARS. I

ETHNO-LINGUISTIC ACCESSORIES OF THE "RUSSIAN MOVA" IN THE TIMES

OF THE GRAND PRINCIPALITY OF LITHUANIA AND THE COMMON

MOYSIENKO.................................................................. ................................................. .........................................53 GREEK ORIGINAL "WRITING ABOUT THE RIGHT FAITH" BY KONSTANTINE THE PHILOSOPHER: STRUCTURAL ORGANIZATION AND POLEMICAL TASKS

L. V. LUHOVITSKY .............................................. ................................................. ...................79 IN SEARCH OF OUR PAST: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES OF BULGARIAN CATHOLICS IN THE 18TH CENTURY Author: N. V. CHVYR............ ................................................. ...... CZECH CULTURE OF THE HUSITE PERIOD IN THE WORKS OF DOMESTIC HISTORIANS IN THE END OF THE 40S OF THE XX - THE BEGINNING OF THE XXI CENTURY Author: I. I. BUCHANOV......................... ................................................. ................................................. ............................. A. A. CAKE. North-Western Khazaria in the context of the history of Eastern Europe (second half of the 7th - third quarter of the 10th century) Author: T. M. Kalinina...................... .......... Holy princes-martyrs Boris and Gleb Author: A. E. Musin.......................... ...................... J. BOUBIN. Petr Chelcicky. Myslitel a reformator Author: L. M. Garkusha.................................. E. P. SERAPIONOVA. Karel Kramař and Russia. 1890 - 1937 Author: V. I. Kosik. PRAGUE FORUM OF YOUNG SLAVISTS Author: Yu. V. Kirillov, D. K. Polyakov................................. ................................................. ................................................. ................ ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF INNESA ILYINICHNA SVIRIDA.................................. ................................. ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF LYUDMILA NORAYROVNA BUDAGOV ................... ........................................... DIFFERENCES IN DESCRIPTIONS OF EVENTS AND RELATIONSHIPS s) S. M. MIKHEEV Source Slavic studies, № 5, 2007, C. 3- ARTICLES Heading Place of publication Moscow, Russia Volume 63.3 Kbytes Number of words Permanent address of the article http://ebiblioteka.ru/browse/doc/ DIFFERENCES IN DESCRIPTIONS OF EVENTS AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE TEXTS OF THE BORISOGLEB CYCLE Author: S. M. MIKHEEV About the bloody events of 1015 - 1019, following the death of the Kievan prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich, in addition to the annals, two ancient Russian hagiographic monuments narrate: Nestorovo "Reading about the life and death the blessing of the blessed martyrs Boris and Gleb "(hereinafter - Read.) and the anonymous "Legend and Passion and Praise to the Holy Martyrs Boris and Gleb" (hereinafter - Tale). The chronicle describes in detail the death of Boris and Gleb and the struggle between Yaroslav and Svyatopolk. In Cheten. and Skaz. stories about the murder of Boris and Gleb are more extensive, and the struggle between Svyatopolk and Yaroslav is consecrated in less detail.

The description of these events in all three sources is somewhat different, although the parallels between the sites have never raised doubts among researchers about their close dependence on each other. Meanwhile, the problem of the history of the texts of the Borisoglebsk cycle remains debatable in science.

The question of the relationship between the "Tales of the Miracles of the Holy Passion-Bearers Roman and David" 1 with that part of Chten., which describes the miracles that occurred after the death of Boris and Gleb, has been studied in most detail. Unfortunately, the study of this issue does little to resolve the problem of the correlation of the chronicle, Skaz. and that part of Read., where we are talking about the civil strife of the Vladimirovichs.

Much more copies have been broken about the time of the canonization of Boris and Gleb (see references), which is also not directly related to the topic of interest to us.

A. A. Shakhmatov devoted to the question of the relationship between the texts of the Borisoglebsk cycle the largest chapter of his "Research on the most ancient Russian annals" . The researcher suggested that in the WTO Mikheev Savva Mikhailovich is a junior researcher at the Isl RAS.

Sometimes researchers include the "Tale of Miracles" in the composition of the Tale, since in manuscripts these monuments are almost always adjacent - "The Tale of Miracles" is placed after the Tale. However, such a combination is not entirely correct - the first part of the Tale of Miracles, in which Boris and Gleb are consistently called Roman and David, contains a text that is certainly older than the Tale.

pp. a quarter of the 11th century. an annalistic legend about Boris and Gleb was written, which was included in the "Ancient Chronicle Code" (hereinafter - Ancient St.). The event side of this version of the story about Boris and Gleb, according to A. A. Shakhmatov, was reflected in Chten almost unchanged, which makes it possible for us to reconstruct the Ancient. St. . At the end of the 11th century, according to A. A. Shakhmatov, on the basis of the Ancient. St. the "Initial Chronicle Code" (hereinafter - the Beginning of St.) was compiled, in which the actual part of the legend about Boris and Gleb was significantly modified under the influence of various new sources attracted by the editor of the chronicle - for the most part, local legends. According to A. A. Shakhmatov, this vault was also used by Cheten around 1115.

Later, the concept of A. A. Shakhmatov was criticized. However, none of the subsequent researchers studied in such detail as A. A. Shakhmatov, the ratio of actual sources of information about the civil strife of 1015 - 1019. and her background.

In this article, I want to raise again the question of the significance of differences in the description of events for the problem of the relationship between the texts of the Borisoglebsk cycle.

Let us first turn to the differences of the anonymous Skaz. and annals.

In the presentation of the factual side of events Tale. almost everywhere according to PVL.

Meanwhile, it should be noted the absence in Skaz. some specific information of the annals, which was pointed out by A.I.

the legend does not know these narrow terms and replaces them with broader and more characteristic of the literary language of his time: men and a ship. The replacement of narrow concepts by broader ones is quite natural and easy (so we can freely replace the narrow name frigate with the broad name ship);

as for the reverse substitution, it was hardly possible: it was not at all necessary for the chronicler, who, moreover, liked to flaunt the book word ".

The most significant contribution to the comparison of chronicle and Skaz. introduced by A. A. Shakhmatov.

“I reject in the most decisive way the possibility of borrowing a chronicle legend from a hagiographic one subject to our study (Skaz. - S. M.), wrote A. A. Shakhmatov. “A hagiographic legend does not contain anything significant that would not be in the chronicle;

it differs from the chronicle legend in one rhetoric...;

so, long speeches and lamentations are inserted in it, first by Boris, then by Gleb;

long reflections are attributed to Svyatopolk himself after he killed Gleb. The chronicle is full of definite facts;

there is little rhetoric in it;

in essence, the rhetoric broke through only in Gleb's dying lament. We know the value of the facts reported by our chronicle;

if the chronicler was able in one way or another to present a long series of events of the 10th and 11th centuries, then it is natural to attribute to him the inclusion in the letter of the facts relating to the murder of Boris and Gleb;

these facts are consistent with others reported by him earlier and appearing in him later.

A. A. Shakhmatov also noted the absence of "grounds for the assumption of a common source, which would guide, on the one hand, hagiographic, and on the other, chronicle legend." According to the researcher, “with the exception of common pages with the chronicle of facts, only rhetoric and lyrics will remain in the life;

consequently, to assume for life a source different from the chronicle, not identical with the chronicle, seems completely superfluous;

rhetoric and lyrics could have been directly composed by the compiler of the life" 2.

Recently to compare the annals and Skaz. contacted N. I. Milyutenko.

The researcher noted that in contrast to the chronicle with its "stingy imagery" in Skaz. we find more definitions, participial turns, antitheses and repetitions, a much larger role in the narrative of Skaz. quotes play. Analyzing the use in the texts of the Borisoglebsk cycle of the epithets saint and blessed in relation to Boris and Gleb, N. I. Milyutenko demonstrated that these definitions are rare in the annals, and made the assumption that they were originally absent in the annals and were inserted into the text along with other late interpolations .

Both features identified by N. I. Milyutenko seem to support the conclusion of A. A. Shakhmatov about the impossibility of developing from Skaz. to chronicle.

Let us now consider in detail several similar fragments of the Chronicle and Skaz., in order to test the conclusions of previous researchers using these examples.

Under 6496, most Russian chronicles read a detailed list of the sons of Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich:

"Volodimir himself and s (s) n (o) vi him * and his land * for oh him s (s) n (o) v * 12 * Vysheslav * Izyaslav * S (vya) topolk * and Yaropolk * Vsevolod S (vya) toslav * Mstislav * Boris and * Stanislav * Pozvizd * Sudislav * and put Vysheslav in * a Izyaslav in * a C (vya) topolk in * Yaroslav in * and the dead elder * Vysheslav in * and put Yaroslav in * a Boris in Ro S. A. Bugoslavsky, who consistently compared in his dissertation the entire similar text of the Tale and Chronicle, came to the following conclusions: "A detailed comparison of Sk[az]. with a chronicle] testifies that the author Sk[az]. almost rewrote all the material of the chronicle story about the death of the brothers. He omits very little (see excerpts 3, 5), more often he spreads what was said in the annals in rhetorically extended turns (excerpts 6, 7, 9, 11, 21, 22), sometimes he builds entire episodes from short messages of the Chronicle with artistically created details (excerpts 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21). However, left to independent work, moving away from the annalistic text or trying to combine other articles of the L[etopisi], the author is Sk[az]. is lost, often falls into contradictions. He does not know how to coordinate the factual details he created with the presentation of his source, he loses the thread of the chronological narrative (see passages 11, 12, 17, 18, 21, 22) ".

hence hagiographic commonplaces are random and few in number. The author of the Tale diligently outlined the entire text of the chronicle article, occasionally deviating from its phraseology, omitting only a few sentences. Having set himself the task of writing the life of B[oris] and G[leb], the author of the Tale could not confine himself to the historical material of the annalistic article of 6523 and its few hagiographic passages;

he had to turn to general hagiographic literary material. The author of the Tale puts lengthy prayers and speeches into the mouths of his heroes, emphasizing their non-resistance to evil and respect for generic concepts, obedience to elders, love for one's neighbor, piety and religious disposition. The description of the death of the brothers, laconic and simple in the annals, the author of the Tale expands into figurative episodes, where his unconditional artistic talent was manifested. The author of the Tale shows the greatest independence in lyrical places - in prayers.

All these observations of S. A. Bugoslavsky are undoubtedly correct.

pp. * From (vya) tostava to Vsevolod in "3.

Mstislav It is easy to see that the brothers who are first on the list get the most significant reigns. From this it follows that Vladimirovichi are listed in this list by seniority. About Vysheslav - the first in the list - it is specifically said that he was the eldest of the brothers.

Under 6488, another list of the sons of Vladimir is given in the annals. This list is very different in structure from the one quoted above: it is supplemented by an indication of the mothers of the Vladimirovichs, the children are listed in a different order. In the Novgorod First Chronicle of the younger edition (NovgІml)4, in the Lavrentiev (Lavr.) and Radzivilov (Radz.) Chronicles we find approximately the same text. I bring it to NewgIml:

but Volodimer with the lust of a woman, and were led by him:

to the south, plant on the idea there is a settlement of Peredslavino, from which 4 sons were born: Izyaslav, Mstislav, Yaroslav, Vsevolod, and daughters;

from Svyatopolk, and from Vysheslav, and from another Svyatoslav, "5.

Mstislav, and from Boris and The second list has several features, the meaning of which is not entirely clear. Firstly, the question arises why instead of twelve sons, as in the list of 6496, only ten and two daughters are listed here. Secondly, it is not clear why the Vladimirovichi are not in the list of 6488 according to their seniority. In the list of 6496, Vysheslav is named the first son. That is, if the author of the list, Mr., wanted to compile a list by seniority, then first of all he should have reported that Vysheslav was the son of Vladimir from a Czech.

I. N. Danilevsky drew attention to the connection between the list of 6488 and the biblical list of the sons of Jacob in the Book of Genesis: “Jacob had twelve sons.

Leah's sons: Jacob's firstborn Reuben, after him Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar and Zebulun. Rachel's sons: Joseph and Benjamin. The sons of Valla, Rachelin's servant: Dan and Naphtali. The sons of Zilpah, the maidservant of Lina: Gad and Asher "(Gen. 35: 22 - 26).

The fact that the children of Vladimir are distributed in the list of 6488 according to their mothers, like the sons of Jacob, according to I. N. Danilevsky, speaks of the desire of the chronicler to connect the heroes of his story with biblical characters.

In my opinion, in addition to the very fact of the distribution of Vladimir's sons (and daughters) by mothers, the structural similarity that the lists have is of great importance. With the parallel arrangement of the sons of Jacob and Vladimir in table 1, indicating the mothers (subject to the order of their listing in the biblical and chronicle lists), cells are formed that clearly correspond to each other.

Wed . In all lists except the Ipatiev list Ipat.

instead of Yaropolk, Yaroslav is indicated. In Lavr. Svyatopolk and Yaroslav are listed in reverse order. In Radz. missing text after the words of Vysheslav in up to the words of Yaroslav in inclusive.

In the older version, the part of the chronicle, which includes the text of the list, is missing.

Wed . In several lists Ipat. instead of the second Mstislav there is a pass. In the Ipatiev list, Stanislav is attributed here in the margins. In all chronicles except Lavr. instead, it is erroneously read "from the other".

p. Only when looking at this table it becomes clear why the chronicler needed to supplement the list with two daughters and list older sons after the younger ones. It was precisely the correspondence of the number of children from each of the wives that was of decisive importance in compiling the chronicle list6.

For us now it is not important what idea the chronicler wanted to convey to his reader, drawing the parallel described above7. It is important that in Skaz. the list of Vladimir's sons differs in its structure from chronicle lists:

"Because then Volodymyr sons 12, not from a single wife, not from their mothers, in them was Vysheslav, and after him Izyaslav, 3 - Svyatopolk, even the murder of this evil This mother was a black woman, a grkyni, and sang Yaropulk Volodymyr, brother Volodymyr, and raised the beauty of her face, and conceived from her this Svyatoplek okannago. Volodymyr, filthy still, having killed Yaroplk and give his wife, an unjust being, from her was born this okanny Svyatoplk. And be from two father and brother I exist, but Volodymyr does not love him, as if I do not exist from myself to him. And from Ro 4 the sons of Izyaslav, and Mstislav, and Yaroslav, and Vsevolod. And from another Svyatoslav and Mstislav, and from Boris and reigning, we’ll say elsewhere. It’s the same, it’s about them, and there is. Put this late Svyatoplek in the reign, and Yaroslav - and Boris - I’ll stop talking a lot, but don’t forget to write too much. "

There are two contradictions in our text. Firstly, the correspondence of the number of children from each of the wives was not observed in the case of Rachel. Secondly, Svyatopolk was placed in front of his elder brother Vysheslav. To clarify the reasons for these contradictions, a detailed examination of the chronicle information about the Greek mother of Svyatopolk is necessary. Such a consideration within the framework of this article, unfortunately, is impossible.

N. Danilevsky.

page A. A. Shakhmatov suggested that in this fragment the Tale. glued together two chronicles of Vladimirovichs - 6496 and 6488. According to A. A. Shakhmatov, “according to the chronicle, the compiler of the hagiographic legend reported that Vladimir had 12 sons from several wives;

Vysheslav was named the elder (cf.

Pov. temp. years under 988), the second - Izyaslav (cf. ibid.), the third named Svyatopolk (in the Rev. vr. l. under 988 he was also named third, in the Radz. and Ipat. lists);

at the same time, we read: “this mother, before the guardian of Grkyni, was living ...” (cf. Pov. vr. l. under 977 and 980). The appeal from article 988 to article 980 had the consequence that extracts continued already from this article: “and from Ro 4 the sons of Izyaslav, and Mstislav and Yaroslav and Vsevolod, and from another Svyatoslav and Mstislav, and from Boris and” (cf. exactly the same in Pov.

under 980)" .

Identified by A. A. Shakhmatov, the peculiarity of the structure of the list of Vladimirovichs in Skaz. can be illustrated in Table 2.

So, an analysis of the lists of the sons of Vladimir in various texts of the Borisoglebsk cycle convinces us that Skaz. from chronicle 8.

I do not intend to make a further detailed comparison of the chronicle with the Skaz., since practically the rest of the text of these monuments can be interpreted both in favor of the primacy of the chronicle and in favor of the primacy of the Skaz., however, such an interpretation will almost always be purely hypothetical.

I am not aware of any arguments that can outweigh the above evidence that the text of Skaz. based on chronicle text.

pp. Let us now consider the relationship between the annals and Chten.

Nestor's "Reading" differs from the chronicle primarily in that in it we do not find most of the specific information known from the chronicle. This feature is expressed in Chten. much stronger than in Skaz. Instead of listing the sons of Vladimir, the author is Chten. briefly reports: there were many sons at Vladimir, instead of listing their tables, he says: Let the prince send his sons to his own region, as if he himself gave them. Instead of the Pechenegs in Chten. ratnia appear.

Not in Chten. details of the burial of Vladimir. Alta and Smyadyn, where Boris and Gleb were killed, respectively, are not mentioned at all. The golden hryvnia and the beheading of Borisov's servant George are not mentioned. The retinue corresponds to Nestor's howls that exist with him [Boris]. Vyshegorodsky men, listed in the annals by name, in Chten. simply called the servants of Svyatopolk.

Instead of Novgorod we find midnight countries. The leader of the murderers sent by Svyatopolk, Gleb Goryaser, is not mentioned. The cook Gleba Torchin is called by Nestor simply the old man the cook. Yaroslav's struggle with Svyatopolk is briefly spoken of: and the other brothers were persecuted9.

In addition, Nestor's story in places looks more logical than in the annals.

So, there is no double description of the murder of Boris (this feature will be discussed in more detail below), there is no story about the somewhat chaotic movements of Gleb before his murder, which we find in the annals.

Nestor also has some details that are not in the annals: about Vyshgorod it is specified that it is 15 stages from Kyiv, about Kyiv - that it is the capital10.

Comparing Cheten. with the chronicle, A. A. Shakhmatov wrote: “So, the connection of Nestor’s legend with the chronicle is obvious;

even common phrases can be noted in them.

It is especially important that the course of the story is the same in both tales. This connection can, of course, be explained in three ways: Nestor used the annals;

the chronicle used Nestor;

Nestor and the chronicle used one common source.

I cannot recognize the first explanation as consistent, if by chronicle we mean the beginning. vault or Tale vr. years. I will not put forward the argument that this chronicle is younger than Nestor's legend;

I deny the very possibility that Nestor knew the chronicle legend in the form in which it has come down to us, as part of at least the Primary Code;

I deny it because I definitely would not understand the reasons for Nestor's sharp deviation from the actual one. A. A. Shakhmatov believed that there was no indication of the exact place of Boris's death in Ancient. St., as in Chten. According to the scientist, "if it was in the Ancient Code, Nestor would have had no reason to omit it: instead of saying "and he himself with the youths abide on that day," he could put: "on the day of you" ". Obviously, A. A. Shakhmatov did not attach much importance to the fact that in Chten. almost all similar specific details are missing.

A. A. Shakhmatov also believed that the name of George's servant was not reported in Ancient. sv.: "I doubt that Nestor would deliberately withhold his name, if he knew it;

It seems to me that this would be contrary to the usual hagiological methods. It is one thing not to name the accursed murderers or to omit the name of that ruler of the city whose son was awarded healing, and another thing is to hide the name of the saint of God.

One gets the impression that Cheten. was created, among other things, for readers who are not familiar with Russian realities.

page of a part of the chronicle legend that has come down to us, if this latter was known to him ".

Here are all the differences Cheten. from the annals with which A. A. Shakhmatov substantiated this point of view.

Firstly, A. A. Shakhmatov believed that Nestor reports the reign of Boris in Vladimir-Volynsky, although according to the annals, he received Rostov. This opinion of A. A. Shakhmatov is based on the interpretation of the following phrase by Nestor:

ambassador and [i.e. Boris] then the father and the region of Vladimir to the south will give him, but leave the saint with you. A. A. Shakhmatov understands the word Vladimer here as a toponym.

Meanwhile, S. A. Bugoslavsky explained this passage as follows:

"[P]rying into account Nestor's consistent method of not naming proper names, even important ones for his story, like Kyiv, Vyshgorod, Yaroslav, the Glebov killers, on the other hand, knowing that Nestor uses factual material only from chronicles and legends, we believe that "Vladimer" here is the prince's own name (Nestor does not avoid him), and not the name of the region;

the word "Vladimer", thus, is an appendix to the word father, but it is delivered, from the point of view of the modern language, out of place. Therefore, in Reading there is nothing new here in comparison with the Tale and Chronicle ". This is the assumption of S.A.

Bugoslavsky is confirmed when referring to the manuscript tradition: in a number of manuscripts, the words Vladimer will give him more are missing.

Secondly, A. A. Shakhmatov considered Cheten to be a serious discrepancy. and the annals in the description of events that, according to Nestor, Vladimir left Gleb with him in Kyiv, although according to the annals, Gleb was given an inheritance by Murom. This difference in the texts was also analyzed by S. A. Bugoslavsky: “Nestor here retreats from Sk[az], which names the destinies of B[oris] and G[leb];

he says that Vladimir kept Boris and Gleb at his place "outside the same child of the best." If Nestor had said this about Gleb alone, we might think that his statement goes back to a different source;

but he says that Boris, too, stayed with his father;

below, however, and Nestor reports that B[oris] was sent "to the region";

therefore, in this digression one could see only a literary motive: Nestor wanted to paint a picture of the pious cohabitation of both brothers (see XVI;

Below Nestor (XVI;

196) nevertheless, according to Sk[az], makes Boris come to his father, who was afraid that Svyatopolk would not shed the blood of the righteous ".

Thirdly, A. A. Shakhmatov attributed Chten. from the chronicle is that, according to Nestor, Gleb met his killers when he went from Kyiv to the north in boats, and not from Murom to Kyiv - first on horses and only then in boats - as the chronicle reports. A. A. Shakhmatov considered the plot to be Chten.

initial in relation to the chronicle, but did not give any arguments in favor of this opinion. In my opinion, reverse development is easier to imagine:

Nestor could simplify the plot of his source in order not to describe the strange movements of Gleb, since he considered such a description unnecessary.

Here S. A. Bugoslavsky refers to the words "Sitsa to him [Boris], praying all the hours, and the saint obey him, and do not leave blessed Boris, but listen to him day and night" .

pp. All these observations force us to abandon the point of view of A. A. Shakhmatov, who argued that the chronicle, similar in its factual data to the PVL, could in no way be the source of Chten.

Leaving aside for the time being the question of the primacy of the chronicle or Chten., let's compare the two hagiographic monuments that tell about the murder of Boris and Gleb.

Researchers have long paid attention to the fact that in Chten. and Skaz. we find a number of parallel readings that do not have prototypes in the text of the annals. This suggests that either the author is Chten. used Skaz., or vice versa. Most of these parallels are associated with rhetorical embellishments, but there are also intersections in the presentation of the event series.

A. A. Shakhmatov and S. A. Bugoslavsky drew diametrically opposite conclusions about the relationship between Chten. and Skaz.

S. A. Bugoslavsky defended the opinion about the dependence of Chten. from Skaz.: "Almost all the parallels we have considered (especially our passages 1, 5, 7, 9, 16, 18, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 38, 39) indicate Nestor's direct dependence on the text of the Tale.

Here there can be no question of a common source Cht[en]. and Sk[az]. However, parallels 14, 19 and 21 bring the Reading closer to the annals. Therefore, Nestor also knew the annalistic narration about B[oris] and G[leb] (below we will show that he also uses other places in the annals). The entire factual side of the Tale with subsequent miracles was used by Nestor in part with changes;

he sets out his Reading in the same sequence in which the story of the Tale is conducted (some digressions in the Tale of miracles are noted above). Therefore, the Legend was the main source of Reading12. The legend was invariably before the eyes of Nestor during his work on the "life" of B[orys] and G[leb], because he also used it in relation to the text. However, he did not consider it to meet the requirements of the Byzantine hagiographic style;

that is why he set about his Reading;

that is why he does not borrow the text from the prayers and speeches of the characters in the Tale, that is why he diligently reworks both the factual and stylistic side of his main source.

Meanwhile, all the conclusions of S. A. Bugoslavsky can be reversed exactly the opposite. Giving a long list of textual parallels, Chten. and Skaz. , the researcher only in one case tries to prove the primacy of the text Tale: dependence Read. from Skaz. S. A. Bugoslavsky saw in various indications of the time of the reign of Vladimir, contained in the introductions to these monuments:

"Sitse ubo was a little before these 13, I exist self-driving the whole land of Volodymyr" (Skaz.).

“Be more, speech, a prince in your years, volodya of all the Russian land, named Vladimir” (Reader).

In this case, together with D.V. Aynalov, we will not have to create a story about B[oris] and G[leb] that has not come down to us and is not mentioned anywhere, allegedly written by Metropolitan. John I (see IORYAS, vol. XV (1910), book 3, pp. 41 - 42). All references to "unknown author" ("speech") refer to anon. Sk[az]. and etc.

famous monuments. In our article about Nestor mentioned above, these references and their sources are written out (chap.

here those puzzling questions that arise if we assume that Sk[az].

uses Reading. (Note by S.A. Bugoslavsky. - S.M.) In some lists, a page has been added. According to the scientist, the words in tyi years, of course, should have been written later than the expression malm before now. This conclusion S.A.

Bugoslavsky does not seem conclusive to me.

All other parallels between Chten. and Skaz., cited by the researcher, prove only the close connection of these monuments, but not that Nestor used the "Tale".

Meanwhile, not wanting to believe in the possibility of reverse development of texts, S.A.

Bugoslavsky asks the opponents of his point of view the following questions:

"If we assume that the anonymous Legend used the Reading, using the annalistic story as well, as Academician A.I. Sobolevsky and Academician A.

A. Shakhmatov, then we would have to answer such questions 14. Why did the Legend not reflect a single fact and expression that are the product of the personal creativity of St. Nestor, or taken by him from other sources besides the annals? Why, having a ready-made life, more complete and close to hagiographic samples, the author of the anonymous Tale nevertheless based his story on the chronicle, drawing from Nestor only individual expressions scattered in different places of the life and creating from them an integral Praise (at the end of the Tale), while did he have to unravel the obscure places of his source? Why did the legend of the miracles of St. Nestor;

if we assume that the Tale of the Murder and the Tale of Miracles were written by the same author, then why did he not accept the detailed edition of the miracle about the dry-handed wife, which Nestor heard from the healed woman herself, but transmits it from another less informed source? Why is the author of the Tale where St. Nestor does not agree with the chronicle, did he refer to this latter, and not to Reading? Why, finally, the author of the Tale, if he used the Reading, where the Praise at the end, after the Tale of Miracles, inserted it in the middle of the work, highlighting the Tale of Miracles in a separate story?

4. First, as already mentioned, S. A. Bugoslavsky revealed that many of the discrepancies of Chten. with the annals are explained by the tendentiousness of the hagiographer.

It is obvious that this fact could also be revealed by the compiler of the Tale. Secondly, the question of S. A. Bugoslavsky is not entirely correct, since the author of Skaz. often contaminated the information of the chronicle and Nestor, which differed in content, which will be demonstrated below.

So, probably, the theory of S. A. Bugoslavsky about the primacy of Skaz. in relation to Chen. was based on his a priori opinion about the time of the compilation of the Tale. and Chten., derived from a comparison of the "Tale of Miracles" with the second part of Chten.

Thus, the problem of correlation Skaz. and Cheten. requires further research.

Let us consider one interesting feature that is present in all the main versions of the story about the murder of Boris - a kind of bifurcation of the murder16.

This is how the final part of the murder of Boris in the Lavr is described, which, apparently, quite accurately reflected the beginning in this segment. St.17:

1) "and prayed to him * climbed on his own * and now attacked like a divi near the tent * and nasunush and spears * and bored Boris 2) and his servant * fell on him probodosha with him * for this we love Borisom * byache lad be born with (s) n Ouguresk * the name of Georgi * his beloved great Boris * more he put the hryvnia on the great gold * in front of him * and beating the other youths of Borisov many * Georgevi is not able to this * remove the hryvnia from his head * and tacos removed [hryvnia * but rejected the head] and not this in the corpse * 3) Boris, who killed Boris in the tent * put him on a stake and carried him * and still breathing to him * but this okanny C (vya) poplar as if still breathing * two ambassadors The Varyag will finish him off * the one who came * as if he is still alive * alone he took out the sword through it and to the heart * and thus died bl (a) f (e) nyi Boris ".

Three unequal parts can be distinguished in this fragment: (1) a description of Boris being wounded by spears in a tent (22 words), (2) a more detailed description of the murder of his servant George (77 words) and (3) a description of the murder of Boris by two Varangians, spe About this The plot has already been discussed in my report (see).

The story about the murder of Boris does not have serious differences in the oldest lists of the PVL and in NovgIml.

Most likely, as A. A. Shakhmatov suggested, it was read in approximately the same form in the Beginning. St. .

The division into paragraphs and their numbering in Arabic numerals behind parentheses here and below in the text of the sources are mine. - CM.

Words in square brackets are missing from Lavr. Text pasted from Radz. In the Ipatiev list Ipat.: that hryvnia * and the head away, in the Khlebnikov list (Khlebn.) Ipat.: the hryvnia that * head away. In Novg_ml: rejecting his head away (Commission (Commiss.) list), reject his head away (Academic (Academic) list).

In Radz., in Commiss. and Troitsk. Novg_ml - In Ipat. see more. In Acad. Novg_ml Tolst. Novg_ml Reconstruction by A. A. Shakhmatov. In Lavr. no words in square brackets, in Radz. and Novg_ml and in Ipat. and who saw, in Khlebn.

page sent by Svyatopolk, who learned that Boris was still alive (52 words).

In the text Chen. the episode with the finishing off of Boris by two Varangians seems to be absent, although instead there is a motive for finishing off by "one of the destroyers":

1) "And they, like divi, attacked n and lowered the stench of their sulits.

2) And behold, from the servants standing by him, fall on him, they also pierced that one, 3) and the blessed dead being, gone out.

4) Blessed one, jump up, having been, gone out of the tent 5) and praying to heaven, speaking the verb. (Prayer of Boris.) 6) Behold, he reksha, one from the destroyer, flow, strike at his heart, and so blessed Boris will betray his soul in God, on July 24th day ".

7) In the Tale. a similar snippet looks even more complicated:

1) "And the gleam of weapons and swords that flow to the shrine And without mercy, the most gracious and many-merciful holy and blessed Christ's passion-bearer Boris was pierced: putting on copies of Putsha, Talts, Elovich, Lyashko.

but, his youth, turning on the blessed, river: "Yes, I will not stop 2) my dear lord, but where your beauty fades, I will be able to cut off my belly." Byashe was born Ugrin, named George, and put gold on hryvnia, and we love Boris more And the same and pierced.

3) And as if you were hurt, and run away and shatara in 4) And start saying standing around him: "Who are you standing with sight? Coming closer, let us stop."

5) Hearing this, the blessed one began to pray and had mercy on them, saying: “My dear and beloved brothers, give me a little time, so I will pray to my God.”

6) And to heaven with tears and sighing, begin to pray with these verbs. (Prayer of Boris 22.) 7) And to them we touched our eyes and fell down, and shedding tears, saying: "Brothers, come, finish your service, and be peace to my brother and to you, brethren." Yes, if I hear his words, from tears I can’t utter a word, from fear and sadness bitter and many tears;

and with a bitter sigh, pitifully say ahu and weep, and every one in his soul groans. "Alas for us, our dear and precious and blessed prince, the driver of clothes naked, life of old age, the pointer of the unpunished! "Who does not perceive the great mind of humility, who does not see and hear it?" 8) And abie sleep, betraying your soul to God alive, Julie on the 24th day, before the 9th of August.

p. 10) And there were many servants;

but George is not able to take off the hryvnia, and the head, otvrgosh and could not know him.

11) Blessed Boris is in the tent, having put him on a stake, carried him, - and, as if on a forest, begin to bow his holy head. And behold, Svyatoplak sent two Varangians, and a probodost and a sword in the middle, and taco died.

This text turns out to be longer and more complex in structure than the texts of the annals and Chten.

Let's compare all the given texts in Table 3 (the numbers in the columns indicate the number of words in each of the selected segments).

Table Episodes Beginning Read. Tale.

wounding Boris with spears N 22 15 wounding a servant (George) N2 (47+ 15 assassins leaving the tent cf. N N3 - Boris running out of the tent cf. N N4 - "him" running out of the tent cf. N N5 - calling the killers to finish N6 - - Boris Boris's request for prayer N7 - - Boris's prayer N8 - 97 Boris's call to the killers N9 - - finish him off and the killers' humble speech death of Boris cf. N cf. N N 10 13 date of death cf. N N - Boris 11 +30) murder servants of Boris, N - cutting off the head of George finishing off Boris and his N 52 21 death indication of the date of death cf. N N - Borisa 14 The revealed ratio of stories about the murder of Boris makes me ask two questions: (1) why in the texts listed above we are faced with the repeated murder of Boris;

(2) why the ancient Russian scribes (whose stories are obviously dependent on each other) so modified their sources when describing the murder of Boris.

A. A. Shakhmatov suggested that the description of finishing off Boris by the Varangians was taken "from some legend". The researcher believed that the episode with the finishing off of Boris by the Varangians was absent in Ancient. St., therefore, there was no bifurcation of the murder. According to the scientist, later this text was superimposed by a local legend about the murder of the prince in the Dorogozhich tract between Vyshgorod and Kyiv, and the compiler of St. I needed to insert into my story the motive of finishing off Boris in order to put together two different versions of the murder. Thus, according to A. A. Shakhmatov, the description of the murder of Boris in Chten. - one of the clearest examples of the reflection in this monument of an earlier chronicle story than the one that has come down to us.

Descriptions of the murder of George and the cutting off of the head of George in the annals are a single text.

Page NN Ilyin also wondered about the origin of the bifurcation of the murder of Boris. In his opinion, the description of the murder was influenced by the fact that "on the way" on the forest "there was some kind of confusion, the cortege stopped, and observers saw from a distance near the deceased, wrapped in a tent, two Varangians with drawn swords" 24.

Unfortunately, all these considerations are not very convincing.

In my opinion, the study of the history of the origin of the source can help solve the problem of the bifurcation of the description of the murder of Boris. I've had to deal with this issue before. This plot has come down to us not only in ancient Russian texts, but also in the story of the murder of King Burislav in the Old Icelandic "Eimund's strand", which tells that before killing Burislav, Eimund, with his brother Ragnar and several Icelanders, pulled up his tent on a rope, tied to a large tree, throwing a rope over a golden ball at the top of Burislav's tent. The plots of the Old Russian and Old Icelandic stories are quite dissimilar, but each of them is close in its own way to the plot of the ancient Scandinavian legend about the death of the Svean king Agni, known from Snorri Sturluson's Ynglinga Saga. According to this legend, Agni was hung on a tree with a rope tied to a golden hryvnia around his neck. The proximity of the plots suggests that the Old Russian and Old Icelandic stories about the murder of Boris go back to the same source. It was a story based on an allusion to the legend of the death of Agni. Obviously, the Scandinavians were named the killers of Boris in this narrative (for more details, see).

The logical explanation for the bifurcation of the murder of Boris in the light of the foregoing seems to be the following: in the initial recording of the Old Russian story about the murder of Boris, two main oral sources were used, dating back to the original oral narrative about the murder of Boris. In the more complete of these sources, information was already lost that the murderers of Boris were Scandinavian mercenaries25. The second source was rumors that the killers were two Varangians26.

Obviously, Nestor changed his source a lot because of the desire to clear the narrative of excessive specificity. The plot of the dark chronicle narrative, which first spoke about the attack on Boris (who was in the tent) near the tent, and then about the second murder of Boris, who was being taken from the place of the first murder, by one of the two Varangians27, was turned into Chten. on the other hand, N. N. Ilyin compared the bifurcated description of the death of Boris with a similar episode in the lives of St. Wenceslas: “In the legends about Vyacheslav, as well as in the story of the murder of Boris and Gleb, we find: , and his insidious proposals to his victim, and the warnings that the latter received from his well-wishers;

the details of the situation of the murder coincide: the night, the dying matins, the beating and robbery of the close ones of the prince, and even the murder itself, not immediately, but, as it were, in two steps;

the death of the killers of Vyacheslav is reported in almost the same terms as the death of Svyatopolk;

miraculous phenomena, thanks to which the body of Gleb was found, are the same as the signs that the body of Vyacheslav's grandmother, Lyudmila, revealed herself to be.

This legend, probably, has already been superimposed on the legend that Boris was killed by Vyshegorodtsy.

These rumors were probably based on information that two people were at the head of the assassination squad - Eymund and his brother Ragnar, who are described in "Eymund's Strand". Wed .

“Behold, I rekshyu to him, one from the destroyer, flow, strike at his heart, and so blessed Boris will betray his soul in God” (Reader). Thus, Nestor (1) corrected the confusion of his source with the murder of roofing felts in the tent, roofing felts near it, (2) corrected the confusion with the re-sending of the murderers and the double murder, (3) removed the specifics, replacing the Varangians with the destroyers. The author of Skaz. probably had at his disposal both the text of the chronicle and Nesterov's "Readings", therefore in Skaz. we find no longer a doubling, but practically a tripling of the murder:

here is separately described both the wounding of Boris in the tent, and the death near the tent (as in Chten.), and the second murder by two Vikings (as in the chronicle). We also note that Boris' exit from the tent ended up in Skaz. turned into George's exit - probably this inconsistency arose due to the inattention of the author of the Tale. when the texts of the Chronicle and Chten are contaminated. In addition, the table above shows that a large "rhetorical" fragment was inserted into the story about George. Prayer and related subjects borrowed from Chten. (where the episode with George is abbreviated28), in Skaz. broke in two the story of the murder of Boris's servant.

Let's summarize. The reconstruction of the history of the texts of the Borisoglebsk cycle is presented in Scheme 1.

Scheme Absence in Chten. the mention of the golden hryvnia once again confirms the secondary nature of Chten. in relation to chronicle.

In the diagram, thick lines indicate the influence of the main sources, thin lines - additional ones.

Italics indicate legends that existed in oral form.

pp. The main source of all the texts that have come down to us about the murder of Boris was the oral narrative that developed in the Scandinavian-oriented environment that surrounded Yaroslav Vladimirovich, and contained a plot allusion to the ancient legend about the death of King Agni (for more details, see).

In the course of the formation of the religious veneration of Boris, the oral narrative of his martyrdom lost the memory of its former context - the Scandinavian legend about the murder of Agni. The narrators of the story of the death of Boris no longer understood the allusion on which the Scandinavian legend was built. Therefore, in their mouths, important motives of the ancient story were lost and changed. The circumstances of Boris's death were rethought under the influence of other (primarily Christian) parallels.

The first Russian written text about Boris and Gleb was created on the basis of oral stories about the death of Boris, the death of Gleb and the struggle between Yaroslav and Svyatopolk. The author of the written hagiographic legend also used other data, including information that Boris was killed by two Vikings.

The hagiographic legend was either originally part of the chronicle, or a little later, almost unchanged, it passed into the chronicle text. The chronicle story about Boris, Gleb, Svyatopolk and Yaroslav has come down to us in chronicles dating back to the Beginning. St. and PVL, practically without changes in its actual part.

All versions of the so-called stories about the passions of Boris and Gleb in the ancient Russian hagiographic texts of Borisoglebsk, closely related to each other textually, go back to the chronicle story.

Nestor, the author of "Reading on the Life and Destruction of the Blessed Passion-Bearers Boris and Gleb", borrowed the event outline of the chronicle story, but freely changed the data of his source so that the work would correspond to the hagiographic canon.

"The Tale and Passion and Praise of the Holy Martyrs Boris and Gleb" repeated the chronicle data much closer to the original, expanding the narrative with lengthy rhetorical digressions. The differing chronicle and Nestor's versions of the description of events were contaminated by the author of the Tale.

LIST OF REFERENCES 1. Lives of the Holy Martyrs Boris and Gleb and services to them / Ed. Abramovich D.

I. Pg., 1916.

2. Bugoslavsky S. Memories of the XI-XVIII centuries about the princes Boris and Glib (Razvedka of that text). Kiev, 1928.

3. Revelli G. Monumenti letterari su Boris e Gleb = Literary monuments about Boris and Gleb. Genova, 1993.

4. Macarius, ep. Vinnitsa. History of the Russian Church. SPb., 1857. T. II.

5. Shakhmatov A. A. Research on the most ancient Russian annals. SPb., 1908.

6. Bugoslavsky S. A. On the question of the nature and volume of the literary activity of the Monk Nestor // News of the Department of the Russian Language and Literature of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. 1914 St. Petersburg, 1914. T. XIX. Book. one.

7. Poppe A. On the origin of the cult of Sts. Boris and Gleb and about the works dedicated to them // Russia mediaevalis. Munchen, 1995. Vol. VIII, 1.

8. Sobolevsky A. "Memory and Praise" of St. Vladimir and the "Tale" of Sts. Boris and Glebe (Regarding the article by Mr. Levitsky) // Christian Reading. SPb., 1890. Part 1.

9. Bugoslavsky S. A. Textology of Ancient Russia. M., 2007. T. II. Old Russian literary works about Boris and Gleb.

p. 10. Milyutenko I.M. Holy princes-martyrs Boris and Gleb. SPb., 2006.

11. Ipatiev Chronicle // Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles. SPb., 1908. T. 2.

12. Novgorod First Chronicle of the Senior and Junior Editions. M., 1950.

13. Laurentian Chronicle // Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles. L., 1926. T. 1.

14. Radzivilov Chronicle. St. Petersburg;

15. Danilevsky I. N. The Tale of Bygone Years: Hermeneutical Foundations for the Study of Chronicle Texts. M., 2004.

16. Ilyin N. N. Chronicle article of 6523 and its source. (Experience of analysis.) M., 1957.

17. Mikheev S. M. Bifurcation of the murder of Boris and the history of the Borisoglebsky cycle // Ancient Russia: Questions of medieval studies. M., 2005. N 3 (21).

18. Shakhmatov A. A. The Tale of Bygone Years. Pg., 1916. T. I: Introductory part. Text.

Notes.

19. Mikheev S. M. Boris' golden hryvnia and the Ynglings' family curse: On the problem of the Varangian sources of Old Russian texts // Slavic Studies. 2005. N 2.

20. Nikitin AL. Foundations of Russian History: Mythologems and Facts. M., 2001.

pp. Title of the article TO THE PROBLEM OF EDITIONS OF THE TALE OF TIME YEARS. I Author(s) A. A. GIPPIUS Source Slavic Studies, № 5, 2007, C. 20- ARTICLES Heading Place of publication Moscow, Russia Volume 90.4 Kbytes Number of words Article permanent address http://ebiblioteka.ru/browse/doc/ К THE PROBLEM OF EDITIONS OF THE TALE OF TIME YEARS. I

A. GIPPIUS The discussion of the issues of the history of the text of the Tale of Bygone Years (PVL), from whatever position it is conducted, inevitably, as a starting point, returns to the classical scheme of A. A. Shakhmatov, which occupies a place in the historiography of the initial Russian chronicle, similar to that which in the history of Russian chronicle writing belongs to the PVL itself. Although the adequacy of this scheme as a whole and its individual provisions have often been questioned or even denied (as a result, as an integral construction, it is today the property of university courses rather than the subject of any broad scientific consensus), the chess scheme has been preserved for almost a century. behind it is the significance of the main landmark in this area, the role of a kind of "classifier" of the scientific tradition, in relation to which various research approaches and hypotheses are grouped, breaking into channels and streams.

Recall that according to Shakhmatov's scheme, in the form in which it was presented by him in the book of 1916 1, the first edition of the PVL, which was preceded by the Kyiv Initial Code of 1093 - 1095, was compiled by Nestor in 1111 and has not reached us . The second edition, compiled by Sylvester in 1116, has been preserved in the lists of the Lavrentiev group (LTRA)2, but not in its original form, but with traces of secondary influence from the third edition. This latter was compiled on the basis of the second edition in 1118 and is read in the lists of the Ipatiev group (IH).

Gippius Alexey Alekseevich - Doctor of Philology. Sci., Senior Researcher, Institute of Slavic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences.

The work was carried out within the framework of the Fundamental Research Program "Russian Culture in the Context of World History" (project "Early Old Russian Chronicle in the Context of European Cultural Tradition").

Subsequently cited from the reprint in .

The letters L, T, R, A, I, X denote six complete lists of PVL: Lavrentevsky, Troitsky (burned down in 1812, but partially reconstructed), Radzivilov, Moscow Academic, Ipatiev, Khlebnikov. The LTRA lists form the Lavrentiev group, the IH lists form the Ipatiev group;

within the Lavrentiev group, the lists LT and RA ascend to common protographs.

The concepts "Laurentian text" and "Ipatiev text" are used in the article as synonymous with the concepts "general text of lists of the Lavrentiev group" and "general text of lists of the Ipatiev group".

In addition, according to tradition, the general text of the lists of THEY is called by us the Ipatiev Chronicle, and the lists of the RA - the Radzivilov Chronicle. The text that appears in all of the full lists of the PVL, we call it the "main text". The texts of the chronicles are quoted from their latest publications in .

The textbook nature of the problems of this article relieves us of the need to preface our analysis with a review of historiography - instead, we will designate a circle of provisions from which we will proceed from as starting points, considering them already proven by our predecessors.

The first and most general of these provisions is the view of the PVL as a text that is heterogeneous in origin, in which throughout its entire length there are fragments written by different authors. This idea, which was formed in the pre-chess era, is currently generally accepted. Attempts made from time to time to return to the idea of ​​the creation of the main text of the PVL by one author seem to be ill-founded.

The last of these attempts belongs to VN Rusinov. The only author of the PVL text for 1051 - 1117. the researcher considers the Kiev-Pechersk monk Vasily, who mentions himself in an article of 6605. A. Vaillant came to the same conclusion half a century ago, who, however, went even further, identifying Vasily with Sylvester. Researchers substantiate the thesis about a single author of PVL in different ways. A. Vaillant, analyzing the direct and indirect evidence in the text about the personality of the author, his origin, way of thinking, literary outlook, etc., concludes that they all may well refer to one person, which the classic of French Slavic studies considers Vasily Sylvester. For V. N. Rusinov, the main evidence of the author’s unity of the PVL text within the chronological framework under consideration is the presence in it of a complex of linguo-textological features that are not characteristic of the monuments of Russian chronicle of the 12th century used for comparison.

(remarks in the first person, phrases like "to this day", providential interpretation of victories and defeats, etc.).

V. N. Rusinov’s statement is incorrect, as if the conclusions about the consolidated origin of the text of the PVL for the second half of the 11th - early 12th centuries. "always limited themselves to only the most general considerations, which do not prove or explain anything." This is certainly not the case: in addition to general considerations, these conclusions were based on specific textual observations (we will not give examples: we will talk about them later).

The latter could be more or less evidentiary - this is another question, which should be the subject of consideration in the first place. But simply ignoring these observations, opposing them with your own system of arguments, as if indicating the opposite, is not the best way to prove your own case.

On the other hand, the evidence of linguotextological arguments of V.N.

Rusinova raises doubts. It is not clear why, for example, the rare use in the Kiev or Novgorod chronicles of the 12th century. author's remarks from the 1st person should certainly say that all such remarks found in the PVL belong to one author. Supplementing or editing a previously created text involves not only introducing features of an individual style into it, but also partially mastering the methods of presenting the original being processed, and in this sense, PVL as the fruit of collective labor, as it appears to the traditional view, cannot but have a complex of literary and linguistic characteristics. , peculiar only to her and not represented by pages or presented much less often by later chroniclers, who solved completely different literary problems in a different literary environment.

The refusal to consider the text of the PVL before 1051 is just as incomprehensible. It is easy to verify that most of the signs interpreted by V. N. Rusinov as signs of one author's manner are not limited in their distribution by articles of 1051 - 1117, but are also found in narrative about the ancient history of Russia. The question is: is V. N. Rusinov ready to admit that all this narration also belongs to Vasily? If not, then this is contrary to his own logic, since it is not clear why the same signs in one case indicate the work of one author, but not in the other. If so, then everything that is known about the internal heterogeneity of the most ancient part of the PVL revolts against such an assumption.

The second position we share is the explanation of the textological heterogeneity of the PVL as a consequence of several stages of editing a certain source text. In other words, we share the general model proposed by Shakhmatov, which represents the PVL as a system of editorial "shells" that have grown around the original "core" that arose no later than the middle of the 11th century.

An alternative to this "monocentric" model is the idea of ​​the original plurality of chronicle traditions of the 11th century, which feed the Primary Chronicle. This point of view found its most consistent expression in the book of A. G. Kuzmin. A similar understanding of the process of the initial Russian chronicle writing is also reflected in the research of S. V. Tsyb on the chronology of the PVL. The "monocentric" model of the Primary Chronicle seems to be a priori preferable as a more economical description of the process of the Primary Chronicle. On the other hand, the explanation of the contradictions in the text of the PVL within the framework of the development of a single "trunk" of ancient Kievan chronicles is better consistent with the fact that various regional chronicle traditions of the 12th - 13th centuries ascended to a common "root". (including the Novgorod one, based on the previous PVL Initial Code, see the next paragraph). So far, in our opinion, no real textual arguments that would make us assume the existence of several local annalistic codes reflected in the PVL, created in various centers of Russia, have been given so far. As for the reconstruction by S. V. Tsyb, who concludes that there are at least five such codes based on the analysis of "chronological artifacts" alone, the very possibility of stratifying the text of the PVL on a chronological basis independent of "traditional" textual criticism seems methodologically doubtful.

The third provision, concretizing the second, is the thesis substantiated by Shakhmatov, according to which the PVL as an annalistic code of the 1110s was preceded by the Kiev-Pechersk Initial code of the 1090s, which was partially reflected in the Novgorod 1 chronicle (H1L) of the younger version.

We emphasize that Shakhmatov's hypothesis about the Initial Code is shared by us not in general, but only in its central provisions, demonstrating the primacy of the H1L text in relation to the PVL from the beginning to article 6523, including the Preface, reasonably dated by Shakhmatov to the 90s of the 11th century. For a statement of our position in the discussion on these issues, see.

The fourth and last of our starting points is the most important correction to the chess concept of the relationship between the PVL and the Initial Page Code, made by M. Kh. Aleshkovsky. This correction entails a significant modification of Shakhmatov's construction as a whole and requires a closer look at it.

According to Shakhmatov, the first edition of the PVL, which has not come down to us, was created by Nestor in the Kiev-Pechersk monastery during the reign of Svyatopolk and reflected the position friendly to this prince, which the monastery occupied from the second half of the 1090s;

the second, the Sylvestrov edition, which emerged from the walls of the Vydubitsky Monastery, already reflected the Promonomachian tendency. The appearance of the second edition was, according to Shakhmatov, the result of Monomakh's transfer of the chronicle from the Kiev Caves Monastery to the princely Vydubitsky Monastery and its thorough revision. Shakhmatov considered evidence of such a revision to be the heterogeneity of the PVL text at the end of the 11th - the first decade of the 12th century, duplications and contradictions that betray the presence of at least two layers in it. The earlier of these layers, the researcher associated with Nestor and attributed to the first edition of the PVL, the later one considered to belong to Sylvester. Within the framework of this construction, the most important dating indication of the PVL - bringing the chronological calculations in the article of 6362 "until the death of Svyatopolchi" (April 16, 1113) - logically related to the second edition of the monument, defining the terminus ante quem of the creation of the first edition.

While Shakhmatov's observations, revealing the two-layered nature of the text of the Primary Chronicle in the named time frame, largely remain valid and can be supported by additional arguments, his definition of these layers as ascending to the first and second editions of the PVL raises objections.

Reconstructing the ratio of these stages, Shakhmatov believed that the main source of the PVL, the Kyiv Initial Code, ended with the article of 1093 and that the events of subsequent years were first described by Nestor on the pages of the PVL in the early 1110s. This assumption, which predetermined Shakhmatov's further calculations, was affected by the well-known one-sidedness of his understanding of the very process of initial chronicle writing. The periodic updating of the annalistic codes, on which Shakhmatov concentrated entirely, restoring the history of the PVL, is only one aspect of this process, in which the gradual accumulation of weather records played an equally important role, i.e.

analistic beginning. Comparison of the ancient Russian chronicle with the typologically close medieval Western European annalism shows that the newly created annalistic code, as a rule, was continued in the form of a weather chronicle (annals) (see). On the Old Russian material, this ratio is demonstrated by the Novgorod code of Mstislav, compiled around 1115 and continued by weather records, as well as the PVL itself with both (Lavrentiev and Ipatiev) versions of its continuation. There is every reason to think that the Primary Code of the end of the XI century. was not abandoned upon its completion for a decade and a half, but continued to be replenished with weather records until the moment when the PVL was compiled on its basis.

The possibility of such a purely analistic continuation of the Primary Code, which was not accompanied by a revision of its main text, was first appreciated by M. Kh. Aleshkovsky, who made it the basis of his version of the history of the PVL text. The researcher drew attention to the fact that starting from 1091, dates with the hour of the event began to appear in the PVL, definitely indicating the appearance in the Kiev-Pechersky Monastery at that time of a regularly updated weather chronicle. The beginning of this chronicle, according to Aleshkovsky, was laid by the compilation in 1091 of an annalistic code (according to Shakhmatov - the Initial Code of 1093). According to Aleshkovsky, it was this code, with its continuation in the form of a weather chronicle, that was used by the Novgorod code of Mstislav of 1115, which was reflected in N1L, not only in its junior edition, but also in the oldest Synodal list, according to Article 6623.

inclusive.

According to Aleshkovsky, the compiler of the code of 1091 and the author of the weather records that continued it was Nestor, who finally finalized his text in the city. The researcher calls this text the first, "author's" edition of the PVL. There is a lot of controversy in this attribution. Aleshkovsky's belief in the authorship of Nestor is based on an unreliable later tradition. On the other hand, the concept of the "author's" edition of the PVL turns out to be too vague, bifurcating between the "author's" text of 1091 and the "author's" text of 1115, the relationship between which remains unclear.

However, the main thing in Aleshkovsky's hypothesis is still not this controversial attribution, but the very interpretation of the text of the PVL from the beginning of the 1090s to 1115, as based on the Kiev-Pechersk weather chronicle, which continued the annalistic code of 1091.3. With the preservation of the chess opposition between the Primary Code and the PVL, this idea of ​​Aleshkovsky was used by us in relation to the history of the Novgorod chronicle;

in the latest work on the editions of the PVL, it is developed by A. Timberlake, whose point of view on this problem is especially close to us.

According to Timberlake, the earlier layer of the articles of the PVL of the 1090s-1110s (according to article 1112) belongs to the Primary Code and its annalistic continuation, and the later layer belongs to the first (in Timberlake's view, the only) edition of the PVL. The Pro-Monomakhovian trend of this second layer is in good agreement with the count of years "before the death of Svyatopolchi" in the article 6360, which makes it possible to date the creation of the PVL to the period between the death of Svyatopolk in April 1113 and the appearance of Sylvester's record in 1116. In this chronological framework, he dated the first edition PVL and L. V. Cherepnin, who connected the creation of a new chronicle in the Kiev-Pechersk monastery with the transfer of the relics of Boris and Gleb in 1115

Such an interpretation of the correlation of texts is, in our opinion, a vivid (and rare in the historiography of the initial chronicles) example of the continuity of scientific ideas, carried out through the critical development of the initial hypothesis and leading to a consistent solution to the problem. Relying on the chess opposition of the Initial Code of the 1090s and the PVL as a code of the 1110s, she frees the core of this hypothesis from a number of assumptions that artificially complicate it, which Shakhmatov himself was forced to resort to, not taking into account the fundamental duality of the chronicle process.

The transfer of the creation of the PVL to the first years of Vladimir Monomakh's reign in Kyiv inevitably affects the assessment of the role of Sylvester in the history of the text of the monument. With her, however, the situation is more complicated than it might seem.

Note that the "Pechersk Chronicle" for this period was also mentioned in his early works by Chess, speaking, however, rather vaguely about the nature of this text and its relation to the Primary Code, suggesting the identity of Sylvester with the "disciple of Theodosius", speaking about himself in articles 1051 and 1091. The substantive obstacles discussed in the literature to considering Sylvester the compiler and, in part, the author of the PVL (and they, as you know, boil down to the fact that Sylvester is not a "Pecheryan"), are not at all insurmountable: even Golubinsky admitted that Sylvester was Vydubitsky abbot could become from the monks of the Kiev Caves Monastery. The only really fundamental argument against the authorship of Sylvester, which, in the framework of Shakhmatov's hypothesis, was the same two-layered text of the PVL for the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th centuries, loses its force with the attribution of the first of these layers to the annalistic continuation of the Initial Code - the Caves Chronicle. In this situation, the view of Sylvester as the compiler of the PVL turns out to be the most economical explanation, and the burden of argumentation falls on those who wish to prove the opposite: that the Vydubitsky abbot was just a copyist of someone else's work.

In the actual textological aspect, the solution of this issue largely depends on the attribution of the text of the Primary Chronicle, which is not included in the main lists of the PVL. We have in mind the text N1L of the junior edition from 6553 to 6582. As in its initial part, before 6524, N1L in this section transmits the Primary Chronicle not in excerpts, but in full, which gave Shakhmatov reason to assume the use in both cases of one source - the Kyiv Initial Code. However, if the ratio of the texts in the part up to 6524 allows us to speak with confidence about the reflection in the N1L of the Initial Code, then in relation to articles 6553 - 6582. this cannot be said. With the exception of the story of Article 6559

about the founding of the Pechersk Monastery, the text of N1L in this area completely includes the text of the PVL (distributing it until 6558 with news of local origin), and the qualification of its source as the Initial Code would mean that the compiler of the PVL did not introduce anything of his own into the description of still quite relevant in his era of events half a century ago. This is unlikely given the extent of his editorial involvement in other parts of the PVL. On the other hand, the appearance of this fragment in H1L was convincingly attributed by M. Kh. Aleshkovsky to a stage later than the one at which the Initial Code was used in Novgorod (about 1115, in the Mstislav compendium).

This editing was connected by us with the compilation of the archiepiscopal code of the late 1160s. The fact that when compiling the list of Kyiv princes included in this collection, the text of the biblical Introduction of the PVL, which was absent in the Initial Code, was used, allows us to think that the text of articles 6553 - 6582 was also borrowed from the PVL. . As is clear from the analysis of discrepancies, the used list of the site could not belong to either the Lavrentiev or the Ipatiev groups;

at the same time, it contained several indisputably original readings, which correspond to pages of secondary readings common to all complete lists of PVL4. This means that the source of this N1L segment did not simply reflect the "third branch" of the PVL lists (cf.

), but ascended to the original monument, bypassing the common archetype of the Ipatiev and Lavrentiev groups.

As for the manuscript of Sylvester, in it, theoretically, one can see both the original PVL, and the archetype of the Ipatiev and Lavrentiev groups ascending to it, and the archetype of the Lavrentiev group alone. The second possibility seems to us the most probable. To see in Sylvester the author of the PVL is hampered by two circumstances that have already been repeatedly noted: the general nature of his recording, which is more reminiscent of a colophon of a scribe than a form of manifestation of authorship, and the attribution of the text to the pen of the “Chernoriz Fedosiev Monastery of the Caves” clearly ascending to the archetype of the Ipatiev and Lavrentiev groups. On the other hand, seeing in Sylvester the scribe of the archetype of the Lavrentiev group (which undoubtedly had a later archetype in the form of one of the Vladimir chronicles of the second half of the 12th century), it must be assumed that he copied not from the original PVL, but from some successful appear before 1116 of an interim list, the status of which cannot be determined. It is more natural to believe that the Vydubitsky abbot copied directly the original of the Caves annalistic code, identifying its list with the archetype of all six complete lists of the PVL. This understanding of the matter is reflected in Figure 1.

Scheme PVL - the original "Tale of Bygone Years" 1113 - 1116;

S - Sylvester's list of 1116;

L - archetype of the Lavrentiev group;

Y - archetype of the Ipatiev group;

N Novgorod sovereign code of the late 1160s (articles 6553 - 6582 of the N1L junior edition) See:. The most important of these readings is "and their prince yash Sharakan" under 6576, which in all complete lists of the PVL corresponds to the erroneous "and their prince yash with his hands." A not so obvious, but nevertheless very important, discrepancy of the same type is found in the "testament of Yaroslav" under 6562, where in N1L we read: "do not transgress your brother into brotherhood", while in other lists of PVL:

brother". The originality of reading N1L is confirmed by its greater proximity to the "formulation of this provision in the Introduction of the PVL, where the form of wines is also presented. case with a preposition: "in the lot brother". Let us explain that, according to the hypothesis substantiated by us in , a brief cosmographic Introduction, which opened with a story about the sons of Noah, was already in the annals of 1072, was omitted by the compiler of the Primary Code and subsequently, in an expanded form, was restored to the PVL.

pp. It is easy to see that this scheme, from which we, as a working hypothesis, will proceed in further analysis, in principle allows us to see in Sylvester's manuscript not a simple copy, but a special edition of the PVL. Let us emphasize, therefore, that, unlike Shakhmatov, we see no textual (as well as historical) need to consider it as such5. Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that in the process of copying the Pechersk original of the PVL, Sylvester nevertheless made some additions to the text6. This element of uncertainty should be borne in mind when moving on to the central issue in this article:

Was there a "third edition" of the PVL?

The essence of Shakhmatov's hypothesis about the third edition of the PVL is the assertion that the era of the initial Old Russian chronicle writing, that is, the period of active formation of the PVL text, did not end in 1116 with the appearance of the Sylvester manuscript, but continued until 1118, when the "Sylvester" text PVL has undergone a new processing. This editing, according to Shakhmatov, was directly reflected in the annals of the Ipatiev group, and partly, due to the secondary interaction between the editors, also in the Lavrentiev group of lists.

Representing, according to Shakhmatov, the last of the ancient Kievan "shells", containing a multi-layered text of the Primary Chronicle, edition of 1118.

This turns out to be the first problem that a researcher encounters when he begins to analyze a chess construction "from the end", in reverse chronological order. We can say that it is here that the watershed passes, separating the history of the composition of the PVL text from the history of its existence in the manuscript tradition. The problem of the "third edition" of the PVL is, in essence, the problem of the correlation between its Lavrentian and Ipatiev texts.

Like the concept of Shakhmatov as a whole, this link was ambiguously perceived by subsequent historiography. Depending on the acceptance or rejection of the main thesis about the reflection in the Ipatiev Chronicle of the "post-Sylvester" edition of 1118, the opinions expressed are divided into two channels.

One of them, formed by the voices of supporters of this thesis, is internally heterogeneous, dividing into several streams. The first is the vyska For Shakhmatov, the grounds for assuming a significant revision by Sylvester of the first edition were, in addition to the already mentioned two-layered text of the PVL for the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th centuries, the information of the Kiev-Pechersk patericon, in which Shakhmatov saw a reflection of the non-surviving text of Nestor.

The groundlessness of such an interpretation of Paterik's data was convincingly demonstrated by VN Rusinov.

One can suspect of such an origin, for example, the news of the article of 6604 about the burning of the princely court by the Polovtsy in Vydubychi, which wedged into the pathetic conclusion of the story about the Polovtsy attack on the Pechersky Monastery: ) you are the icons, mocking, not like God (g) seems to be your slaves as warriors, but they will appear like gold tempted into the forge:

x (re) s (t) yanom, with many sorrows and misfortunes, go into n (e) b (e) snoe, and sim filthy and scolding for seven, take fun and spaciousness, and take m (y) ku, with the devil preparing fire mu. Then, having set fire to the red courtyard, which Prince Vsevolod set on the hill of Vydobychi, then all the windows of Polovtsi were set on fire. and we, according to the pr (o) r (o) ku D (a) in (s) do, cry out: G (lord) and, B (o) my! put [I], like a stake, like a fire in front of the face and burn oak forests, so marry me with your storm, fill their faces with blessings. Behold, you defiled and burned your house and your monastery M (a) t (e) yours and the corpse of your servants ".

p. calling researchers who accept the chess hypothesis of the "third edition" in the unity of its main provisions. A. A. Shakhmatov’s hypothesis received such an “orthodox” development in the works of M. D.

Priselkov, D.S. Likhachev and L.V. Cherepnin. M. Kh. Aleshkovsky, on the contrary, draws an attractive image of the "editor Vasily" - an inquisitive traveler and well-read scribe, who gave the PVL the look we know, significantly spreading the text of the first, Nestor's edition.