In the Department of Manuscripts of the Russian National Library, along with other most valuable manuscripts, there is kept a chronicle called Lavrentievskaya, named after the man who copied it in 1377. “I am (I am) a bad, unworthy and sinful servant of God, Lavrentiy (monk),” we read on the last page.
This book is written in “ charters", or " veal“, - that’s what they called in Rus' parchment: specially treated calf leather. The chronicle, apparently, was read a lot: its pages are worn out, in many places there are traces of wax drops from candles, in some places the beautiful, even lines that at the beginning of the book ran across the entire page, then divided into two columns, have been erased. This book has seen a lot in its six hundred years of existence.

The Manuscript Department of the Library of the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg houses Ipatiev Chronicle. It was transferred here in the 18th century from the Ipatiev Monastery, famous in the history of Russian culture, near Kostroma. It was written in the 14th century. This is a large book, heavily bound from two wooden boards covered with darkened leather. Five copper “bugs” decorate the binding. The entire book is handwritten in four different handwritings, meaning four scribes worked on it. The book is written in two columns in black ink with cinnabar (bright red) capital letters. The second page of the book, on which the text begins, is especially beautiful. It is all written in cinnabar, as if it were on fire. Capital letters, on the contrary, are written in black ink. The scribes worked hard to create this book. They set to work with reverence. “Russian Chronicler and God make peace. Good Father,” the scribe wrote before the text.

The oldest list of the Russian chronicle was made on parchment in the 14th century. This Synodal list Novgorod First Chronicle. It can be seen in the Historical Museum in Moscow. It belonged to the Moscow Synodal Library, hence its name.

Interesting to see illustrated Radzivilovskaya, or Koenigsberg Chronicle. At one time it belonged to the Radzivils and was discovered by Peter the Great in Konigsberg (now Kaliningrad). Now this chronicle is kept in the Library of the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg. It was written in semi-character at the end of the 15th century, apparently in Smolensk. Half-rest - a handwriting that is faster and simpler than the solemn and slow charter, but also very beautiful.
Radzivilov Chronicle decorates 617 miniatures! 617 color drawings - bright, cheerful colors - illustrate what is described on the pages. Here you can see troops marching with banners flying, battles, and sieges of cities. Here the princes are depicted seated on “tables” - the tables that served as the throne actually resemble today’s small tables. And before the prince stand ambassadors with scrolls of speeches in their hands. The fortifications of Russian cities, bridges, towers, walls with “fences”, “cuts”, that is, dungeons, “vezhi” - nomadic tents - all this can be clearly imagined from the slightly naive drawings of the Radzivilov Chronicle. And what can we say about weapons and armor - they are depicted here in abundance. No wonder one researcher called these miniatures “windows into a vanished world.” The ratio of drawings and sheets, drawings and text, text and fields is very important. Everything is done with great taste. After all, every handwritten book is a work of art, and not just a monument to writing.

These are the most ancient lists of Russian chronicles. They are called “lists” because they were copied from more ancient chronicles that have not reached us.

How the chronicles were written

The text of any chronicle consists of weather (compiled by year) records. Each entry begins: “In the summer of such and such,” and is followed by a message about what happened in this “summer,” that is, the year. (The years were counted “from the creation of the world,” and to obtain a date according to modern chronology, one must subtract the number 5508 or 5507.) The messages were long, detailed stories, and there were also very short ones, like: “In the summer of 6741 (1230) signed (written ) there was a church of the Holy Mother of God in Suzdal and it was paved with various types of marble”, “In the summer of 6398 (1390) there was a pestilence in Pskov, as if (how) there had never been such a thing; where they dug up one, put five and ten there,” “In the summer of 6726 (1218) there was silence.” They also wrote: “In the summer of 6752 (1244) there was nothing” (that is, there was nothing).

If several events occurred in one year, the chronicler connected them with the words: “in the same summer” or “of the same summer.”
Entries related to the same year are called an article. The articles were in a row, highlighted only by a red line. The chronicler gave titles to only some of them. These are the stories about Alexander Nevsky, Prince Dovmont, the Battle of the Don and some others.

At first glance, it may seem that the chronicles were kept like this: year after year, more and more new entries were added, as if beads were strung on one thread. However, this is not true.

The chronicles that have reached us are very complex works of Russian history. The chroniclers were publicists and historians. They were worried not only about contemporary events, but also about the fate of their homeland in the past. They made weather records of what happened during their lifetimes, and added to the records of previous chroniclers with new reports that they found in other sources. They inserted these additions under the corresponding years. As a result of all the additions, insertions and use by the chronicler of the chronicles of his predecessors, the result was “ vault“.

Let's take an example. The story of the Ipatiev Chronicle about the struggle of Izyaslav Mstislavich with Yuri Dolgoruky for Kyiv in 1151. There are three main participants in this story: Izyaslav, Yuri and Yuri’s son - Andrei Bogolyubsky. Each of these princes had their own chronicler. The chronicler of Izyaslav Mstislavich admired the intelligence and military cunning of his prince. The chronicler of Yuri described in detail how Yuri, being unable to pass down the Dnieper past Kyiv, sent his boats across Lake Dolobskoe. Finally, the chronicle of Andrei Bogolyubsky describes Andrei’s valor in battle.
After the death of all participants in the events of 1151, their chronicles came to the chronicler of the new Kyiv prince. He combined their news in his code. The result was a vivid and very complete story.

But how did researchers manage to identify more ancient vaults from later chronicles?
This was helped by the work method of the chroniclers themselves. Our ancient historians treated the records of their predecessors with great respect, since they saw in them a document, a living testimony of “what happened before.” Therefore, they did not alter the text of the chronicles they received, but only selected the news that interested them.
Thanks to the careful attitude towards the work of predecessors, the news of the 11th-14th centuries was preserved almost unchanged even in relatively later chronicles. This allows them to be highlighted.

Very often, chroniclers, like real scientists, indicated where they received the news from. “When I came to Ladoga, the Ladoga residents told me...”, “I heard this from a self-witness,” they wrote. Moving from one written source to another, they noted: “And this is from another chronicler” or: “And this is from another, old one,” that is, copied from another, old chronicle. There are many such interesting postscripts. The Pskov chronicler, for example, makes a note in cinnabar against the place where he talks about the Slavs’ campaign against the Greeks: “This is written about in the miracles of Stephen of Sourozh.”

From its very inception, chronicle writing was not a personal matter for individual chroniclers, who, in the quiet of their cells, in solitude and silence, recorded the events of their time.
Chroniclers were always in the thick of things. They sat in the boyar council and attended the meeting. They fought “beside the stirrup” of their prince, accompanied him on campaigns, and were eyewitnesses and participants in sieges of cities. Our ancient historians carried out embassy assignments and monitored the construction of city fortifications and temples. They always lived the social life of their time and most often occupied a high position in society.

Princes and even princesses, princely warriors, boyars, bishops, and abbots took part in the chronicle writing. But among them there were also simple monks and priests of city parish churches.
Chronicle writing was caused by social necessity and met social demands. It was carried out at the behest of one or another prince, or bishop, or mayor. It reflected the political interests of equal centers - the principality of cities. They captured the intense struggle of different social groups. The chronicle has never been dispassionate. She testified to merits and virtues, she accused of violations of rights and legality.

Daniil Galitsky turns to the chronicle to testify to the betrayal of the “flattering” boyars, who “called Daniel a prince; and they themselves held the whole land.” At the critical moment of the struggle, Daniil’s “printer” (custodian of the seal) went to “cover up the robberies of the wicked boyars.” A few years later, Daniil’s son Mstislav ordered the treason of the inhabitants of Berestya (Brest) to be entered into the chronicle, “and I wrote down their sedition in the chronicle,” writes the chronicler. The entire collection of Daniil Galitsky and his immediate successors is a story about sedition and “many rebellions” of “crafty boyars” and about the valor of the Galician princes.

Things were different in Novgorod. The boyar party won there. Read the entry in the Novgorod First Chronicle about the expulsion of Vsevolod Mstislavich in 1136. You will be convinced that this is a real indictment against the prince. But this is only one article from the collection. After the events of 1136, the entire chronicle, which had previously been conducted under the auspices of Vsevolod and his father Mstislav the Great, was revised.
The previous name of the chronicle, “Russian temporary book,” was changed into “Sofia temporary book”: the chronicle was kept at St. Sophia Cathedral, the main public building of Novgorod. Among some additions, a note was made: “First the Novgorod volost, and then the Kiev volost.” The antiquity of the Novgorod “volost” (the word “volost” meant both “region” and “power”), the chronicler substantiated the independence of Novgorod from Kyiv, its right to elect and expel princes at will.

The political idea of ​​each code was expressed in its own way. It is expressed very clearly in the vault of the year 1200 by Abbot Moses of the Vydubitsky Monastery. The code was compiled in connection with the celebration of the completion of a grandiose engineering structure at that time - a stone wall to protect the mountain near the Vydubitsky Monastery from erosion by the waters of the Dnieper. You might be interested to read the details.

The wall was erected at the expense of Rurik Rostislavich, the Grand Duke of Kyiv, who had “an insatiable love for the building” (for creation). The prince found “an artist suitable for such a task”, “not a simple master”, Pyotr Milonega. When the wall was “completed,” Rurik and his whole family came to the monastery. After praying “for the acceptance of his work,” he created “no small feast” and “fed the abbots and every church rank.” At this celebration, Abbot Moses gave an inspired speech. “Wonderfully today our eyes see,” he said. “For many who lived before us wanted to see what we see, but did not see, and were not worthy to hear.” Somewhat self-deprecatingly, according to the custom of that time, the abbot turned to the prince: “Accept our rudeness as a gift of words to praise the virtue of your reign.” He further said about the prince that his “autocratic power” shines “more (more) than the stars of heaven,” it is “known not only in the Russian ends, but also by those in the sea far away, for the glory of his Christ-loving deeds has spread throughout the whole earth.” “Standing not on the shore, but on the wall of your creation, I sing to you a song of victory,” exclaims the abbot. He calls the construction of the wall a “new miracle” and says that the “Kyians,” that is, the inhabitants of Kyiv, are now standing on the wall and “from everywhere joy enters their souls and it seems to them that they have reached the sky” (that is, that they are soaring in the air).
The abbot's speech is an example of the high florid, that is, oratorical, art of that time. It ends with the vault of Abbot Moses. The glorification of Rurik Rostislavich is associated with admiration for the skill of Peter Miloneg.

Chronicles were given great importance. Therefore, the compilation of each new code was associated with an important event in the social life of that time: with the accession of the prince to the table, the consecration of the cathedral, the establishment of the episcopal see.

The chronicle was an official document. It was referred to during various types of negotiations. For example, the Novgorodians, concluding a “row”, that is, an agreement, with the new prince, reminded him of “antiquity and duties” (customs), about the “Yaroslavl charters” and their rights recorded in the Novgorod chronicles. Russian princes, going to the Horde, took chronicles with them and used them to justify their demands and resolve disputes. Zvenigorod Prince Yuri, the son of Dmitry Donskoy, proved his rights to reign in Moscow “with chroniclers and old lists and the spiritual (testament) of his father.” People who could “speak” from the chronicles, that is, knew their contents well, were highly valued.

The chroniclers themselves understood that they were compiling a document that was supposed to preserve in the memory of descendants what they witnessed. “And this will not be forgotten in the last generations” (in the next generations), “Let us leave it to those who live after us, so that it will not be completely forgotten,” they wrote. They confirmed the documentary nature of the news with documentary material. They used diaries of campaigns, reports of “watchmen” (scouts), letters, various kinds diplomas(contractual, spiritual, that is, wills).

Certificates always impress with their authenticity. In addition, they reveal details of everyday life, and sometimes the spiritual world of the people of Ancient Rus'.
Such, for example, is the charter of the Volyn prince Vladimir Vasilkovich (nephew of Daniil Galitsky). This is a will. It was written by a terminally ill man who understood that his end was near. The will concerned the prince's wife and his stepdaughter. There was a custom in Rus': after the death of her husband, the princess was tonsured into a monastery.
The letter begins like this: “Behold (I) Prince Vladimir, son Vasilkov, grandson Romanov, am writing a letter.” The following lists the cities and villages that he gave to the princess “according to his belly” (that is, after life: “belly” meant “life”). At the end, the prince writes: “If she wants to go to the monastery, let her go, if she doesn’t want to go, but as she pleases. I can’t stand up to see what someone will do to my stomach.” Vladimir appointed a guardian for his stepdaughter, but ordered him “not to forcefully give her in marriage to anyone.”

Chroniclers inserted into the vaults works of various genres - teachings, sermons, lives of saints, historical stories. Thanks to the use of diverse material, the chronicle became a huge encyclopedia, including information about the life and culture of Rus' at that time. “If you want to know everything, read the chronicler of the old Rostov,” wrote the Suzdal bishop Simon in a once widely known work of the early 13th century - in the “Kievo-Pechersk Patericon.”

For us, the Russian chronicle is an inexhaustible source of information on the history of our country, a true treasury of knowledge. Therefore, we are extremely grateful to the people who have preserved information about the past for us. Everything we can learn about them is extremely valuable to us. We are especially touched when the voice of the chronicler reaches us from the pages of the chronicle. After all, our ancient Russian writers, like architects and painters, were very modest and rarely identified themselves. But sometimes, as if having forgotten themselves, they talk about themselves in the first person. “It happened to me, a sinner, to be right there,” they write. “I heard many words, hedgehog (which) I wrote down in this chronicle.” Sometimes chroniclers add information about their lives: “That same summer they made me priest.” This entry about himself was made by the priest of one of the Novgorod churches, German Voyata (Voyata is an abbreviation for the pagan name Voeslav).

From the chronicler’s references to himself in the first person, we learn whether he was present at the event described or heard about what happened from the lips of “self-witnesses”; it becomes clear to us what position he occupied in the society of that time, what was his education, where he lived and much more. . So he writes how in Novgorod there were guards at the city gates, “and others on the other side,” and we understand that this is written by a resident of the Sofia side, where there was a “city,” that is, the Detinets, the Kremlin, and the right, Trade side was “other”, “she is me”.

Sometimes the presence of a chronicler is felt in the description of natural phenomena. He writes, for example, how the freezing Rostov Lake “howled” and “knocked,” and we can imagine that he was somewhere on the shore at that time.
It happens that the chronicler reveals himself in a rude vernacular. “And he lied,” writes a Pskovite about one prince.
The chronicler constantly, without even mentioning himself, still seems to be invisibly present on the pages of his narrative and forces us to look through his eyes at what was happening. The voice of the chronicler is especially clear in the lyrical digressions: “Oh woe, brothers!” or: “Who will not marvel at the one who does not cry!” Sometimes our ancient historians conveyed their attitude to events in generalized forms of folk wisdom - in proverbs or sayings. Thus, the Novgorodian chronicler, speaking about how one of the mayors was removed from his post, adds: “Whoever digs a hole under another will fall into it himself.”

The chronicler is not only a storyteller, he is also a judge. He judges by very high moral standards. He is constantly concerned about questions of good and evil. He is sometimes happy, sometimes indignant, praising some and blaming others.
The subsequent “compiler” combines the contradictory points of view of his predecessors. The presentation becomes fuller, more versatile, and calmer. An epic image of a chronicler grows in our minds - a wise old man who dispassionately looks at the vanity of the world. This image was brilliantly reproduced by A.S. Pushkin in the scene of Pimen and Gregory. This image already lived in the minds of Russian people in ancient times. Thus, in the Moscow Chronicle under 1409, the chronicler recalls the “initial chronicler of Kyiv,” who “shows without hesitation” all the “temporary riches” of the earth (that is, all the vanity of the earth) and “without anger” describes “everything good and bad.”

Not only chroniclers, but also simple scribes worked on chronicles.
If you look at an ancient Russian miniature depicting a scribe, you will see that he is sitting on “ chair” with a footstool and holds on his knees a scroll or a pack of sheets of parchment or paper folded two to four times, on which he writes. In front of him, on a low table, stands an inkwell and a sandbox. In those days, wet ink was sprinkled with sand. Right there on the table there is a pen, a ruler, a knife for mending feathers and cleaning up faulty places. There is a book on the stand from which he is copying.

The work of a scribe required a lot of stress and attention. Scribes often worked from dawn to dark. They were hampered by fatigue, illness, hunger and the desire to sleep. To distract themselves a little, they wrote notes in the margins of their manuscripts, in which they poured out their complaints: “Oh, oh, my head hurts, I can’t write.” Sometimes the scribe asks God to make him laugh, because he is tormented by drowsiness and is afraid that he will make a mistake. And then you come across a “dashing pen, you can’t help but write with it.” Under the influence of hunger, the scribe made mistakes: instead of the word “abyss” he wrote “bread”, instead of “font” - “jelly”.

It is not surprising that the scribe, having completed the last page, conveys his joy with a postscript: “Like the hare is happy, he escaped the snare, so is the scribe happy, having completed the last page.”

Monk Lawrence made a long and very figurative note after finishing his work. In this postscript one can feel the joy of accomplishing a great and important deed: “The merchant rejoices when he has made the purchase, and the helmsman rejoices in the calm, and the wanderer has come to his fatherland; The book writer rejoices in the same way when he reaches the end of his books. Likewise, I am a bad, unworthy and sinful servant of God Lavrentiy... And now, gentlemen, fathers and brothers, what (if) where he described or copied, or did not finish writing, honor (read), correcting God, sharing (for God's sake), and not damn it, it’s too old (since) the books are dilapidated, but the mind is young, it hasn’t reached.”

The oldest Russian chronicle that has come down to us is called “The Tale of Bygone Years”. He brings his account up to the second decade of the 12th century, but it has reached us only in copies of the 14th and subsequent centuries. The composition of the “Tale of Bygone Years” dates back to the 11th - early 12th centuries, to the time when the Old Russian state with its center in Kyiv was relatively united. That is why the authors of “The Tale” had such a wide coverage of events. They were interested in issues that were important for all of Rus' as a whole. They were acutely aware of the unity of all Russian regions.

At the end of the 11th century, thanks to the economic development of the Russian regions, they became independent principalities. Each principality has its own political and economic interests. They are beginning to compete with Kyiv. Every capital city strives to imitate the “mother of Russian cities.” The achievements of art, architecture and literature in Kyiv turn out to be a model for regional centers. The culture of Kyiv, spreading to all regions of Rus' in the 12th century, fell on prepared soil. Each region previously had its own original traditions, its own artistic skills and tastes, which went back to deep pagan antiquity and were closely connected with folk ideas, affections, and customs.

From the contact of the somewhat aristocratic culture of Kyiv with the folk culture of each region, a diverse ancient Russian art grew, unified both thanks to the Slavic community and thanks to the common model - Kyiv, but everywhere different, original, unlike its neighbor.

In connection with the isolation of the Russian principalities, chronicles are also expanding. It develops in centers where, until the 12th century, only scattered records were kept, for example, in Chernigov, Pereyaslav Russky (Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky), Rostov, Vladimir-on-Klyazma, Ryazan and other cities. Each political center now felt an urgent need to have its own chronicle. The chronicle has become a necessary element of culture. It was impossible to live without your cathedral, without your monastery. In the same way, it was impossible to live without one’s chronicle.

The isolation of lands affected the nature of chronicle writing. The chronicle becomes narrower in the scope of events, in the outlook of the chroniclers. It closes itself within the framework of its political center. But even during this period of feudal fragmentation, all-Russian unity was not forgotten. In Kyiv they were interested in the events that took place in Novgorod. Novgorodians looked closely at what was happening in Vladimir and Rostov. Vladimir residents were worried about the fate of Pereyaslavl Russky. And of course, all regions turned to Kyiv.

This explains that in the Ipatiev Chronicle, that is, in the South Russian code, we read about events that took place in Novgorod, Vladimir, Ryazan, etc. In the northeastern arch - the Laurentian Chronicle - it tells about what happened in Kyiv, Pereyaslavl Russian, Chernigov, Novgorod-Seversky and other principalities.
The Novgorod and Galicia-Volyn chronicles are more confined to the narrow confines of their land than others, but even there we will find news about all-Russian events.

Regional chroniclers, compiling their codes, began them with the “Tale of Bygone Years,” which told about the “beginning” of the Russian land, and therefore, about the beginning of each regional center. “The Tale of Bygone Years* supported our historians’ consciousness of all-Russian unity.

The most colorful and artistic presentation was in the 12th century. Kyiv Chronicle, included in the Ipatiev list. She led a sequential account of events from 1118 to 1200. This presentation was preceded by The Tale of Bygone Years.
The Kyiv Chronicle is a princely chronicle. There are many stories in it in which the main character was one or another prince.
Before us are stories about princely crimes, about breaking oaths, about the destruction of the possessions of warring princes, about the despair of the inhabitants, about the destruction of enormous artistic and cultural values. Reading the Kyiv Chronicle, we seem to hear the sounds of trumpets and tambourines, the crack of breaking spears, and see clouds of dust hiding both horsemen and foot soldiers. But the overall meaning of all these moving, intricate stories is deeply humane. The chronicler persistently praises those princes who “do not like bloodshed” and at the same time are filled with valor, the desire to “suffer” for the Russian land, “with all their hearts they wish it well.” In this way, the chronicle ideal of the prince is created, which corresponds to the people's ideals.
On the other hand, in the Kyiv Chronicle there is an angry condemnation of order breakers, oathbreakers, and princes who begin needless bloodshed.

Chronicle writing in Novgorod the Great began in the 11th century, but finally took shape in the 12th century. Initially, as in Kyiv, it was a princely chronicle. The son of Vladimir Monomakh, Mstislav the Great, did especially a lot for the Novgorod Chronicle. After him, the chronicle was kept at the court of Vsevolod Mstislavich. But the Novgorodians expelled Vsevolod in 1136, and a veche boyar republic was established in Novgorod. The chronicle was transferred to the court of the Novgorod ruler, that is, the archbishop. It was held at the Hagia Sophia and in some city churches. But this did not make it at all ecclesiastical.

The Novgorod chronicle has all its roots in the people. It is rude, figurative, sprinkled with proverbs and even in its writing retains the characteristic “clack” sound.

Most of the story is told in the form of short dialogues, in which there is not a single extra word. Here is a short story about the dispute between Prince Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, the son of Vsevolod the Big Nest, and the Novgorodians because the prince wanted to remove the Novgorod mayor Tverdislav, whom he disliked. This dispute took place on the veche square in Novgorod in 1218.
“Prince Svyatoslav sent his thousand to the assembly, speaking (saying): “I can’t be with Tverdislav and I’m taking away the mayorship from him.” The Novgorodians asked: “Is it his fault?” He said: “Without guilt.” Speech Tverdislav: “I am glad that I am not guilty; and you, brothers, are in the posadnichestvo and in the princes” (that is, Novgorodians have the right to give and remove posadnichestvo, invite and expel princes). The Novgorodians answered: “Prince, he has no wife, you kissed the cross for us without guilt, do not deprive your husband (do not remove him from office); and we bow to you (we bow), and here is our mayor; but we won’t go into that” (otherwise we won’t agree to that). And there will be peace.”
This is how the Novgorodians briefly and firmly defended their mayor. The formula “We bow to you” did not mean bowing with a request, but, on the contrary, we bow and say: go away. Svyatoslav understood this perfectly.

The Novgorod chronicler describes veche unrest, changes of princes, and the construction of churches. He is interested in all the little things in life in his hometown: the weather, crop shortages, fires, prices for bread and turnips. The Novgorodian chronicler even talks about the fight against the Germans and Swedes in a businesslike, brief manner, without unnecessary words, without any embellishment.

The Novgorod chronicle can be compared with Novgorod architecture, simple and harsh, and with painting - lush and bright.

In the 12th century, chronicle writing began in the northeast - in Rostov and Vladimir. This chronicle was included in the codex rewritten by Lawrence. It also opens with “The Tale of Bygone Years,” which came to the northeast from the south, but not from Kyiv, but from Pereyaslavl Russky, the patrimony of Yuri Dolgoruky.

The Vladimir chronicle was written at the court of the bishop at the Assumption Cathedral, built by Andrei Bogolyubsky. This left its mark on him. It contains a lot of teachings and religious reflections. The heroes say long prayers, but rarely have lively and short conversations with each other, of which there are so many in the Kyiv and especially in the Novgorod Chronicle. The Vladimir Chronicle is rather dry and at the same time verbose.

But in the Vladimir chronicles, the idea of ​​the need to gather the Russian land in one center was heard more powerfully than anywhere else. For the Vladimir chronicler, this center, of course, was Vladimir. And he persistently pursues the idea of ​​​​the primacy of the city of Vladimir not only among other cities of the region - Rostov and Suzdal, but also in the system of Russian principalities as a whole. Prince Vladimir Vsevolod the Big Nest is awarded the title of Grand Duke for the first time in the history of Rus'. He becomes the first among other princes.

The chronicler portrays the Vladimir prince not so much as a brave warrior, but as a builder, a zealous owner, a strict and fair judge, and a kind family man. The Vladimir chronicle is becoming more and more solemn, just as the Vladimir cathedrals are solemn, but it lacks the high artistic skill that the Vladimir architects achieved.

Under the year 1237, in the Ipatiev Chronicle, the words burn like cinnabar: “The Battle of Batyevo.” In other chronicles it is also highlighted: “Batu’s army.” After the Tatar invasion, chronicle writing stopped in a number of cities. However, having died out in one city, it was picked up in another. It becomes shorter, poorer in form and message, but does not freeze.

The main theme of Russian chronicles of the 13th century is the horrors of the Tatar invasion and the subsequent yoke. Against the background of rather meager records, the story about Alexander Nevsky, written by a southern Russian chronicler in the traditions of Kyiv chronicles, stands out.

The Vladimir Grand Ducal Chronicle goes to Rostov, which suffered less from the defeat. Here the chronicle was kept at the court of Bishop Kirill and Princess Maria.

Princess Maria was the daughter of Prince Mikhail of Chernigov, who was killed in the Horde, and the widow of Vasilko of Rostov, who died in the battle with the Tatars on the City River. She was an outstanding woman. She enjoyed great honor and respect in Rostov. When Prince Alexander Nevsky came to Rostov, he bowed to “the Holy Mother of God and Bishop Kirill and the Grand Duchess” (that is, Princess Mary). She “honored Prince Alexander with love.” Maria was present at the last minutes of the life of Alexander Nevsky's brother, Dmitry Yaroslavich, when, according to the custom of that time, he was tonsured into the Chernetsy and into the schema. Her death is described in the chronicle in the same way that the death of only prominent princes was usually described: “That same summer (1271) there was a sign in the sun, as if all of him would perish before lunch and the pack would be filled (again). (You understand, we are talking about a solar eclipse.) The same winter, the blessed, Christ-loving princess Vasilkova passed away on the 9th day of December, as (when) the liturgy is sung throughout the city. And he will betray the soul quietly and easily, serenely. Hearing all the people of the city of Rostov her repose and all the people flocked to the monastery of the Holy Savior, Bishop Ignatius and the abbots, and the priests, and the clergy, sang the usual hymns over her and buried her at the Holy Savior, in her monastery, with many tears."

Princess Maria continued the work of her father and husband. On her instructions, the life of Mikhail of Chernigov was compiled in Rostov. She built a church in Rostov “in his name” and established a church holiday for him.
The chronicle of Princess Maria is imbued with the idea of ​​the need to stand firmly for the faith and independence of the homeland. It tells about the martyrdom of Russian princes, steadfast in the fight against the enemy. This is how Vasilek of Rostov, Mikhail of Chernigov, and the Ryazan prince Roman were bred. After a description of his fierce execution, there is an appeal to the Russian princes: “O beloved Russian princes, do not be seduced by the empty and deceptive glory of this world..., love truth and long-suffering and purity.” The novel is set as an example for the Russian princes: through martyrdom he acquired the kingdom of heaven together “with his relative Mikhail of Chernigov.”

In the Ryazan chronicle of the time of the Tatar invasion, events are viewed from a different angle. It accuses the princes of being the culprits of the misfortunes of the Tatar devastation. The accusation primarily concerns the Vladimir prince Yuri Vsevolodovich, who did not listen to the pleas of the Ryazan princes and did not go to their aid. Referring to biblical prophecies, the Ryazan chronicler writes that even “before these,” that is, before the Tatars, “the Lord took away our strength, and placed bewilderment and thunder and fear and trembling in us for our sins.” The chronicler expresses the idea that Yuri “prepared the way” for the Tatars with princely strife, the Battle of Lipetsk, and now for these sins the Russian people are suffering God’s execution.

At the end of the 13th - beginning of the 14th century, chronicles developed in cities that, having advanced at this time, began to challenge each other for the great reign.
They continue the idea of ​​the Vladimir chronicler about the supremacy of his principality in the Russian land. Such cities were Nizhny Novgorod, Tver and Moscow. Their vaults differ in width. They combine chronicle material from different regions and strive to become all-Russian.

Nizhny Novgorod became a capital city in the first quarter of the 14th century under the Grand Duke Konstantin Vasilyevich, who “honestly and menacingly harrowed (defended) his fatherland from princes stronger than himself,” that is, from the princes of Moscow. Under his son, Grand Duke of Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod Dmitry Konstantinovich, the second archbishopric in Rus' was established in Nizhny Novgorod. Before this, only the Bishop of Novgorod had the rank of archbishop. The archbishop was subordinate in ecclesiastical terms directly to the Greek, that is, the Byzantine patriarch, while the bishops were subordinate to the Metropolitan of All Rus', who at that time already lived in Moscow. You yourself understand how important it was from a political point of view for the Nizhny Novgorod prince that the church pastor of his land should not depend on Moscow. In connection with the establishment of the archbishopric, a chronicle was compiled, which is called the Laurentian chronicle. Lavrenty, a monk of the Annunciation Monastery in Nizhny Novgorod, compiled it for Archbishop Dionysius.
Lawrence's chronicle paid much attention to the founder of Nizhny Novgorod, Yuri Vsevolodovich, the Vladimir prince who died in the battle with the Tatars on the City River. The Laurentian Chronicle is an invaluable contribution of Nizhny Novgorod to Russian culture. Thanks to Lavrentiy, we have not only the oldest copy of the “Tale of Bygone Years,” but also the only copy of the “Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh to Children.”

In Tver, the chronicle was kept from the 13th to the 15th centuries and is most fully preserved in the Tver collection, the Rogozh chronicler and the Simeonovskaya chronicle. Scientists associate the beginning of the chronicle with the name of the Tver bishop Simeon, under whom the “great cathedral church” of the Savior was built in 1285. In 1305, Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich Tverskoy laid the foundation for the grand ducal chronicle in Tver.
The Tver Chronicle contains many records about the construction of churches, fires and civil wars. But the Tver chronicle entered the history of Russian literature thanks to the vivid stories about the murder of the Tver princes Mikhail Yaroslavich and Alexander Mikhailovich.
We also owe the Tver Chronicle a colorful story about the uprising in Tver against the Tatars.

Initial chronicle of Moscow is conducted at the Assumption Cathedral, built in 1326 by Metropolitan Peter, the first metropolitan who began to live in Moscow. (Before that, the metropolitans lived in Kyiv, since 1301 - in Vladimir). The records of Moscow chroniclers were short and dry. They concerned the construction and painting of churches - a lot of construction was going on in Moscow at that time. They reported about fires, about illnesses, and finally about the family affairs of the Grand Dukes of Moscow. However, gradually - this began after the Battle of Kulikovo - the chronicle of Moscow leaves the narrow framework of its principality.
Due to his position as the head of the Russian Church, the Metropolitan was interested in the affairs of all Russian regions. At his court, regional chronicles were collected in copies or originals; chronicles were brought from monasteries and cathedrals. Based on all the material collected in In 1409, the first all-Russian code was created in Moscow. It included news from the chronicles of Veliky Novgorod, Ryazan, Smolensk, Tver, Suzdal and other cities. He illuminated the history of the entire Russian people even before the unification of all Russian lands around Moscow. The code served as ideological preparation for this unification.

We draw information about early Russian history from chronicles. What, exactly, do we know about them? To this day, researchers cannot come to a consensus about both their authorship and their objectivity.

Old Russian Chronicles: Main Secrets

Magazine: History “Russian Seven” No. 6, August 2016
Category: Secrets
Text: Russian Seven

Who is the author?

For people who do not delve deeply into history, there is only one chronicler - Nestor, a Monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery. The consolidation of this status for him was facilitated by his canonization as a saint under the name Nestor the Chronicler. However, this monk as the author of the “Tale of Bygone Years” is mentioned only in one of its later (16th century) lists, and besides the “Tale” there are many other chronicle texts created in different centuries and in different, far distant places. other places.
Nestor alone could not have been torn apart in time and space to write them all. So in any case he is just one of the authors.
Who are the others? The creator of the Laurentian Chronicle is listed as the monk Lavrenty, the Trinity Chronicle is attributed to the monk of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Epiphanius the Wise. And in general, judging by the fact that almost all chronicles were kept in monasteries, they owe their origin to church people.
However, the style of writing some texts gives reason to look for authors in the worldly environment. For example, in the Kyiv Chronicle, very little attention is paid to church issues, and the language is as close as possible to the folk language: common vocabulary, the use of dialogues, proverbs, quotes, pictorial descriptions. The Galician-Volyn Chronicle contains many special military words and is clearly aimed at expressing certain political ideas.

Where is the original?

The fact that all chronicles are known to us in lists (copies) and editions (editions) does not simplify the search for authors. In no collection in the world will you find “The Tale of Bygone Years,” written by Nestor’s hand at the turn of the 11th-12th centuries. There are only the Laurentian list of the 14th century, the Ipatievsky list of the 15th century, and the Khlebnikovsky list of the 16th century. etc.
And Nestor himself was hardly the first author of the Tale.
According to philologist and historian A.A. Shakhmatov, he just revised the Initial code of 1093 of the abbot of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery John and supplemented it with the texts of Russian-Byzantine treaties and legends that came to him in the oral tradition.
John, in turn, supplemented the arch of the monk Nikon. And that version had its predecessor - the Most Ancient Code of the first half of the 11th century. But no one can give one hundred percent guarantee that it is not based on another, more ancient text.
This is the essence of the Russian tradition of chronicle writing. Each subsequent scribe uses old manuscripts, oral traditions, songs, eyewitness accounts and compiles a new, more complete - from his point of view - collection of historical information. This is clearly visible in the “uneven” Kyiv Chronicle, in which the abbot of the Vydubitsky Monastery, Moses, melted down the texts of authors of very different levels of education and talent.

Why do the chronicles contradict each other?

The answer to this question flows smoothly from the previous one. Since there are a lot of chronicles, their lists and editions (according to some sources, about five thousand), their authors lived at different times and in different cities, did not have modern methods of transmitting information and used sources available to them, it was difficult even unintentionally to avoid some inaccuracies. What can we say about the desire to pull the blanket over oneself and present this or that event, city, ruler in a favorable light...
Before this, we touched on issues related to the history of the chronicles themselves, but there are many mysteries in their content.

Where did the Russian Land come from?

The Tale of Bygone Years begins with this question. However, here too there are reasons for interpretation, and scientists still cannot come to a consensus.
On the one hand, it seems to be said quite clearly: “ And they went overseas to the Varangians, to Rus'.<…>The Chud, the Slovenians, the Krivichi and all said to the Russians: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it. Come reign and rule over us." And three brothers were chosen with their clans, and they took all of Rus' with them, and came.<…>And from those Varangians the Russian land was nicknamed».
The Norman theory of the origin of the state of Rus' - from the Varangians - is based on this passage.
But there is another fragment: “ ... From the same Slavs are we, Rus'... But the Slavic people and the Russians are one, after all, they were called Russia from the Varangians, and before there were Slavs; although they were called glades, the speech was Slavic" According to which it turns out that although we got our name from the Varangians, even before them we were a single people. This (anti-Norman or Slavic) hypothesis was adhered to by M.V. Lomonosov and V.N. Tatishchev.

To whom did Vladimir Monomakh write his “teaching”?

“The Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh” is part of the “Tale of Bygone Years” and contains three parts: a teaching to children, an autobiographical story and a letter, the addressee of which is usually the prince’s brother, Oleg Svyatoslavovich. But why include personal correspondence in a historical document?
It is worth noting that Oleg’s name is not mentioned anywhere in the letter, and the content of the text is of a penitential nature.
Perhaps by retelling this complex story with the brother who killed his son, Monomakh wanted to show a public example of humility and forgiveness, rhyming with the first part. But on the other hand, this text is included only in one of the lists of the “Tale” and was clearly not intended for a large number of eyes, so some scientists consider this a personal written confession, preparation for the Last Judgment.

Who wrote “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” and when?

Disputes about the origin of the “Word” began immediately after its discovery by Count A.I. Musin-Pushkin at the end of the 18th century. The text of this literary monument is so unusual and complex that its authorship was not attributed to anyone: Igor himself, Yaroslavna, Vladimir Igorevich and other princes or non-princes; fans of this campaign and, conversely, those who condemned Igor’s adventure; the name of the author was “deciphered” and isolated from the acrostics. So far to no avail.
It's the same with writing time. Did the time of the events described coincide with the time when they were described? Historiographer B.A. Rybakov considered “The Lay” almost a report from the scene, and B.I. Yatsenko moved the date of its creation ten years further, since the text mentions events that were not known in 1185, the year of the campaign. There are also many intermediate versions.

Modern Russian historical science about ancient Rus' is built on the basis of ancient chronicles written by Christian monks, and on handwritten copies that are not available in the originals. Can you trust such sources for everything?

"The Tale of Bygone Years" is called the oldest chronicle code, which is an integral part of most of the chronicles that have reached us (and in total about 1500 of them have survived). "Tale" covers events up to 1113, but its earliest list was made in 1377 monk Lawrence and his assistants at the direction of the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod Prince Dmitry Konstantinovich.

It is unknown where this chronicle was written, which was named Laurentian after the creator: either in the Annunciation Monastery of Nizhny Novgorod, or in the Nativity Monastery of Vladimir. In our opinion, the second option looks more convincing, and not only because the capital of North-Eastern Rus' moved from Rostov to Vladimir.

In the Vladimir Nativity Monastery, according to many experts, the Trinity and Resurrection Chronicles were born; the bishop of this monastery, Simon, was one of the authors of a wonderful work of ancient Russian literature "Kievo-Pechersk Patericon"- a collection of stories about the life and exploits of the first Russian monks.

One can only guess what kind of list from the ancient text the Laurentian Chronicle was, how much was added to it that was not in the original text, and how many losses it suffered - VAfter all, each customer of the new chronicle strove to adapt it to his own interests and to discredit his opponents, which was quite natural in conditions of feudal fragmentation and princely enmity.

The most significant gap occurs in the years 898-922. The events of the “Tale of Bygone Years” are continued in this chronicle by the events of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' until 1305, but there are gaps here too: from 1263 to 1283 and from 1288 to 1294. And this despite the fact that the events in Rus' before the baptism were clearly disgusting to the monks of the newly brought religion.

Another famous chronicle - the Ipatiev Chronicle - is named after the Ipatiev Monastery in Kostroma, where it was discovered by our wonderful historian N.M. Karamzin. It is significant that it was again found not far from Rostov, which, along with Kiev and Novgorod, is considered the largest center of ancient Russian chronicles. The Ipatiev Chronicle is younger than the Laurentian Chronicle - it was written in the 20s of the 15th century and, in addition to the Tale of Bygone Years, includes records of events in Kievan Rus and Galician-Volyn Rus.

Another chronicle that is worth paying attention to is the Radziwill chronicle, which first belonged to the Lithuanian prince Radziwill, then entered the Koenigsberg library and under Peter the Great, and finally to Russia. It is a 15th century copy of an older 13th century copy and talks about the events of Russian history from the settlement of the Slavs to 1206. It belongs to the Vladimir-Suzdal chronicles, is close in spirit to the Laurentian chronicles, but is much richer in design - it contains 617 illustrations.

They are called a valuable source “for the study of material culture, political symbolism and art of Ancient Rus'.” Moreover, some miniatures are very mysterious - they do not correspond to the text (!!!), however, according to researchers, they are more consistent with historical reality.

On this basis, it was assumed that the illustrations of the Radziwill Chronicle were made from another, more reliable chronicle, not subject to corrections by copyists. But we will dwell on this mysterious circumstance later.

Now about the chronology adopted in ancient times. Firstly, we must remember that previously the new year began on September 1 and March 1, and only under Peter the Great, from 1700, on January 1. Secondly, chronology was carried out from the biblical creation of the world, which occurred before the birth of Christ by 5507, 5508, 5509 years - depending on what year, March or September, this event occurred, and in what month: until March 1 or until September 1 . Translating ancient chronology into modern times is a labor-intensive task, so special tables were compiled, which historians use.

It is generally accepted that chronicle weather records begin in the “Tale of Bygone Years” from the year 6360 from the creation of the world, that is, from the year 852 from the birth of Christ. Translated into modern language, this message sounds like this: “In the summer of 6360, when Michael began to reign, the Russian land began to be called. We learned about this because under this king Rus' came to Constantinople, as it is written about in the Greek chronicles. That’s why from now on we’ll start putting numbers down.”

Thus, the chronicler, in fact, established with this phrase the year of the formation of Rus', which in itself seems to be a very dubious stretch. Moreover, starting from this date, he names a number of other initial dates of the chronicle, including, in the entry for 862, the first mention of Rostov. But does the first chronicle date correspond to the truth? How did the chronicler come to her? Maybe he used some Byzantine chronicle in which this event is mentioned?

Indeed, Byzantine chronicles recorded the campaign of Rus' against Constantinople under Emperor Michael III, but the date of this event is not given. To derive it, the Russian chronicler was not too lazy to give the following calculation: “From Adam to the flood 2242 years, and from the flood to Abraham 1000 and 82 years, and from Abraham to the exodus of Moses 430 years, and from the exodus of Moses to David 600 years and 1 year , and from David to the captivity of Jerusalem 448 years, and from the captivity to Alexander the Great 318 years, and from Alexander to the birth of Christ 333 years, from the birth of Christ to Constantine 318 years, from Constantine to the aforementioned Michael 542 years.”

It would seem that this calculation looks so solid that checking it is a waste of time. However, historians were not lazy - they added up the numbers named by the chronicler and got not 6360, but 6314! An error of forty-four years, as a result of which it turns out that Rus' attacked Byzantium in 806. But it is known that Michael the Third became emperor in 842. So rack your brains, where is the mistake: either in the mathematical calculation, or did they mean another, earlier campaign of Rus' against Byzantium?

But in any case, it is clear that it is impossible to use “The Tale of Bygone Years” as a reliable source when describing the initial history of Rus'. And it’s not just a matter of clearly erroneous chronology. “The Tale of Bygone Years” has long deserved to be looked at critically. And some independent-minded researchers are already working in this direction. Thus, the magazine “Rus” (No. 3-97) published an essay by K. Vorotny “Who and when created the Tale of Bygone Years?” » reliability. Let's name just a few such examples...

Why is there no information about the calling of the Varangians to Rus' - such an important historical event - in European chronicles, where this fact would certainly be focused on? N.I. Kostomarov also noted another mysterious fact: not a single chronicle that has reached us contains any mention of the struggle between Rus' and Lithuania in the twelfth century - but this is clearly stated in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” Why are our chronicles silent? It is logical to assume that at one time they were significantly edited.

In this regard, the fate of “Russian History from Ancient Times” by V.N. Tatishchev is very characteristic. There is a whole series of evidence that after the death of the historian it was significantly corrected by one of the founders of the Norman theory, G.F. Miller; under strange circumstances, the ancient chronicles used by Tatishchev disappeared.

Later, his drafts were found, which contain the following phrase:

“The monk Nestor was not well informed about the ancient Russian princes.” This phrase alone makes us take a fresh look at the “Tale of Bygone Years,” which serves as the basis for most of the chronicles that have reached us. Is everything in it genuine, reliable, and weren’t those chronicles that contradicted the Norman theory deliberately destroyed? The real history of Ancient Rus' is still not known to us; it has to be reconstructed literally bit by bit.

Italian historian Mavro Orbini in his book " Slavic kingdom", published back in 1601, wrote:

“The Slavic family is older than the pyramids and so numerous that it inhabited half the world.” This statement is in clear contradiction with the history of the Slavs as set out in The Tale of Bygone Years.

In working on his book, Orbini used almost three hundred sources, of which we know no more than twenty - the rest disappeared, disappeared, or perhaps were deliberately destroyed as undermining the foundations of the Norman theory and casting doubt on the Tale of Bygone Years.

Among other sources he used, Orbini mentions the extant chronicle history of Rus', written by the thirteenth-century Russian historian Jeremiah. (!!!) Many other early chronicles and works of our initial literature have also disappeared, which would have helped answer where the Russian land came from.

Several years ago, for the first time in Russia, the historical study “Sacred Rus'” by Yuri Petrovich Mirolyubov, a Russian emigrant historian who died in 1970, was published. He was the first to notice "Isenbek boards" with the text of the now famous Veles book. In his work, Mirolyubov cites the observation of another emigrant, General Kurenkov, who found the following phrase in an English chronicle: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no decoration in it... And they went overseas to foreigners.” That is, an almost word-for-word coincidence with the phrase from “The Tale of Bygone Years”!

Y.P. Mirolyubov made a very convincing assumption that this phrase found its way into our chronicle during the reign of Vladimir Monomakh, who was married to the daughter of the last Anglo-Saxon king Harald, whose army was defeated by William the Conqueror.

This phrase from the English chronicle, which fell into his hands through his wife, as Mirolyubov believed, was used by Vladimir Monomakh to substantiate his claims to the grand-ducal throne. Court chronicler Sylvester, respectively "corrected" Russian chronicle, laying the first stone in the history of the Norman theory. From that very time, perhaps, everything in Russian history that contradicted the “calling of the Varangians” was destroyed, persecuted, hidden in inaccessible hiding places.

The true history of Russia. Notes of an amateur [with illustrations] Guts Alexander Konstantinovich

What are the most ancient lists of PVLs?

“The chronicle of Nestor has not reached us separately. A great many copies of it are in Russia, and all Russian chronicles begin the same way; Consequently, all chroniclers copied Nestor’s timebook first, and it was the only monument of ancient times. But in no list are Nestor’s tales separated from their successors...” (Polevoy, T. 1, p. 42). If there is no original PVL, then what is the oldest of its available lists, or, taking into account the words of N.A. Polevoy, what is the most ancient chronicle? The question is quite important, since it is natural to assume that later lists are largely based on older ones.

S.A. Bugoslavsky divided the PVL lists into three groups: “1) Lists of the Novgorod edition; 2) Group of Ipatievsky, Khlebnikovsky, Pogodinsky and related lists; 3) Group of Lavrentievsky, Troitsky, Academic and related lists” (Cherepnin, 1948, pp. 298–299).

Historians identify the following four “schools” of chronicle writing.

South Russian chronicle

Preserved in the Ipatiev Chronicle. Ipatiev Chronicle consists of the PVL, a continuation composed of the Kyiv news up to 1200, the Galician-Volyn chronicle up to 1292 (ITU, 1959, T. 5. P. 527)

Vladimir-Suzdal chronicle

Laurentian (Pushkin) Chronicle consists of PVL, a continuation composed of Vladimir-Suzdal news before 1305.

Radzivilovskaya (Koenigsberg) Chronicle. Chronicler of Pereyaslavl of Suzdal.

Novgorod chronicle

Novgorod First Chronicle older and younger versions. The older or earlier edition is presented Synodal Chronicle in a parchment list of the 13th–14th centuries; younger edition - lists of the 15th century.

“The most ancient of all lists of Russian chronicles is the so-called Synoidal list of the First Novgorod Chronicle. Unfortunately, most of the Synoidal list has been lost, and the narrative is carried out from. 1015 The events described in the chronicle are systematically brought up to 1333, and, fortunately, in the later copies of this chronicle there are references to events that occurred in Novgorod before 1015.

Novgorod First Chronicle

Along with the First Novgorod Chronicle, later lists of chronicle codes have reached us: the Second, Fourth, Fifth Novgorod Chronicles, the Avrahamka Chronicle, the Uvarov Chronicle, as well as the First Sofia Chronicle. Work on chronicles did not stop in the 17th century. During this period, new large vaults were created (the Third Novgorod, the so-called Pogodinskaya and Zabelinskaya chronicles). Dozens of surviving chronicle lists indicate that, perhaps, not a single Russian city (with the possible exception of Moscow) had such a rich chronicle tradition as Novgorod” (see. http://u-pereslavl.botik.ru/~rafael/Referat/novg8.html)

Moscow chronicle

It was carried out intensively in the 16th century. “Of the Moscow vaults, the most important are the Resurrection Chronicle, ending before 1541, and the Patriarchal, or Nikon Chronicle, ending before 1558 and being an expanded and expanded revision of the Resurrection Chronicle...” (Literature and Culture of Ancient Rus', 1994. P. 81 ).

At the time of N.M. Karamzin, the most ancient was considered to be the Pushkin, or Laurentian list, which dates back to 1303 (Polevoy, T. 1. P. 44). It was allegedly written off in 1377. Its author, which is very important, is called the monk Lawrence. It was not published until 1829, but came to light thanks to Count A.I. Musin-Pushkin, who “presented it to Emperor Alexander I.” It is useful to note (we will remember this later) that this list, as evidenced by N.A. Polevoy (Polevoy, T. 1. P. 451), was not known to Schlözer, the man who largely laid the foundations of Russian History and who created before N. M. Karamzina. But we’ll talk about Schlözer later.

Let us note that modern historians call the oldest chronicle either Suzdal, but again according to the Laurentian list - see (Volodikhin, 1996), then - Radzivilovskaya - see (Radzivilovskaya chronicle, 1989. p. 3)), then Novgorod, then Ipatievskaya (Literature and culture of Ancient Rus', 1994. P. 80).

The most complete are the Laurentian (Pushkin) and Radzivilovsky (Koenigsberg) lists. N. M. Karamzin considered Lavrentievsky (Pushkinsky) and Troitsky (the original burned in a Moscow fire in 1812) to be the best. He also noted the merits of Ipatievsky, Radzivilovsky, Khlebnikovsky, Voskresensky, Lvovsky and Archive (Polevoy, T. 1. P. 45). A consolidated edition of the Lavrentievsky (Pushkinsky), Radzivilovsky (Konigsbergsky) and Trinity lists was made in 1824.

The Radziwił list was donated by Prince Radziwił to the Koenigsberg Library in 1671. In 1760, it was taken as a trophy during the Russian-Prussian War and brought to St. Petersburg. In 1767, “they printed it incorrectly and without criticism, under the title: Russian Historical Library, T. 1; Barkov was a publisher; there was no continuation of this library” (Polevoy, T. 1. P. 451). Another publication of the Radziwił list was made by Schlözer in 1802–1805. A copy of this list was brought to Russia by Tsar Peter I in 1711. The Germans gave it to him. A. I. Ermolaev also made a complete copy from the Radzivilov list (but by Ermolaev list they mean a copy made from the Khlebnikov list). Only a few people saw the original Radziwill list. Its facsimile edition, which can be used to study the style of letters, the method of numbering pages, the manner of the artist or artists who painted miniatures and capital letters, and the like, appeared only in 1989 (Radzivilov Chronicle, 1995).

Thus, PVL has reached us in a large number of lists, and many of them, it would seem, were published quite quickly and efficiently at the very beginning of the 19th century. Historians got the opportunity to write “The History of Russia”. Although the question of which of the lists is ancient or the most ancient is not so easy to answer. So, for example, Schlözer, analyzing twelve printed and nine not yet printed lists, classified only four of them as ancient, since “they have an ancient appearance on the outside, which is why there is less forgery in them than in others” (see: Shapiro, 1993. P. 273).

I would like to have answers to the following questions:

Which of the historians was allowed to access the original lists (manuscripts), especially since after the Moscow fire of 1812, it seems that the oldest one turned out to be only the Radzivilov Chronicle?

Was the originals examined to exclude falsification (“examination” based on the appearance of the manuscript “from the outside” in the spirit of Schlözer is unlikely to correspond to the scientific concepts of the 20th century)?

If falsification is excluded, then are there any inserts, erasures, inscriptions, etc., in the manuscript, made at a different time or by a different hand?

It is obvious that it is necessary to seek answers to these questions. Moreover, they will have to be re-tested again by new generations of researchers as technical capabilities improve. Such is the fate of science.

From the book Chariots of the Gods author Däniken Erich von

Ancient fantasies and legends or ancient facts? As I already said, in ancient times there were things that could not have existed at the level of knowledge of that period. And as the facts accumulated, I continued to experience the ardor of a researcher. Why? Yes, at least because

From the book Mathematical Chronology of Biblical Events author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

2.2. Many “ancient astronomical observations” could have been calculated by late medieval astronomers, and then entered by them as “observations” into ancient chronicles. We must not forget that when writing the “correct history”, medieval chronologists could also turn to

From the book Daily Life of the Army of Alexander the Great by Faure Paul

Service records Today we know very few real biographies of that time. Personal files were lost, the most brilliant service records were changed, distorted and even denigrated out of envy or hatred. The most accurate form has reached those in which we are talking about future

From the book The Black Book of Communism: Crimes. Terror. Repression by Bartoszek Karel

Blacklists of the FKP In 1932, the FKP began to collect information about suspicious or dangerous, from its point of view, individuals and their activities. These lists, therefore, appeared in parallel with how the emissaries of the Comintern took control of the cadre apparatus. Simultaneously with

From the book History of the Order of Malta author Zakharov V A

Appendix No. 17 LISTS Lists of members of the Maltese Order of St. John of Jerusalem in the Russian Empire: Holy Council of the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, Great Russian-Orthodox Priory, Great Russian-Catholic Priory,

From the book “Bloody Dwarf” against the Leader of the Nations. Yezhov's Conspiracy author Naumov Leonid Anatolievich

Firing lists No. 1. MOSCOW-CENTER In the second column, the date the list was compiled. If the date is not specified, then it is the same as the date of the previous list. No. date 1 cat. 2 cat. 3 cat. 1 undated (Oct.

From the book The True History of Russia. Notes from an amateur author Guts Alexander Konstantinovich

What are the most ancient lists of PVLs? “The chronicle of Nestor has not reached us separately. A great many copies of it are in Russia, and all Russian chronicles begin the same way; consequently, all chroniclers first copied Nestor’s timebook, and he was the only one

From the book Myths of the Ancient World author Becker Karl Friedrich

3. Ancient Babylonians and ancient Assyrians Around the time when the priest Manefa compiled the “painting of the Egyptian kings” (280...270 BC), in Babylon one of the priests of Baal, Berosus, wrote in Greek the history of his people. Unfortunately, only fragments of this have reached us.

From the book of the Picts [Mysterious Warriors of Ancient Scotland] author Henderson Isabel

ROYAL LISTS Eight main versions of the list of Pictish kings with the duration of their reigns have come down to us. These eight lists are versions of two main texts, which for convenience are referred to as “List 1” and “List 2.” Best text of "List 1"

From the book “Included in the Operation.” Mass terror in the Kama region in 1937–1938. author Leibovich Oleg Leonidovich

“Black lists” The author paid special attention to the various lists sent by city and district committees to the departments of the NKVD. The structure of the list includes the following personal data: last name, first name, patronymic; year of birth; profession or specialty; social

From the book History of the Ancient World author Gladilin (Svetlayar) Evgeniy

Qumran lists In 1947, in a cave near Qumran, forty minutes east of Jerusalem (near the northern coast of the Dead Sea), ancient handwritten texts were discovered - manuscripts dating from the first centuries of the new era and earlier. It turned out,

From the book Will Democracy Take root in Russia author Yasin Evgeniy Grigorievich

Party lists Events began to develop rapidly after the 2003-2004 elections. Already in his inaugural speech on May 7, 2004, Putin first voiced the idea of ​​a complete transition to a proportional system of elections to the State Duma using a system of “open” party lists,

From the book Numbers against lies. [Mathematical investigation of the past. Criticism of Scaliger's chronology. Shifting dates and shortening history.] author Fomenko Anatoly Timofeevich

4.3. Many “ancient” astronomical observations could have been theoretically calculated by late medieval astronomers, and then entered by them as supposedly “real observations” into supposedly “ancient” chronicles. We must not forget that when writing the “correct Scaligerian history”

From the book Mission of Russia. National doctrine author Valtsev Sergey Vitalievich

What are the reasons? Any organism is susceptible to diseases, and society, being a complex social organism, is susceptible to social diseases. Diseases must be treated, especially serious diseases. What would happen to us if we did not treat our illnesses? As we remember,

From the book Voices from Russia. Essays on the history of collecting and transmitting information abroad about the situation of the Church in the USSR. 1920s – early 1930s author Kosik Olga Vladimirovna

From the book Slandered Stalinism. Slander of the XX Congress by Furr Grover

25. “Execution lists” Khrushchev: “A vicious practice developed when the NKVD compiled lists of persons whose cases were subject to consideration by the Military Collegium, and the punishment was determined in advance. These lists were sent by Yezhov personally to Stalin for approval

The chronicle was a state matter, a princely matter. Therefore, the order to compile a chronicle was given not just to the most literate and intelligent person, but also to the one who would be able to implement ideas close to this or that princely branch, this or that princely house. Thus, the chronicler’s objectivity and honesty came into conflict with what we call “social order.” If the chronicler did not satisfy the tastes of his customer, they parted with him and transferred the compilation of the chronicle to another, more reliable, more obedient author. Alas, work for the needs of power arose already at the dawn of writing, and not only in Rus', but also in other countries.

Slide 16 from the presentation "Culture of Rus' 10-15 centuries". The size of the archive with the presentation is 688 KB.

History 10th grade

summary of other presentations

“Representatives of the Romanov dynasty” - Peter I Alekseevich. Fedor Alekseevich. John VI Antonovich. Alexander II Nikolaevich. Elizaveta Petrovna. Ekaterina I Alekseevna. Anna Ioannovna. Historical figures of the Romanov dynasty. Alexey Mikhailovich. Peter II Alekseevich. Alexander I Pavlovich. Nicholas II Alexandrovich. Mikhail Fedorovich. Nicholas I Pavlovich. John V Alekseevich.

"Napoleonic Wars" - Napoleon on the throne. Fire. Napoleon the Emperor. Inviolability of private property. Questions for discussion. Terebenevskaya alphabet. Chronicle of Napoleon's wars. Cycle of paintings “1812”. Napoleonic Wars. Bad news from France. Paintings by French artists. Napoleon and Marshal Lorington. Ideas about the era. Napoleon in winter clothes. Patriotic War.

“The Battle for Moscow in the War” - November 16 - SUNDAY. Deputy Supreme Commander-in-Chief Marshal of the Soviet Union G.K. Zhukov. A nationwide war behind enemy lines. Medal "for the defense of Moscow". Commander of the 316th Infantry Division, Major General I.V. Panfilov. Photo from 1945. September 30 - TUESDAY. The life of a young girl was filled with hectic activity. By April 20, 1942, Soviet troops pushed the enemy back 150-400 km from Moscow.

“The main reforms of Peter I” - Reforms. Working on new material. Peter introduces the colleges. Table of ranks. Reforms of Peter I. Hat Yard. Swedish version. Institution. Regional government reform. Contradictory personality. Individual principle. Peasantry. Two guns. Government reforms. Social policy. Mercantilism. Preparing troops for combat. Military reform. The main reason for the rapid growth of industry.

“List of Slavic gods” - Perun. Gods of fertility and childbirth. Slavs. Ilya Muromets. Dvorovoy and Bannik. Yarilo. Ancient Slavs. Deity of seeds. Holiday. Brownie. Makos. Patron of the fields. Stribog. Horse. Childbirth and women in labor. Sun. Dazhdbog. Svarog. Ivan Kupala. The soul of home. Son of Svarog. Semargl. Spirits of the ancient Slavs. Stribog is the supreme king of the winds. God of wisdom and poetry. Elijah the Prophet. Gods of the Slavs. Carnival. God of the young spring sun.

“Chechen conflict” - Background to the conflict. Raid on Kizlyar. Chronology. Commanders. Statistics on civilian deaths. The beginning of the battles. Russian army. Russian oil. Losses. Chechen conflict. Fighting in Chechnya.

Share this article:

Related articles

April 17, 2015
The biosphere as one of the shells of the earth. What shells does the Earth have?

April 17, 2015
How does friction force depend on the coefficient of friction?

April 17, 2015
Formation and maturation of sperm

April 17, 2015
Theater named after M.N. Ermolova. Ermolova Theater Ermolova Theater main stage address