The history of chronicles in Rus' goes back to the distant past. It is known that writing arose before the 10th century. The texts were written, as a rule, by representatives of the clergy. It is thanks to ancient writings that we know. But what was the name of the first Russian chronicle? Where did it all start? Why is it of great historical significance?
What was the name of the first Russian chronicle?
Everyone should know the answer to this question. The first Russian chronicle was called “The Tale of Bygone Years.” It was written in 1110-1118 in Kyiv. Linguistic scientist Shakhmatov revealed that she had predecessors. However, this is still the first Russian chronicle. It is called confirmed, reliable.
The story describes a chronicle of events that occurred over a certain period of time. It consisted of articles that described each past year.
Author
The monk described events from biblical times to 1117. The title of the first Russian chronicle is the first lines of the chronicle.
History of creation
The chronicle had copies made after Nestor, which were able to survive to this day. They weren't very different from each other. The original itself was lost. According to Shchakhmatov, the chronicle was rewritten just a few years after its appearance. Big changes were made to it.
In the 14th century, the monk Lawrence rewrote the work of Nestor, and it is this copy that is considered the most ancient that has survived to our time.
There are several versions of where Nestor got the information for his chronicle. Since the chronology goes back to ancient times, and articles with dates appeared only after 852, many historians believe that the monk described the old period thanks to the legends of people and written sources in the monastery.
She corresponded often. Even Nestor himself rewrote the chronicle, making some changes.
The interesting thing is that in those days the scripture was also a code of laws.
The Tale of Bygone Years described everything: from exact events to biblical legends.
The purpose of the creation was to write a chronicle, record events, restore chronology in order to understand where the Russian people come from and how Rus' was formed.
Nestor wrote that the Slavs appeared a long time ago from the son of Noah. Noah had three in total. They divided three territories among themselves. One of them, Japheth, received the northwestern part.
Then there are articles about the princes, the East Slavic tribes that descended from the Noriks. It is here that Rurik and his brothers are mentioned. It is said about Rurik that he became the ruler of Rus' by founding Novgorod. This explains why there are so many supporters of the Norman theory of the origin of princes from the Rurikovichs, although there is no factual evidence.
It tells about Yaroslav the Wise and many other people and their reign, about wars and other significant events that shaped the history of Rus' and made it what we know it now.
Meaning
"The Tale of Bygone Years" is of great importance today. This is one of the main historical sources on which historians conduct research. Thanks to her, the chronology of that period has been restored.
Since the chronicle has an open genre, ranging from stories of epics to descriptions of wars and weather, one can understand a lot about the mentality and ordinary life of the Russians who lived at that time.
Christianity played a special role in the chronicle. All events are described through the prism of religion. Even the deliverance from idols and the adoption of Christianity are described as a period when people got rid of temptations and ignorance. And the new religion is light for Rus'.
The most remarkable phenomenon of ancient Russian literature were chronicles. The first weather records date back to the 9th century, they were extracted from later sources of the 16th century. They are very brief: notes in one or two lines.
As a national phenomenon, chronicle writing appeared in the 11th century. People of different ages became chroniclers, and not only monks. A very significant contribution to the restoration of the history of chronicle writing was made by such researchers as A.A. Shakhmatov (1864-1920) and A.N. Nasonov (1898 - 1965). The first major historical work was the Code, completed in 997. Its compilers described the events of the 9th-10th centuries and ancient legends. It even includes court epic poetry praising Olga, Svyatoslav, and especially Vladimir Svyatoslavovich, during whose reign this Code was created.
One of the figures of European scale must include the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor, who by 1113 completed his work “The Tale of Bygone Years” and compiled an extensive historical introduction to it. Nestor knew Russian, Bulgarian and Greek literature very well, being a very educated man. He used in his work the earlier Codes of 997, 1073 and 1093, and the events of the turn of the 11th-12th centuries. covered as an eyewitness. This chronicle provided the most complete picture of early Russian history and was copied for 500 years. It must be borne in mind that the ancient Russian chronicles covered not only the history of Rus', but also the history of other peoples.
Secular people were also involved in chronicle writing. For example, Grand Duke Vladimir Monomakh. It was as part of the chronicle that such wonderful works of his as “Instruction to Children” (c. 1099; later supplemented, preserved in the list of 1377) have reached us. In particular, in the “Instructions” Vladimir Monomakh pursues the idea of the need to repel external enemies. There were 83 “paths” - campaigns in which he participated.
In the 12th century. the chronicles become very detailed, and since they are written by contemporaries, the class and political sympathies of the chroniclers are very clearly expressed in them. The social order of their patrons can be traced. Among the most prominent chroniclers who wrote after Nestor, one can single out the Kiev resident Peter Borislavich. The most mysterious author in the XII-XIII centuries. was Daniil Sharpener. It is believed that he owned two works - “The Word” and “Prayer”. Daniil Zatochnik was an excellent expert on Russian life, knew church literature well, and wrote in a bright and colorful literary language. He said the following about himself: “My tongue was like a scribbler’s cane and my lips were as friendly as the swiftness of a river. For this reason, I tried to write about the shackles of my heart and broke them with bitterness, as in ancient times they smashed babies against a stone.”
Separately, it is necessary to highlight the genre of “walking”, which describes the travel of our compatriots abroad. Firstly, these are the stories of pilgrims who carried out their “walks” to Palestine and Pargrad (Constantinople), but gradually descriptions of Western European states also began to appear. One of the first was a description of the journey of Daniel, the abbot of one of the Chernigov monasteries, who visited Palestine in 1104-1107, spending 16 months there and participating in the wars of the Crusaders. The most outstanding work of this genre is “Walking across Three Seas” by the Tver merchant Afanasy Nikitin, compiled in the form of a diary. It describes many southern peoples, but mainly the inhabitants of India. A. Nikitin’s “walk” lasting six years took place in the 70s. XV century
“Hagiographic” literature is very interesting, since in it, in addition to describing the life of canonized persons, it gave a true picture of life in monasteries. For example, cases of bribery for obtaining one or another church rank or place, etc. were described. Here we can highlight the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon, which is a collection of stories about the monks of this monastery.
The latest fashion trends of this year on the fashion portal "Lady-Glamour".
The world-famous work of ancient Russian literature was “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” the date of writing of which dates back to 1185. This poem was imitated by contemporaries, it was quoted by the Pskovites already at the beginning of the 14th century, and after the victory on the Kulikovo Field (1380) in imitation of “The Tale. ..” was written “Zadonshchina”. “The Word...” was created in connection with the campaign of the Seversk prince Igor against the Polovtsian khan Konchak. Igor, overwhelmed by ambitious plans, did not unite with the Grand Duke Vsevolod the Big Nest and was defeated. The idea of unification on the eve of the Tatar-Mongol invasion runs through the entire work. And again, as in the epics, here we are talking about defense, and not about aggression and expansion.
From the second half of the 14th century. Moscow chronicles are becoming increasingly important. In 1392 and 1408 Moscow chronicles are created, which are of an all-Russian nature. And in the middle of the 15th century. “Chronograph” appears, representing, in fact, the first experience of writing world history by our ancestors, and in “Chronograph” an attempt was made to show the place and role of Ancient Rus' in the world historical process.
Most of the chronicles have not survived in the form of originals, but their copies and partial revisions have been preserved - the so-called lists, created in the 14th-18th centuries. By list is meant a “rewriting” (“copying”) from another source. These lists, based on the place of compilation or the place of the events depicted, are exclusively or predominantly divided into categories (original Kiev, Novgorod, Pskov, etc.). Lists of the same category differ from each other not only in expressions, but even in the selection of news, as a result of which the lists are divided into editions (editions). So, we can say: The original Chronicle of the southern edition (the Ipatievsky list and similar ones), the initial Chronicle of the Suzdal edition (the Lavrentievsky list and similar ones). Such differences in the lists suggest that the chronicles are collections and that their original sources have not reached us. This idea, first expressed by P. M. Stroev, now constitutes a general opinion. The existence in a separate form of many detailed chronicle legends, as well as the possibility of pointing out that in the same story stitchings from different sources are clearly indicated (bias mainly manifests itself in sympathy for one or the other of the warring parties) - further confirm this is an opinion.
Basic chronicles
Nestorov's list
There are also separate legends: “The Tale of the Murder of Andrei Bogolyubsky,” written by his follower (probably mentioned in it by Kuzmishch Kiyanin). The same separate legend should have been the story of the exploits of Izyaslav Mstislavich; at one point in this story we read: “I spoke the same word as before I heard it; the place does not go to the head, but the head to the place" From this we can conclude that the story about this prince was borrowed from the notes of his comrade-in-arms and interspersed with news from other sources; fortunately, the stitching is so clumsy that the parts can be easily separated. The part that follows the death of Izyaslav is dedicated mainly to the princes from the Smolensk family who reigned in Kyiv; Perhaps the source that the compiler mainly used is not devoid of connections with this family. The presentation is very close to “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” - as if a whole literary school had developed then. News from Kyiv later than 1199 are found in other chronicle collections (mainly from north-eastern Rus'), as well as in the so-called “Gustyn Chronicle” (latest compilation). In the “Suprasl Manuscript” (published by Prince Obolensky) there is a brief Kiev chronicle dating back to the 14th century.
Galician-Volyn chronicles
Closely connected with “Kievskaya” is “Volynskaya” (or Galician-Volynskaya), which is even more distinguished by its poetic flavor. It, as one might assume, was written at first without years, and the years were placed later and arranged very unskillfully. So, we read: “When Danilov came from Volodymyr, there was silence in the summer of 6722. In the summer of 6723, by God’s command, the princes of Lithuania were sent.” It is clear that the last sentence must be connected to the first, as indicated by the form of the dative independent and the absence in some lists of the sentence “there was silence”; therefore, two years, and this sentence are inserted after. The chronology is mixed up and applied to the chronology of the Kyiv Chronicle. Roman was killed in 1205, and the Volyn chronicle dates his death to 1200, since the Kiev chronicle ends in 1199. These chronicles were connected by the last compiler; was it not he who arranged the years? In some places there is a promise to tell this or that, but nothing is told; therefore, there are gaps. The chronicle begins with vague hints about the exploits of Roman Mstislavich - obviously, these are fragments of a poetic legend about him. It ends at the beginning of the 14th century and does not lead to the fall of the independence of Galich. For a researcher, this chronicle, due to its inconsistency, presents serious difficulties, but due to the detail of its presentation, it serves as precious material for studying the life of Galich. It is curious in the Volyn chronicle that there is an indication of the existence of an official chronicle: Mstislav Danilovich, having defeated the rebellious Brest, imposed a heavy fine on the inhabitants and in the letter adds: “and the chronicler described their king.”
Chronicles of North-Eastern Rus'
The chronicles of northeastern Rus' probably began quite early: from the 13th century. In the “Epistle of Simon to Polycarp” (one of the components of the Patericon of Pechersk), we have evidence of the “old chronicler of Rostov”. The first collection of the northeastern (Suzdal) edition that has survived to us dates back to the same time. His lists before the beginning of the 13th century are Radziwill, Pereyaslav-Suzdal, Lavrentievsky and Troitsky. At the beginning of the 13th century, the first two ceased, the rest differed from each other. The similarity up to a certain point and the difference further indicate a common source, which, therefore, extended to the beginning of the 13th century. News from Suzdal can be found earlier (especially in the Tale of Bygone Years); Therefore, it should be recognized that the recording of events in the land of Suzdal began early. We do not have purely Suzdal chronicles before the Tatars, just as we do not have purely Kyiv ones. The collections that have come down to us are of a mixed nature and are designated by the predominance of events in one or another area.
Chronicles were kept in many cities of the Suzdal land (Vladimir, Rostov, Pereyaslavl); but by many signs it should be recognized that most of the news was recorded in Rostov, which for a long time was the center of education in northeastern Rus'. After the invasion of the Tatars, the Trinity List became almost exclusively Rostov. After the Tatars, in general, the traces of local chronicles become clearer: in the Laurentian list we find a lot of Tver news, in the so-called Tver Chronicle - Tver and Ryazan, in the Sophia Vremennik and Resurrection Chronicle - Novgorod and Tver, in the Nikon Chronicle - Tver, Ryazan, Nizhny Novgorod, etc. All these collections are of Moscow origin (or at least for the most part); original sources - local chronicles - have not survived. Regarding the transition of news in the Tatar era from one area to another, I. I. Sreznevsky made an interesting discovery: in the manuscript of Ephraim the Syrian in 1377, he came across a note from a scribe who talks about the attack of Arapsha (Arab Shah), which took place in the year of writing. The story is not finished, but its beginning is literally similar to the beginning of the chronicle story, from which I. I. Sreznevsky correctly concludes that the scribe had the same legend in front of him, which served as material for the chronicler. From fragments partially preserved in Russian and Belarusian chronicles of the 15th-16th centuries, the Smolensk Chronicle is known.
Moscow Chronicles
The chronicles of northeastern Rus' are distinguished by the absence of poetic elements and rarely borrow from poetic legends. “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev” is a special work, only included in some collections. From the first half of the 14th century. in most of the northern Russian arches, Moscow news begins to predominate. According to the remark of I. A. Tikhomirov, the beginning of the Moscow Chronicle itself, which formed the basis of the vaults, should be considered the news of the construction of the Church of the Assumption in Moscow. The main vaults containing Moscow news are the “Sofia Vremennik” (in its last part), the Resurrection and Nikon Chronicles (also beginning with vaults based on ancient vaults). There is the so-called Lvov Chronicle, a chronicle published under the title: “Continuation of the Nestor Chronicle”, as well as “Russian Time” or the Kostroma Chronicle. The chronicle in the Moscow state increasingly acquired the significance of an official document: already at the beginning of the 15th century. the chronicler, praising the times of “that great Seliverst of Vydobuzhsky, who wrote unadornedly,” says: “our first rulers without anger commanded all the good and bad things that happened to be written.” Prince Yuri Dimitrievich, in his quest for the grand-ducal table, relied on old chronicles in the Horde; Grand Duke John Vasilyevich sent clerk Bradaty to Novgorod to prove to the Novgorodians their lies with the old chroniclers; in the inventory of the royal archive from the times of Ivan the Terrible we read: “black lists and what to write for the chronicler of modern times”; in the negotiations between the boyars and the Poles under Tsar Mikhail it is said: “and we will write this in the chronicler for future generations.” The best example of how carefully one must treat the legends of the chronicle of that time is the news of the tonsure of Solomonia, the first wife of Grand Duke Vasily Ioanovich, preserved in one of the chronicles. Based on this news, Solomonia herself wanted to take a haircut, but the Grand Duke did not agree; in another story, also judging by the solemn, official tone, we read that the Grand Duke, seeing the birds in pairs, thought about Solomonia’s infertility and, after consulting with the boyars, divorced her. According to Herberstein, the divorce was initiated by Vasily.
Evolution of Chronicles
Not all chronicles, however, represent the types of official chronicle. In many, there is occasionally a mixture of official narration and private notes. Such a mixture is found in the story about the campaign of Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich to the Ugra, combined with the famous letter of Vasian. Becoming more and more official, the chronicles finally moved into category books. The same facts were entered into the chronicles, only with the omission of small details: for example, stories about the campaigns of the 16th century. taken from grade books; only news of miracles, signs, etc. were added, documents, speeches, and letters were inserted. There were private rank books in which well-born people noted the service of their ancestors for the purposes of localism. Such chronicles also appeared, an example of which we have in the “Norman Chronicles”. The number of individual tales that turn into private notes has also increased. Another way of transmission is to supplement the chronographs with Russian events. This is, for example, the legend of Prince Katyrev-Rostov, placed in a chronograph; in several chronographs we find additional articles written by supporters of different parties. Thus, in one of the chronographs of the Rumyantsev Museum there are voices dissatisfied with Patriarch Filaret. In the chronicles of Novgorod and Pskov there are curious expressions of displeasure with Moscow. From the first years of Peter the Great there is an interesting protest against his innovations under the title “Chronicle of 1700”.
Degree book
Already in the 16th century, attempts to pragmatize appeared: this included the Degree Book and partly the Nikon Chronicle. Along with the general chronicles, local ones were kept: Arkhangelsk, Dvina, Vologda, Ustyug, Nizhny Novgorod, etc., especially monastic ones, into which local news was entered in a brief form. Of these chronicles, the Siberian ones stand out the most.
Facial chronicle vault
The front chronicle collection is a chronicle collection of events in world and especially Russian history, created in the 40-60s. 16th century (probably in 1568-1576) especially for the royal library of Ivan the Terrible in a single copy.
Siberian Chronicles
Main article: Siberian Chronicles
The beginning of the Siberian chronicle is attributed to Cyprian, Metropolitan of Tobolsk. Several Siberian chronicles have reached us, more or less deviating from one another:
- Kungurskaya (late 16th century), written by one of the participants in Ermak’s campaign;
- Stroganovskaya (“On the capture of the Siberian land”; 1620-30 or 1668-83), based on unsurvived materials from the patrimonial archive of the Stroganovs, their correspondence with Ermak;
- Esipovskaya (1636), compiled by Savva Esipov, clerk of Archbishop Nektary in memory of Ermak;
- Remezovskaya (late 17th century), owned by S. U. Remezov, Russian cartographer, geographer and historian of Siberia.
Belarusian-Lithuanian chronicles
An important place in Russian chronicles is occupied by the so-called Lithuanian (rather Western Russian or Belarusian, since until the 16th century there was no Lithuanian writing and historiography; the official language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was Old Belarusian) chronicles, existing in two editions: “Brief”, starting with the death of Gediminas or, rather, , Olgerd and ending in 1446 and “Detailed”, from fabulous times to 1505. The source of the “Brief” chronicle is the tales of contemporaries. So, on the occasion of Skirgaila’s death, the author speaks for himself: “I don’t know that I was so small then.” Kyiv and Smolensk can be considered the place where news was recorded; There is no noticeable bias in their presentation. The “detailed” chronicle (the so-called Bykhovets Chronicle) presents a number of fabulous tales at the beginning, then repeats the “Brief” one and, finally, concludes with memoirs of the early 16th century. Its text contains many tendentious stories about various noble Lithuanian families. The Belarusian-Lithuanian Chronicle of 1446 is noteworthy, telling about the events of Rus', the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ukraine from the mid-9th to the mid-15th centuries.
Ukrainian chronicles
Ukrainian (actually Cossack) chronicles date back to the 17th and 18th centuries. V.B. Antonovich explains their late appearance by the fact that these are rather private notes or sometimes even attempts at pragmatic history, and not what we now mean by a chronicle. Cossack chronicles, according to the same scientist, contain mainly the affairs of Bohdan Khmelnytsky and his contemporaries.
Of the chronicles, the most significant are: Lvov, begun in the middle of the 16th century, completed until 1649 and setting out the events of Chervonnaya Rus; the chronicle of Samovidets (from 1648 to 1702), according to the conclusion of Professor Antonovich, is the first Cossack chronicle, distinguished by the completeness and vividness of the story, as well as reliability; an extensive chronicle of Samuil Velichko, who, serving in the military chancellery, could know a lot; Although his work is arranged by year, it partly has the appearance of a scholarly work; Its disadvantage is considered to be the lack of criticism and florid presentation. The chronicle of the Gadyach colonel Grabyanka begins in 1648 and extends to 1709; It is preceded by a study about the Cossacks, whom the author derives from the Khazars.
The sources were partly the chronicle, and partly, it is assumed, foreigners. In addition to these detailed compilations, there are many short, mainly local chronicles (Chernigov, etc.); there are attempts at pragmatic history (for example, “History of the Russians”) and there are all-Russian compilations: the Gustyn Chronicle, based on the Ipatiev Chronicle and continued until the 16th century, Safonovich’s “Chronicle,” “Synopsis.” All this literature ends with the “History of the Russians,” the author of which is unknown. This work more clearly expressed the views of the Ukrainian intelligentsia of the 18th century than others.
see also
Notes
Bibliography
See Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles
Other editions of Russian chronicles
- Buganov V.I. Brief Moscow chronicler of the late 17th century. from the Ivanovo Regional Museum of Local Lore. // Chronicles and Chronicles - 1976. - M.: Nauka, 1976. - P. 283.
- Zimin A. A. Brief chroniclers of the XV-XVI centuries. // Historical archive. - M., 1950. - T. 5.
- Chronicle of Joasaph. - M.: ed. USSR Academy of Sciences, 1957.
- Kyiv Chronicle of the first quarter of the 17th century. // Ukrainian Historical Journal, 1989. No. 2, p. 107; No. 5, p. 103.
- Koretsky V.I. Solovetsky chronicler of the late 16th century. // Chronicles and Chronicles - 1980. - M.: Nauka, 1981. - P. 223.
- Koretsky V.I., Morozov B. N. Chronicler with new news from the 16th - early 17th centuries. // Chronicles and Chronicles - 1984. - M.: Nauka, 1984. - P. 187.
- Chronicle of a self-witness based on newly discovered copies with the appendix of three Little Russian chronicles: Khmelnitsky, “A Brief Description of Little Russia” and “Historical Collection”. - K., 1878.
- Lurie Ya. S. A brief chronicler of the Pogodin collection. // Archaeographic Yearbook - 1962. - M.: ed. USSR Academy of Sciences, 1963. - P. 431.
- Nasonov A. N. Chronicle collection of the 15th century. // Materials on the history of the USSR. - M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1955. - T. 2. - P. 273.
- Petrushevich A. S. Consolidated Galician-Russian chronicle from 1600 to 1700. - Lvov, 1874.
The Monk Nestor came to the famous Kiev-Pechersk Monastery when he was a seventeen-year-old youth. The holy monastery lived according to the strict Studite Rule, which was introduced into it by the Monk Theodosius, borrowing it from Byzantine books. According to this charter, before taking monastic vows, the candidate had to go through a long preparatory stage. Newcomers first had to wear secular clothes until they had thoroughly studied the rules of monastic life. After this, the candidates were allowed to put on monastic attire and begin testing, that is, to show themselves in work at various obediences. Those who passed these tests successfully received tonsure, but the test did not end there - the last stage of acceptance into the monastery was tonsure into the great schema, which not everyone was awarded.
The Monk Nestor went all the way from a simple novice to a schemamonk in just four years, and also received the rank of deacon. In addition to obedience and virtue, his education and outstanding literary talent played a significant role in this.
The Kiev Pechersky Monastery was a unique phenomenon in the spiritual life of Kievan Rus. The number of brethren reached one hundred people, which was rare even for Byzantium itself. The severity of the communal rules found in the Constantinople archives had no analogues. The monastery also flourished materially, although its governors did not care about collecting earthly riches. The powers that be listened to the voice of the monastery; it had a real political and, most importantly, spiritual influence on society.
The young Russian Church at that time was actively mastering the rich material of Byzantine church literature. She was faced with the task of creating original Russian texts in which the national image of Russian holiness would be revealed.
The first hagiographical (hagiography is a theological discipline that studies the lives of saints, theological and historical-ecclesiastical aspects of holiness - Ed.) work of the Monk Nestor - “Reading about the life and destruction of the blessed passion-bearers Boris and Gleb” - is dedicated to the memory of the first Russian saints. The chronicler, apparently, responded to the expected all-Russian church celebration - the consecration of a stone church over the relics of Saints Boris and Gleb.
The work of the Monk Nestor was not the first among works devoted to this topic. However, he did not recount the story of the brothers according to a ready-made chronicle legend, but created a text that was deeply original in form and content. The author of “Reading about the Life...” creatively reworked the best examples of Byzantine hagiographic literature and was able to express ideas that were very important for the Russian church and state identity. As Georgy Fedotov, a researcher of ancient Russian church culture, writes, “the memory of Saints Boris and Gleb was the voice of conscience in inter-princely appanage accounts, not regulated by law, but only vaguely limited by the idea of clan seniority.”
The Monk Nestor did not have much information about the death of the brothers, but as a subtle artist he was able to recreate a psychologically reliable image of true Christians meekly accepting death. The truly Christian death of the sons of the baptizer of the Russian people, Prince Vladimir, is inscribed by the chronicler in the panorama of the global historical process, which he understands as the arena of the universal struggle between good and evil.
Father of Russian monasticism
The second hagiographic work of St. Nestor is dedicated to the life of one of the founders of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery - St. Theodosius. He writes this work in the 1080s, just a few years after the death of the ascetic, in the hope of the speedy canonization of the saint. This hope, however, was not destined to come true. The Monk Theodosius was canonized only in 1108.
The internal appearance of St. Theodosius of Pechersk has special meaning for us. As Georgy Fedotov writes, “in the person of St. Theodosius, Ancient Rus' found its ideal saint, to which it remained faithful for many centuries. Venerable Theodosius is the father of Russian monasticism. All Russian monks are his children, bearing his family traits.” And Nestor the Chronicler was the person who preserved for us his unique appearance and created on Russian soil the ideal type of biography of the saint. As the same Fedotov writes, “Nestor’s work forms the basis of all Russian hagiography, inspiring heroism, indicating the normal, Russian path of labor and, on the other hand, filling in the gaps of biographical tradition with general necessary features.<…>All this gives Nestor’s life exceptional significance for the Russian type of ascetic holiness.” The chronicler was not a witness to the life and exploits of St. Theodosius. Nevertheless, his life story is based on eyewitness accounts, which he was able to combine into a coherent, vivid and memorable story.
Of course, to create a full-fledged literary life, it is necessary to rely on a developed literary tradition, which did not yet exist in Rus'. Therefore, the Monk Nestor borrows a lot from Greek sources, sometimes making long verbatim extracts. However, they have virtually no effect on the biographical basis of his story.
Memory of the unity of the people
The main feat of the life of the Monk Nestor was the compilation of the “Tale of Bygone Years” by 1112-1113. This work is separated from the first two literary works of the Monk Nestor known to us by a quarter of a century and belongs to another literary genre - the chronicle. Unfortunately, the entire set of “The Tale...” has not reached us. It was revised by the monk of the Vydubitsky monastery Sylvester.
The Tale of Bygone Years is based on the chronicle work of Abbot John, who made the first attempt at a systematic presentation of Russian history from ancient times. He brought his narrative up to 1093. Earlier chronicle records represent a fragmentary account of disparate events. It is interesting that these records contain a legend about Kiy and his brothers, a brief account of the reign of the Varangian Oleg in Novgorod, the destruction of Askold and Dir, and a legend about the death of the Prophetic Oleg. Actually, Kiev history begins with the reign of “old Igor,” whose origin is kept silent.
Hegumen John, dissatisfied with the inaccuracy and fabulousness of the chronicle, restores the years, relying on Greek and Novgorod chronicles. It is he who first introduces “old Igor” as the son of Rurik. Askold and Dir appear here for the first time as boyars of Rurik, and Oleg as his governor.
It was the arch of Abbot John that became the basis for the work of the Monk Nestor. He subjected the greatest processing to the initial part of the chronicle. The initial edition of the chronicle was supplemented by legends, monastic records, and Byzantine chronicles of John Malala and George Amartol. Saint Nestor attached great importance to oral testimonies - the stories of the elder boyar Jan Vyshatich, merchants, warriors, and travelers.
In his main work, Nestor the Chronicler acts both as a scientist-historian, and as a writer, and as a religious thinker, giving a theological understanding of Russian history, which is an integral part of the history of the salvation of the human race.
For St. Nestor, the history of Rus' is the history of the perception of Christian preaching. Therefore, he records in his chronicle the first mention of the Slavs in church sources - the year 866, and talks in detail about the activities of Saints Cyril and Methodius, Equal-to-the-Apostles, and about the baptism of Equal-to-the-Apostles Olga in Constantinople. It was this ascetic who introduced into the chronicle the story about the first Orthodox church in Kyiv, about the preaching feat of the Varangian martyrs Theodore Varangian and his son John.
Despite the huge amount of heterogeneous information, the chronicle of St. Nestor has become a true masterpiece of ancient Russian and world literature.
During the years of fragmentation, when almost nothing reminded of the former unity of Kievan Rus, “The Tale of Bygone Years” remained the monument that awakened in all corners of crumbling Rus' the memory of its former unity.
The Monk Nestor died around 1114, bequeathing to the Pechersk monks-chroniclers the continuation of his great work.
Newspaper "Orthodox Faith" No. 21 (545)
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.
It's interesting to see the 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-stavka is a faster and simpler handwriting 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, it is not.
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 from 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.” With 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 arch of 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 Kiev, 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 standing 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 there is 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. For the first time in the history of Rus', Prince Vsevolod the Big Nest of Vladimir was awarded the title of Grand Duke. 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 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 of 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.
