1) The history of the creation of “The Tale of Bygone Years.”

"The Tale of Bygone Years" is one of the oldest chronicle works Russian literature, created at the beginning of the 12th century by the monk of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra Nestor the Chronicler. The chronicle tells about the origin of the Russian land, about the first Russian princes and about the most important historical events. The peculiarity of “The Tale of Bygone Years” is poetry, the author masterfully mastered the style, the text uses various artistic means to make the narrative more convincing.

2) Features of the narrative in The Tale of Bygone Years.

In The Tale of Bygone Years two types of narration can be distinguished - weather records and chronicle stories. Weather records contain reports of events, and chronicles describe them. In the story, the author strives to depict an event, to provide specific details, that is, he tries to help the reader imagine what is happening and evokes empathy from the reader. Rus' broke up into many principalities and each had its own chronicles. Each of them reflected the peculiarities of the history of its region and wrote only about its princes. “The Tale of Bygone Years” was part of the local chronicle collections, which continued the tradition of Russian chronicle writing. “The Tale of Temporary Legions” defines the place of the Russian people among the peoples of the world, depicts the origin of Slavic writing and the formation of the Russian state. Nestor lists the peoples paying tribute to the Russians, shows that the peoples who oppressed the Slavs disappeared, but the Slavs remained and controlled the destinies of their neighbors. “The Tale of Bygone Years,” written during the heyday of Kievan Rus, became the main work on history.

3) Artistic features of “The Tale of Bygone Years”. How does Nes the Horus Chronicler narrate historical events?

Nestor narrates historical events poetically. Nestor draws the origin of Rus' against the background of the development of the entire world history. The chronicler unfolds a wide panorama historical events. A whole gallery of historical figures takes place on the pages of the Nestor Chronicle - princes, boyars, merchants, mayors, church ministers. He talks about military campaigns, the opening of schools, and the organization of monasteries. Nestor constantly touches the life of the people, their moods. On the pages of the chronicle we will read about uprisings and murders of princes. But the author describes all this calmly and tries to be objective. Nestor condemns murder, betrayal and deceit; he extols honesty, courage, courage, loyalty, nobility. It is Nestor who strengthens and improves the version of the origin of the Russian princely dynasty. Its main goal was to show the Russian land among other powers, to prove that the Russian people are not without family and tribe, but have their own history, which they have the right to be proud of.

Nestor begins his story from afar, with the biblical flood itself, after which the earth was distributed among the sons of Noah. This is how Nestor begins his story:

“So let’s begin this story.

After the flood, Noah's three sons divided the earth - Shem, Ham, Japheth. And Shem got the east: Persia, Bactria, even to India in longitude, and in width to Rhinocorur, that is, from the east to the south, and Syria, and Media to the Euphrates River, Babylon, Corduna, the Assyrians, Mesopotamia, Arabia the Oldest, Spruce-mais, Indi, Arabia Strong, Colia, Commagene, all of Phenicia.

Ham got the south: Egypt, Ethiopia, neighboring India...

Japheth got the northern and western countries: Media, Albania, Armenia Lesser and Greater, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, Hapatia, Colchis...

Now Ham and Japheth divided the land by casting lots, and decided not to enter into anyone’s brother’s share, and each lived in his own part. And there was one people. And when people multiplied on earth, they planned to create a pillar up to the sky - this was in the days of Nekgan and Peleg. And they gathered in the place of the field of Shinar to build a pillar up to heaven, and near it the city of Babylon; and they built that pillar 40 years, and they did not finish it. And the Lord God came down to see the city and the pillar, and the Lord said: “Behold, there is one generation and one people.” And God mixed up the nations, and divided them into 70 and 2 nations, and scattered them throughout the whole earth. After the confusion of the peoples, God destroyed the pillar with a great wind; and its remains are located between Assyria and Babylon, and are 5433 cubits in height and width, and these remains have been preserved for many years...”

Then the author talks about the Slavic tribes, their customs and morals, about the capture of Constantinople by Oleg, about the founding of Kiev by the three brothers Kiy, Shchek, Khoriv, ​​about Svyatoslav’s campaign against Byzantium and other events, both real and legendary. He includes in his “Tale...” teachings, records of oral stories, documents, contracts, parables and lives. The leading theme of most chronicles is the idea of ​​the unity of Rus'.

1. New!

   Name the distinctive features of the genre of hagiography. Who was the hero of the life? What was the goal of the creators of the hagiographic genre? The genre of hagiography arose and developed in Byzantium, and in Ancient Russia it appeared as a translation. Based on borrowed texts in the 11th...

The hero of the chronicle narrative: “The Tale of Bygone Years.” It turns out that from the chrono-event “bricks” the chronicler was able to put together a plot, to carry through this plot the idea of ​​​​punishment for pride, while this idea was not directly expressed or declared anywhere...

1) Until 1564, Russian literature was handwritten. The problem of printing books existed for a very long time, right up to the 16th century, so creating a book was a long-term endeavor. Printing has hardly changed the methods of distribution literary works....

THE TALE OF THE BATTLE ON KALKA is a chronicle story telling about the first clash between the Russians and the Mongol-Tatars. In 1223, a thirty-thousand-strong detachment of Mongol-Tatars led by Jebe and Subedei went through Transcaucasia to the steppe and defeated the Polovtsians,...

“The Tale of Bygone Years” contains 2 main ideas: the idea of ​​​​the independence of Rus' and its equality with other countries (in the description of military operations) and the idea of ​​​​the unity of Rus', the Russian princely family, the need for a union of princes and condemnation of strife (“The Legend of the Calling of the Varangians”). The work highlights several main themes: the theme of the unification of cities, the theme of the military history of Rus', the theme of the peaceful activities of princes, the theme of the history of the adoption of Christianity, the theme of cities. In composition, this is very interesting work. It breaks down into 2 parts: up to 850, a conventional chronology, and then a weather one. There were also articles where it was a year, but there was no record. This meant that nothing significant happened that year, and the chronicler did not consider it necessary to record it. Under one year there could be several large narratives. The chronicle includes symbols: visions, miracles, signs, as well as messages and teachings. The first, dated 852, article was associated with the beginning of the Russian land. Under 862 there was a legend about the calling of the Varangians, the establishment of a single ancestor of the Russian princes Rurik. The next turning point in the chronicle is associated with the baptism of Rus' in 988. The final articles talk about the reign of Svyatopolk Izyaslavich. Also, the compositional originality of “The Tale of Bygone Years” is manifested in the combination of many genres in this work. Partly because of this, messages of different content were sometimes placed under the same year. The chronicle was a collection of primary genre formations. Here we find both a weather record - the simplest and oldest form of narration, and a chronicle story, chronicle legends. The closeness of the chronicle to hagiographic literature is revealed in the stories about two Varangian martyrs, about the founding of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery and its ascetics, about the transfer of the relics of Boris and Gleb, about the repose of Theodosius of the Pechersk. The genre of funeral laudatory words was associated with obituary articles in the chronicles, which often contained verbal portraits deceased historical figures, for example, the description of the Tmutarakan prince Rostislav, poisoned during a feast by a Byzantine warrior. Landscape sketches are symbolic. Unusual uprisings.

Principles of depicting a person in “The Tale of Bygone Years.” Basic forms of chronicle narration. The image of a chronicler. Features of the artistic time of the chronicle: In the literary process of creating man, he turned out to be primarily the bearer and exponent of the dominant class-corporate interests and ideals. The man showed himself for the most part in those actions that were limited traditionally by the ritual norms of the class-corporate environment surrounding him. These norms were created by social life back in pagan times, and were especially carefully developed in feudal society and from it entered literature, which, for its part, actively contributed to their strengthening in reality. A person’s thoughts and experiences became the subject of literary depiction only when they were necessary for the ideological and symbolic interpretation of the actual historical or political situation. The creation of such a typical “character” of the hero took the form of a certain ethical and aesthetic scheme. For these purposes, for example, heartfelt internal monologues of Boris and Gleb were created (as a kind of “crying” for themselves) before descriptions of their murders. Techniques for hyperbolizing heroes based on these ideological principles, began to acquire in ancient Russian literature various shapes depending on the ideological position of the writer and his attitude towards the person depicted: positive images received increasing signs of abstract idealization, and negative images - real concretization. The hero is supposed to behave this way, and the author is supposed to describe the hero only in appropriate expressions. Man as a literary type was of interest to ancient Russian writers mainly in relation to the instructive and symbolic personification of those qualities of his, real-historical and at the same time idealized, which were supposed to characterize a certain class environment.

The central heroes of the chronicle are the princes. Chroniclers of the 11th-12th centuries. they were depicted from the point of view of the established princely ideal: a good warrior, the head of his people, generous, merciful. The prince is also a good Christian, a fair judge, merciful to those in need, a person incapable of committing any crimes. But in The Tale of Bygone Years there are few ideal princes. First of all, these are Boris and Gleb. All other princes are presented more or less diversified. In the chronicle, the squad supports the prince. The people are most often depicted as a passive force. A hero emerges from the people and saves the people and the state: Nikita Kozhemyaka; a youth who decides to make his way through the enemy camp. Most of them do not have a name (they are called by age), nothing is known about their past and future, each has an exaggerated quality, reflecting a connection with the people - strength or wisdom. The hero appears in a certain place at a critical moment. The depiction of the heroes of the early chronicles is greatly influenced by folklore. The chronicle gives laconic but vivid characteristics to the first Russian princes (Oleg, Olga, Igor, Svyatoslav, Vladimir), highlighting the dominant feature in the image of the hero, and individual order. The image of Olga poetizes the wisdom of a statesman, which is expressed in the search for a single faith and in revenge on the Drevlyans. The characterization of Svyatoslav is epically laconic. He is a straightforward and courageous man, easy to communicate with soldiers; he preferred victory in open battle to military cunning. He always warned his enemies that he was preparing a campaign against them. Characteristics of Svyatoslav are given through his actions and accomplished feats. In later fragments of the chronicle, the image of the good Christian prince comes to the fore. The characteristics of these princes are official, devoid of individual signs. The murderous prince could turn into a righteous man; Yaroslav the Wise turns from a rebellious son into an instrument of divine punishment for Svyatopolk the Accursed. In the chronicle there is a mixture of the style of monumental historicism, epic stylistics and church stylistics. In stories written in the style of monumental historicism, everything is known in advance, the fate of the hero is predetermined. And in epic parts the effect of surprise is often used. Also a feature of the style is the mixture of different genres in one chronicle, often condensing different events into one year (especially if this event lasted several years).

The first Russian princes were described in the chronicles using the techniques of oral folk epic: Oleg, Igor, Olga, Svyatoslav.

Oleg is, first of all, a courageous and wise warrior. Thanks to his military ingenuity, he defeats the Greeks by putting his ships on wheels and sailing them across the land. He deftly unravels all the intricacies of his Greek enemies and concludes a peace treaty with Byzantium that is beneficial for Rus'. As a sign of the victory, Oleg nails his shield on the gates of Constantinople to the greater shame of his enemies and the glory of his homeland.

The successful prince-warrior is popularly nicknamed the “prophetic”, i.e., a wizard (however, the Christian chronicler did not fail to emphasize that the nickname was given to Oleg by the pagans, “the people of trash and lack of voice”), but he also cannot escape his fate. Under 912 the chronicle contains a poetic legend connected, obviously, “with Olgova’s grave,” which “exists... to this day.” This legend has a complete plot, which is revealed in a laconic dramatic narrative. It clearly expresses the idea of ​​the power of fate, which no mortal, and even the “prophetic” prince, can avoid.

Igor is depicted in a slightly different way. He is also courageous and brave, defeating the Greeks in the campaign of 944. He is caring and attentive to the needs of his squad, but, in addition, he is greedy. The desire to collect as much tribute as possible from the Drevlyans becomes the reason for his death. Igor’s greed is condemned by the chronicler with a folk proverb, which he puts into the mouths of the Drevlyans: “If you put a wolf in a sheep, then carry out the whole flock, unless you kill it...”

Igor's wife Olga is a wise woman, true to memory her husband, rejecting the matchmaking of not only the Drevlyan prince Mal, but also the Greek emperor. She cruelly takes revenge on the murderers of her husband, but her cruelty is not condemned by the chronicler. The description of Olga's four places emphasizes the wisdom, firmness and inflexibility of the character of a Russian woman. D. S. Likhachev notes that the basis of the legend is made up of riddles that the unlucky Drevlyan matchmakers cannot solve. Olga's riddles are based on associations of wedding and funeral rites: not only honored guests, but also the dead were carried in boats; Olga's offer to the ambassadors to wash in the bathhouse is not only a sign of the highest hospitality, but also a symbol of the funeral rite; heading to the Drevlyans, Olga goes to perform a funeral feast not only for her husband, but also for the Drevlyan ambassadors she killed. The slow-witted Drevlyans understand Olga's words in their literal meaning, unaware of the other, hidden meaning of the wise woman's riddles, and thereby doom themselves to death. The entire description of Olga's revenge is based on the bright, laconic and stagey dialogue of the princess with the messengers of the "Village Land".

The heroics of the druzhina epic are inspired by the image of the stern, simple and strong, courageous and straightforward warrior Svyatoslav. Cunning, flattery, and cunning are alien to him - qualities inherent in his Greek enemies, who, as the chronicler notes, “are flattering to this day.” With a small squad, he wins a victory over the superior forces of the enemy: with a short, courageous speech, he inspires his soldiers to fight: “... let us not disgrace the Russian land, but let us lie down with bones, for the dead have no shame.”

Svyatoslav despises wealth, he values ​​only his squad, weapons, with the help of which he can obtain any wealth. The description of this prince in the chronicle is accurate and expressive: “... walking lightly, like a pardus, he created many wars. Walking, he did not carry a cart on his own, neither a kettle nor boiled meat, but he cut up horse meat, animal meat or beef for coal. baked a dish, not a tent in name, but sent a lining and a saddle in the heads; and so did his other howl ecu byahu."

Svyatoslav lives in the interests of his squad. He even goes against the admonitions of his mother, Olga, and refuses to accept Christianity, fearing the ridicule of the squad. But the constant desire

The chronicler acts as a preacher-teacher: history is an object lesson for “today’s princes”, an instructive example for contemporaries. From ancient authors through Byzantium they inherited the principle of historians formulated by Cicero: “Historia est magistra vitae” - “History is the teacher of life.”

History in “The Tale of Bygone Years” appears as a teaching, given not in the form of general maxims, but in the form of specific vivid artistic tales, stories, fragmentary articles, set “across a series” of “bygone years.”

The chronicler is deeply convinced of the ultimate triumph of goodness and justice, identifying goodness and beauty. He acts as a passionate publicist expressing the interests of the entire Russian land

Svyatoslav to wars of conquest, neglect of the interests of Kyiv, his attempt to move the capital of Rus' to the Danube causes condemnation of the chronicler. He expresses this condemnation through the mouth of the “kiyan”: “... you, prince, are looking for a foreign land and consuming it, but having taken possession of your own (left), small (barely) because we were not taken by the Pechenesi...”

The straightforward prince-warrior dies in an unequal battle with the Pechenegs at the Dnieper rapids. The Pechenezh prince Kurya, who killed Svyatoslav, “took his head, and made a cup in his forehead (skull), bound his forehead, and drank from it.” The chronicler does not moralize about this death, but the general trend is still evident: Svyatoslav’s death is natural, it is a consequence of his disobedience to his mother, a consequence of his refusal to accept baptism.

The chronicle news about Vladimir’s marriage to the Polotsk princess Rogneda, about his abundant and generous feasts held in Kyiv - the Korsun legend - goes back to folk tales. On the one hand, before us appears a pagan prince with his unbridled passions, on the other, an ideal Christian ruler, endowed with all the virtues: meekness, humility, love for the poor, for the monastic and monastic order, etc. A contrasting comparison of the pagan prince With the Christian prince, the chronicler sought to prove the superiority of the new Christian morality over pagan morality.

The reign of Vladimir was covered in the heroism of folk tales already at the end of the 10th - beginning of the 11th century.

The legend of the victory of the Russian youth Kozhemyaki over the Pecheneg giant is imbued with the spirit of the folk heroic epic. As in the folk epic, the legend emphasizes the superiority of a person of peaceful labor, a simple artisan over a professional warrior - a Pecheneg hero. The images of the legend are built on the principle of contrastive comparison and broad generalization. At first glance, the Russian young man is an ordinary, unremarkable person, but he embodies the enormous, gigantic strength that the Russian people possess, decorating the land with their labor and protecting it on the battlefield from external enemies. The Pecheneg warrior with his gigantic size terrifies those around him. The boastful and arrogant enemy is contrasted with a modest Russian youth, the youngest son of a tanner. He accomplishes the feat without arrogance and boasting. At the same time, the legend is confined to the toponymic legend about the origin of the city of Pereyaslavl - “the zone of the glory of the youth,” but this is a clear anachronism, since Pereyaslavl was already mentioned more than once in the chronicle before this event.

The chronicle develops the ideal of a prince-ruler. This ideal is inseparable from the general patriotic ideas of the chronicle. The ideal ruler is the living embodiment of love for his native land, its honor and glory, the personification of its power and dignity. All his actions, all his activities are determined by the good of his homeland and people. Therefore, in the view of the chronicler, the prince cannot belong to himself. He is first and foremost a historical figure who always appears in an official setting, endowed with all the attributes of princely power. D. S. Likhachev notes that the prince in the chronicle is always official, he seems to be addressed to the viewer and is presented in his most significant actions. The prince's virtues are a kind of ceremonial clothing; at the same time, some virtues are purely mechanically attached to others, thanks to which it became possible to combine secular and church ideals. Fearlessness, courage, military valor are combined with humility, meekness and other Christian virtues.

7. Genre and stylistic originality of “The Tale of Bygone Years.” The language of the chronicle. The significance of the monument for the history of literature.

From Christian literature the chronicler drew moralizing maxims and figurative comparisons. He supported his reasoning with quotations from the text of the “holy scripture”. So, for example, telling about the betrayal of the governor Blud, the chronicler raises the question of the vassal’s loyalty to his overlord. Condemning the traitor, the chronicler reinforces his thoughts with references to King David, i.e., to the Psalter: “Oh, the evil flattery of man! Just as David says: My poisonous bread, I have made flattery come upon me...”

Quite often the chronicler resorts to comparing events and historical figures with biblical events and characters.

The function of biblical comparisons and reminiscences in the chronicle is different. These comparisons emphasize the significance and greatness of the Russian land, its princes; they allow chroniclers to transfer the narrative from a “temporary” historical plan to an “eternal” one, i.e. they fulfill artistic function symbolic generalization. In addition, these comparisons are a means of moral assessment of events and the actions of historical figures.

General characteristics of the chronicle style. Thus, all of the above allows us to speak about the presence in The Tale of Bygone Years of an epic narrative style associated with oral poetry, a historical-documentary style, which prevails in the description of historical events, and a hagiographic style, which serves as an important means of establishing the moral ideals of the prince-ruler , defender of the interests of the Russian land and condemnation of seditious princes

The language of The Tale of Bygone Years broadly reflects the spoken language of its time. Almost every piece of news, before it was written down by a chronicler, was deposited in oral speech. The direct speech of historical figures occupies a significant place in the chronicle style. The prince makes speeches to his squad, ambassadors conduct diplomatic negotiations, speeches are made at veches and feasts. They testify to high oratory skills: they are laconic, laconic and unusually expressive. At the same time, the chronicler almost never resorts to fictitious speeches - he is always accurate and strictly factual in conveying the “speeches” of his heroes.

Special terminology is widely represented in the chronicle: military, hunting, legal, church. Clear, expressive, figurative phraseological combinations are developed, such as: “take the city with a spear” - capture the city by attack, “mount a horse” - set out on a campaign, “wipe off the sweat” - return with victory, “eat bread deden” - reign over table of the ancestors, “kiss the cross” - take an oath, “thrust the knife” - start discord.

The chronicler often uses folk proverbs and sayings: “It’s like death,” “Trouble is like in Rodna,” “We can’t live in Rus' without joy and drink.”

The language of The Tale of Bygone Years testifies to an unusual high level development of the culture of oral and written speech in the 11th-12th centuries.

The meaning of "The Tale of Bygone Years". “The Tale of Bygone Years” played an important role in the development of regional chronicles and in the creation of all-Russian chronicle collections of the 15th-16th centuries: it was invariably included in these chronicles, revealing the history of Novgorod, Tver, Pskov, and then the history of Moscow and the Moscow State.

In the literature of the 18th-19th centuries. "The Tale of Bygone Years" served as a source of poetic subjects and images. Thus, A.P. Sumarokov, creating his classic tragedies, turned not to ancient plots, but to the events of Russian national history (see his tragedies “Sinav and Truvor”, “Khorev”), Ya. B. Knyazhnin his tyrant-fighting tragedy " Vadim Novgorodsky" builds on the material of the chronicle.

A large place is occupied by the images of Vladimir, Svyatoslav, Oleg in the romantic “Thoughts” of K. F. Ryleev, imbued with the pathos of freedom-loving ideas.

The poetry of the chronicle legends was perfectly felt, understood and conveyed by A.S. Pushkin in “The Song of the Prophetic Oleg.” In the chronicles, he tried to “guess the way of thinking and language of those times” in the tragedy “Boris Godunov”. The image of the chronicler Pimen created by the poet, majestic in its spiritual beauty, was, in the words of F. M. Dostoevsky, evidence of “that powerful spirit of people’s life that can highlight from itself images of such undeniable truth.”

11. Medieval Russian literature of the 13th – 14th centuries.

During this period, many books and masters perished. The emergence of the genre of polynyanka songs. Previously, researchers believed that nothing was created during this period and that the former book centers were destroyed. However, it is not. Center cultural life shifts to different areas. The emergence of new literary centers speaks of literary continuity. Kyiv is the standard.

The symbol of this time is an icon and an ax.

Vladimir is actively developing eloquence, military stories, and collections of monographic books. And mixed type. All his words are emotional, there is an abundance of rhetorical figures, solemn eloquence, but in content they are didactic. "Teaching of Serapion of Vladimir"

Murom-Ryazan Principality

"The Tale of the Battle of Kalka"

“The Word about the Destruction of the Russian Land”

“The Tale of Batu’s capture of the Ryazan land”

These works well convey the mood of Russian society, dissatisfaction with the infighting of the princes. Religious and moralistic interpretation of the Mongol-Tatar invasion: The arrival of the “unknown language” is a consequence of God’s connivance “sin for our sake”, a sign of the end of the world. The people's consciousness associated the legend of the death of Russian heroes with the Battle of Kalka. The cause of the lesions is associated with feudal fragmentation. Confusion before an unknown force.

Tver Principality

“Punishment for Prince Constantine of Polotsk” by Bishop Simeon, which raises important ethical issues., life of M. Tverskoy

The emergence of chronicles. In 1305, the Tver Chronicle incl. Included in PVL

Galicia-Volyn Principality

In the 13th century, the Galicia-Volyn Chronicle was included in the Ipatiev Chronicle.

The strife led to the invasion of external enemies. The theme of the unification of Rus', the fight against foreign invaders. Emphasis on contemporary events.

Likhachev calls the literature of this period the literature of moral monumentalism.

In the genre system, the narrowing of lit. Genres. Patriotic and moral ones are in demand (chronicles, military stories, stories, lives of martyred princes, clergy who accepted martyrdom). The literature of this period becomes smaller in volume, a close connection with CNT. The motif of punishment for sins can be traced in almost all works of this period. If in “The Tale of the Regiment...” there is a premonition of trouble, then in the literature of this period there are consequences. The main character of the works is invariably the Russian land. The main idea is the idea of ​​sacrifice for the good of the Russian land.

Chapter 1. LITERATURE OF THE 11th - EARLY 13TH CENTURIES

3. The most ancient chronicles

Let us now turn to a consideration of the original, i.e., created by Russian authors, literature of Kievan Rus. We already know that within a short time Russian scribes became acquainted with rich and varied translated literature. A whole system of genres was transferred to new soil: chronicles, historical stories, lives, patericon, apocrypha, solemn “words” and teachings. Translated works enriched Russian scribes with historical and natural science information, introduced them to the plots of ancient myths and epic legends, different types plots, styles, manners of storytelling. But it would be completely wrong to believe that it was translated literature that was the only and main school of literary excellence for ancient Russian translators and writers. They were greatly influenced by the rich traditions of oral folk art, and above all the traditions of the Slavic epic. As we will see later, folk epic legends represent an exceptionally vivid artistic phenomenon that does not have an exact analogy in the monuments of translated literature known to us. Old Russian scribes used the rich traditions of oral public speeches: short speeches of princes, in which they inspired their soldiers before battles, speeches given by witnesses and judges at trials, speeches delivered at veche meetings, speeches with which princes sent their ambassadors to other princes or foreign rulers, etc. Treaties, legal documents and regulations also contributed to the formation of the Russian literary language, and to some extent participated in the formation of the language of Russian literature. Turning to the analysis of the first original works of literature of Kievan Rus, we will also see that it is original not only in language, not only in the system of images or plot motifs, but also in genre terms: neither the Russian chronicles have a genre analogy in Byzantine and Bulgarian literature , nor “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” nor “The Teaching of Vladimir Monomakh,” nor “The Prayer of Daniel the Imprisoner,” nor some other monuments. One of the first, most important genres of emerging Russian literature was the genre of chronicle. The historical memory of the East Slavic peoples stretched back several centuries: traditions and legends were passed down from generation to generation about the settlement of Slavic tribes, about the clashes of the Slavs with the Avars (Obras), about the founding of Kiev, about the glorious deeds of the first Kyiv princes. The emergence of writing made it possible to record oral historical traditions and prompted us to subsequently record in writing all the most important events of our time. This is how chronicle writing arose. It was the chronicle that was destined for several centuries, until the 17th century, to become not a simple weather record of current events, but one of the leading literary genres, in the depths of which Russian plot narration developed. Byzantine chronicles and Russian chronicles. Explorers of the 19th century and the beginning of our century, it was believed that Russian chronicle writing arose as an imitation of Byzantine chronography. This is incorrect: the Byzantine chronicles, as we will see later, were not used by Russian scribes at the initial stage of the development of Russian chronicles. In addition, most Russian chronicles are built on a different principle than Byzantine chronicles. In the chronicles (in particular, in the “Chronicle of George Amartol” and the “Chronicle of John Malala”) the historical process is divided into reigns: the history of the reign of one king or emperor is told, then his successor, then the successor of this latter, etc. The chronicles are characterized by the indication not for the year of accession of this or that ruler, but for the duration of his reign. The structure of Russian chronicles is different: the chronicler records the events that occurred in a particular year, not the sequence of reigns, but the sequence of events. Each chronicle article is dedicated to one year and begins with the words “In the summer...” (followed by the year “from the creation of the world”). Let's compare two passages: one from the “Chronograph according to the Great Exposition”, built on the principle of Byzantine chronography, the other from the Russian chronicle. In the “Chronograph” we read, for example: “According to Martz, his royal son Komod was 12 years old, and the greyhound died of blood and ash (from a bile disease?). According to Komoda, Tsarstvo Petrimax was killed for 2 months. According to Petrimax, the reigning Julian was in the 4th month and was killed quickly at the source, looking at the fish. According to Didniy, the reign of Sevier was 17 years old. T (from) in Vretaniya, having defeated the adversaries..." The narrative in the chronicle is structured differently: "In the summer of 6535 (1027). A third son was born to Yaroslav, and he called his name Svyatoslav. In summer 6536 (1028). The sign of the serpent appeared in heaven, as if to see the whole earth. In summer 6537 (1029). Be peaceful. In summer 6538 (1030). Yaroslav Belzy took...” Here, excerpts concluding short articles have been specially selected, but the difference in the principles of presentation in the chronicle and chronicle is quite clear. Both chronicles and chronicles (chronographs) were vaults, or compilation. The chronicler or chronicler could not recount all the events according to his own impressions and observations, if only because both chronicles and chronicles sought to begin the presentation from the “very beginning” (from the “creation of the world”, from the formation of this or that state, etc.). etc.), and, consequently, the chronicler was forced to turn to sources that existed before him, telling about more ancient times. On the other hand, the chronicler could not simply continue the chronicle of his predecessor. Firstly, it could not because each chronicler, as a rule, pursued some of his own political tendencies and, in accordance with it, revised the text of his predecessor, not only omitting materials that were insignificant or did not suit him politically, but also supplementing them with extracts from various sources, thus creating their own version of the chronicle narrative, different from the previous ones. Secondly, so that his work did not acquire an exorbitant volume from the combination of many extensive sources, the chronicler had to sacrifice something, releasing messages that seemed less significant to him. All this makes it extremely difficult to study chronicles, establish their sources, and characterize the work of each chronicler. It turned out to be especially difficult to restore the history of the oldest Russian chronicles, since we only have lists of chronicles of a much later time (Novgorod Chronicle of the 13th-14th centuries, Laurentian Chronicle of 1377, Ipatiev Chronicle of the early 15th century), moreover, reflecting not the most ancient chronicles , and their later editions. Therefore, the history of the most ancient chronicles is to a certain extent hypothetical. The hypothesis of Academician A. A. Shakhmatov is considered the most acceptable and authoritative, on which literary scholars and source historians rely in their private studies of most monuments of pre-Mongol Rus'. A. A. Shakhmatov’s hypothesis is based on the most painstaking research of the text of all the surviving copies of the initial part of the Russian chronicle. A. A. Shakhmatov created not only the most famous concept of the beginning of Russian chronicles, but also a methodology for establishing the history of the text of chronicles, which his followers began to use, primarily M. D. Priselkov and A. N. Nasonov, as well as many others . The concept of A. A. Shakhmatov was supplemented and clarified by his followers. Initial chronicle. The oldest chronicle that has actually reached us is the “Tale of Bygone Years,” created presumably around 1113. However, “The Tale of Bygone Years,” as A. A. Shakhmatov showed, was preceded by other chronicle collections. A. A. Shakhmatov was led to this conclusion, which laid the foundation for many years of research in the field of ancient Russian chronicles, in particular, by the following fact: “The Tale of Bygone Years,” preserved in the Laurentian, Ipatiev and other chronicles, differed significantly in the interpretation of many events from the other chronicle that told about the same initial period of Russian history - the Novgorod first chronicle of the younger edition. In the Novgorod Chronicle there were no texts of agreements with the Greeks, Prince Oleg was called the governor under the young Prince Igor, otherwise it was told about the campaigns of Rus' against Constantinople, etc. A. A. Shakhmatov came to the conclusion that the First Novgorod Chronicle in its initial part reflected a different chronicle the code that preceded The Tale of Bygone Years. The attempts of another prominent researcher of Russian chronicles, V. M. Istrin, to find a different explanation for the differences between the “Tale of Bygone Years” and the story of the First Novgorod Chronicle (that the Novgorod Chronicle allegedly abbreviated the “Tale of Bygone Years”) were unsuccessful: the point of view of A. A. Shakhmatov was confirmed by many facts obtained both by himself and other scientists. Currently, the history of the most ancient chronicles is presented in the following form. Oral historical legends existed long before chronicle writing; With the advent of writing, individual records of historical events probably appeared, but chronicle writing as a genre appears, apparently, only during the reign of Yaroslav the Wise (1019-1054). At this time, Rus', which had adopted Christianity, began to be burdened by Byzantine church tutelage and sought to justify its right to church independence, since Byzantium was inclined to consider the states in the Christianization of which it took one or another part as the spiritual flock of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and sought to turn them into its vassals and politically. It was precisely this that Yaroslav resolutely opposed, installing the Russian Metropolitan Hilarion in Kyiv in 1051 and seeking the canonization of the first Russian saints - princes Boris and Gleb. These actions were supposed to strengthen the church, as well as the political independence of Rus' from Byzantium, and raise the authority of the young Slavic state. Kyiv scribes argued that the history of Rus' is similar to the history of other Christian states. It also had its own Christian ascetics, who tried to encourage the people to accept the new faith by personal example: Princess Olga was baptized in Constantinople and convinced her son Svyatoslav to also become a Christian. Rus' also had its own martyrs, for example, a Varangian and his son, who were torn to pieces by a crowd of pagans for refusing to sacrifice to the pagan gods. They also had their own saints - princes Boris and Gleb, who were killed on the orders of their brother Svyatopolk, but who did not break the Christian covenants of brotherly love and obedience to their elders. Rus' also had its own “equal to the apostles” prince Vladimir, who baptized his people and thereby became equal to Constantine the Great, the emperor who declared Christianity the state religion of Byzantium. To substantiate this idea, as suggested by D.S. Likhachev, a set of legends about the emergence of Christianity in Rus' was compiled. It included stories about the baptism and death of Olga, a story about the Christian Varangians, a story about the baptism of Rus', a story about princes Boris and Gleb, and, finally, extensive praise for Yaroslav the Wise (reflected in article 1037 of the “Tale of Bygone Years” ). All six of these works reveal, according to D.S. Likhachev, “their belonging to the same hand... the closest relationship between each other: compositional, stylistic and ideological.” This set of articles (D.S. Likhachev conventionally called it “The Legend of the Spread of Christianity in Rus'”) could have been compiled in the first half of the 40s. XI century scribes of the Kyiv Metropolis. The next stage in the development of Russian chronicles occurred in the 60-70s. XI century A. A. Shakhmatov connected him with the activities of the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nikon. The scientist was based on the following observation. Nikon, who labored in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, after a quarrel with Prince Izyaslav, fled to distant Tmutorokan (a principality on the eastern shore of the Kerch Strait), and returned to Kiev again only in 1074. A. A. Shakhmatov noted that the exact dates in chronicles seem to “accompany” Nikon: in chronicle articles for the 60s. there is no exact dating of the events in Kiev and in Rus', but it contains (with indications of the day when the event took place) information about what happened in Tmutorokan: how Prince Gleb, who came here, was expelled by Rostislav Vladimirovich and how Rostislav himself was poisoned by a certain kotopan (Greek -priest). Perhaps, in the same chronicle, stories about the first Russian princes - Oleg, Igor, Olga - were added to the legends about the spread of Christianity in Rus'. At the same time, another version of the same event could have been inserted into the story of Vladimir’s baptism, according to which Vladimir was baptized not in Kyiv, but in Korsun; finally, Nikon (if he was the compiler of this code) probably introduced into the chronicle a legend according to which the family of Russian princes occupying the grand princely throne in Kiev goes back not to Igor, but to the Varangian prince Rurik, summoned by the Novgorodians. At the same time, Rurik is declared the father of Igor, and the Kiev prince Oleg is turned by the chronicler into a governor, first of Rurik, and after his death - of Igor. This legend had its own important political and ideological meaning. Firstly, in the Middle Ages, a foreigner was often declared the ancestor of the ruling dynasty: this removed (as it seemed to the creators of such legends) the question of seniority and priority among local clans. Secondly, the recognition that the Kyiv princes descended from a prince called by the Slavs in order to establish “order” in Rus' should have given the current Kyiv princes greater authority. Thirdly, the legend turned all Russian princes into “brothers” and asserted the legitimacy of only one princely family - the Rurikovichs. In conditions feudal relations none of these calculations of the chronicler were destined to come true, but the legend of the “calling of the Varangians” was introduced into the circle of fundamental ideas of Russian medieval historiography; many centuries later, it will be resurrected and raised to the shield by the “Normanists”, supporters of the foreign origin of Russian statehood. Researchers also believe that it was from the 60s. The chronicle narrative is given the characteristic form of weather (i.e., organized by year, “annual”) articles, which, as already said, the Russian chronicle is fundamentally different from the Byzantine chronicles. "Initial vault". Around 1095, a new chronicle code was created, which A. A. Shakhmatov proposed to call the “Initial Code.” A. A. Shakhmatov convincingly showed that the “Initial Code” was preserved as part of the Novgorod 1st Chronicle, although in a somewhat revised form. Therefore, with a high degree of probability, we can isolate from the text of the “Tale of Bygone Years” that has reached us, a chronicle collection created on the basis of the “Initial Code,” the volume of news that still belonged to this “Initial Code.” The compiler of the “Initial Code” continued Nikon’s code, bringing the presentation of events from 1073 to 1095, and gave his presentation in this supplemented part a particularly journalistic character, reproaching the princes for internecine wars, complaining that they do not care about the defense of the Russian land, do not listen to the advice of “sensible husbands”. In addition to Russian sources, the chronicler also used the oldest Russian chronographic compilation - the so-called “Chronograph according to the Great Exposition”, from which he inserted several fragments into the chronicle story: the story of the campaign against Constantinople by Askold and Dir (it is read in the “Tale of Bygone Years” under 866). ), a story about Igor's campaign against Constantinople (under 941) and a story about miraculous signs that happened during the times of the Syrian king Antiochus, the Roman emperor Nero and the Byzantine emperors Justinian, Mauritius and Constantine (under 1065). "The Tale of Bygone Years." At the beginning of the 12th century. (believed to be around 1113) The “Initial Code” was again revised by the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor. Nestor’s work received the name “The Tale of Bygone Years” in science from the first words of its lengthy title: “Behold the tale of bygone (past) years, where the Russian land came from, who began to reign first in Kiev, and where the Russian land began to eat.” Nestor was a scribe with a broad historical outlook and great literary talent: even before working on The Tale of Bygone Years, he wrote The Life of Boris and Gleb and The Life of Theodosius of Pechersk. In The Tale of Bygone Years, Nestor set himself a grandiose task: not only to supplement the “Initial Code” with a description of the events of the turn of the 11th-12th centuries, of which he was a contemporary, but also to rework the story of ancient period history of Rus' - “where the Russian land came from.” Nestor introduces the history of Rus' into the mainstream of world history. He begins his chronicle with an account of the biblical legend about the division of the earth between the sons of Noah. Citing a lengthy list of the peoples of the whole world (extracted by him from the “Chronicle of George Amartol”), Nestor inserts into this list a mention of the Slavs; Elsewhere in the text, the Slavs are identified with the “Norics” - the inhabitants of one of the provinces of the Roman Empire, located on the banks of the Danube. Nestor talks in detail about ancient Slavs , about the territory occupied by individual Slavic tribes, but in particular detail - about the tribes that lived on the territory of Rus', in particular about the “meek and quiet customs” glades, on the land of which the city of Kyiv arose. Nestor clarifies and develops Nikon’s Varangian legend: the Varangian princes Askold and Dir, mentioned in the “Initial Code,” are now declared to be just boyars of Rurik (and “not his tribe”), and it is they who are credited with the campaign against Byzantium during the time of Emperor Michael. Having established from documents (texts of agreements with the Greeks) that Oleg was not Igor’s governor, but an independent prince, Nestor sets out the version according to which Oleg is a relative of Rurik, who reigned during Igor’s childhood. At the same time, Nestor includes in the chronicle some new (compared to the “Initial Code”) folk historical legends, such as the story of Olga’s fourth revenge on the Drevlyans, stories about the duel of a young Kozhemyaki with a Pecheneg hero and about the siege of Belgorod by the Pechenegs (we are talking about them will go below). So, it is to Nestor that “The Tale of Bygone Years” owes its broad historical outlook, the introduction into the chronicle of the facts of world history, against the background of which the history of the Slavs unfolds, and then the history of Rus'. It is Nestor who strengthens and improves the version about the origin of the Russian princely dynasty from the “called” Norman prince. Nestor is an active champion of the ideal of the state structure of Rus', proclaimed by Yaroslav the Wise: all princes are brothers and they all must obey the eldest in their family and occupying the Kiev grand princely table. Thanks to the state view, breadth of outlook and literary talent of Nestor, “The Tale of Bygone Years” was “not just a collection of facts of Russian history and not just a historical and journalistic work related to the urgent but transitory tasks of Russian reality, but an integral, literary history of Rus'” . It is believed that the first edition of The Tale of Bygone Years has not reached us. Its second edition, compiled in 1117 by the abbot of the Vydubitsky monastery (near Kiev) Sylvester, and the third edition, compiled in 1118 by order of Prince Mstislav Vladimirovich, have survived. In the second edition, only the final part of The Tale of Bygone Years was revised; This edition has come down to us as part of the Laurentian Chronicle of 1377, as well as other later chronicles. The third edition, according to a number of researchers, is presented in the Ipatiev Chronicle, the oldest list of which, the Ipatiev Chronicle, dates back to the first quarter of the 15th century. Composition “Tales of Bygone Years”. Let us now consider the composition of “The Tale of Bygone Years” as it appears to us in the Laurentian and Radzivilov Chronicles. The introductory part sets out the biblical legend about the division of the earth between the sons of Noah - Shem, Ham and Japheth - and the legend about the Babylonian pandemonium, which led to the division of the “single race” into 72 nations, each of which has its own language. Having determined that the “language (people) Slovenian” is from the tribe of Japheth, the chronicle further tells about the Slavs, the lands they inhabit, the history and customs of the Slavic tribes. Gradually narrowing the subject of its narrative, the chronicle focuses on the history of the glades and tells about the emergence of Kyiv. Speaking about the ancient times when the Kyiv glades were tributaries of the Khazars, The Tale of Bygone Years proudly notes that now, as was destined for a long time, the Khazars themselves are tributaries of the Kyiv princes. Precise indications of the years begin in the “Tale of Bygone Years” from 852, since from that time, according to the chronicler, Rus' was mentioned in the “Greek chronicle”: this year the Kyiv princes Askold and Dir attacked Constantinople. A chronological calculation is also provided here - a countdown of the years that have passed from one significant event to another. The calculation concludes with a calculation of the years from “the death of Yaroslavl to the death of Svyatopolch” (i.e., from 1054 to 1113), from which it follows that the “Tale of Bygone Years” could not have been compiled earlier than the beginning of the second decade of the 12th century. Further, the chronicle tells about the most important events of the 9th century. - “the calling of the Varangians”, the campaign of Askold and Dir against Byzantium, the conquest of Kyiv by Oleg. The origin story included in the chronicle Slavic charter ends with an important statement for the general concept of “The Tale of Bygone Years” about the identity of the “Slovenian” and Russian languages ​​- another reminder of the place of the Polyans among the Slavic peoples and the Slavs among the peoples of the world. Subsequent chronicle articles tell about Oleg's reign. The chronicler cites the texts of his treaties with Byzantium and folk legends about the prince: a story about his campaign against Constantinople, with spectacular episodes, undoubtedly of a folklore nature (Oleg approaches the walls of the city in boats moving under sails on land, hangs his shield over the gates of Constantinople, "showing victory"). The well-known legend about Oleg’s death is also given here. The sorcerer predicted the prince's death from his beloved horse. Oleg decided: “Nikoli is everywhere, I don’t see him anymore.” However, he later learns that the horse has already died. Oleg laughed at the false prediction and wished to see the bones of the horse. But when the prince stepped on the “forehead” (skull) of the horse, he was stung by a snake that “emerged” from the forehead, fell ill and died. The chronicle episode, as we know, formed the basis of A. S. Pushkin’s ballad “Song of the Prophetic Oleg.” This legend is accompanied by a lengthy extract from the “Chronicle of George Amartol”; a reference to the Byzantine chronicle should confirm that sometimes the prophecies of pagan sages turn out to be prophetic, and therefore the introduction into the chronicle of the story about the death of Oleg predicted by the magi is not reprehensible for a Christian chronicler. Oleg was succeeded on the Kiev “table” by Igor, whom the chronicler considered the son of Rurik. Two campaigns of Igor against Byzantium are reported and the text of the agreement concluded by the Russian prince with the Byzantine emperors-co-rulers: Roman, Constantine and Stephen is given. Igor's death was unexpected and inglorious: on the advice of his squad, he went to the land of the Drevlyans to collect tribute (usually his governor Sveneld collected the tribute). On the way back, the prince suddenly turned to his soldiers: “Go with the house tribute, and I’ll come back with more.” The Drevlyans, having heard that Igor intended to collect tribute a second time, were indignant: “If a wolf (if a wolf gets into the habit) gets into a sheep, then carry out the whole flock, if not kill it, so and so: if we don’t kill it, then we will all be destroyed.” . But Igor did not heed the warning of the Drevlyans and was killed by them. The story of Igor's death in the chronicle is very brief; but in the people's memory there are legends about how Igor's widow, Olga, took revenge on the Drevlyans for the murder of her husband. These legends were reproduced by the chronicler and are read in the “Tale of Bygone Years” in article 945. After the murder of Igor, the Drevlyans sent ambassadors to Olga with an offer to marry their prince Mal. Olga pretended that she “loved” the words of the ambassadors, and ordered them to appear the next day, not on horseback or on foot, but in a very unusual way: by order of the princess, the Kievites were to bring the Drevlyans to the princely court in boats. At the same time, Olga orders a deep hole to be dug near her mansion. When the triumphant Drevlyan ambassadors (they sit in the boat “proudly,” the chronicler emphasizes) were brought into the princely court, Olga ordered them to be thrown together with the boat into a pit. Approaching its edge, the princess asked with a grin: “Are you kind?” “Worse than us (worse for us) are Igor’s deaths,” answered the Drevlyans. And Olga ordered them to be buried alive in a hole. Olga ordered the second embassy, ​​consisting of noble Drevlyan “men,” to be burned in a bathhouse, where the ambassadors were invited to “wash themselves.” Finally, the princess ordered the squad of Drevlyans sent to meet Olga to bring her into the capital of Mala with honor during the funeral feast at Igor’s grave. A careful examination of the legends about how Olga took revenge on the Drevlyans three times reveals symbolic meaning subtext of the legend: each revenge corresponds to one of the elements of the pagan funeral rite. According to the customs of that time, the dead were buried in a boat; a bath was prepared for the deceased, and then his corpse was burned; on the day of burial, a funeral feast was held, accompanied by war games. This story about Olga’s three revenges was already read in the “Initial Code”. Another legend was included in the Tale of Bygone Years - about the fourth revenge of the princess. Having killed the Drevlyan squad, Olga nevertheless could not take their capital - the city of Iskorosten. Then the princess again resorted to cunning. She addressed the besieged, convincing them that she was not going to tax them. heavy tribute, as Igor once did, but asks for an insignificant ransom: three sparrows and three doves per house. The Drevlyans again did not realize Olga’s treachery and readily sent her the required tribute. Then Olga’s warriors, on her orders, tied a “tser” (lit tinder, dried tinder fungus) to the birds’ legs and released them. The birds flew to their nests, and soon the entire city was on fire. People who tried to escape were captured by Olga's soldiers. So, according to legend, the princess avenged her husband’s death. Further, the chronicle tells about Olga’s visit to Constantinople. Olga actually came to Constantinople in 957 and was received by Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus. However, the story of how she “outwitted” (outwitted) the emperor is completely legendary: according to him, Olga was baptized in Constantinople, and Constantine was her godfather. When the emperor invited her to become his wife, Olga objected: “Why do you want to give me water, having baptized me yourself and named me daughter?” The chronicler enthusiastically depicts Igor's son Svyatoslav, his belligerence, chivalrous straightforwardness (he supposedly warned his enemies in advance: “I want to go against you”), and unpretentiousness in everyday life. The chronicle tells about Svyatoslav’s campaigns against Byzantium: he almost reached Constantinople and, having conquered the Balkan countries, intended to move his capital to the Danube, because there, in his words, “there is the middle of the earth,” where all the goods flow - precious metals, expensive fabrics , wine, horses and slaves. But Svyatoslav’s plans were not destined to come true: he died in an ambush of the Pechenegs at the Dnieper rapids. After the death of Svyatoslav, an internecine struggle broke out between his sons - Oleg, Yaropolk and Vladimir. Vladimir emerged victorious, becoming the sole ruler of Rus' in 980. In the section of The Tale of Bygone Years, dedicated to the reign of Vladimir, the theme of the baptism of Rus' occupies a large place. The chronicle reads the so-called “Philosopher’s Speech,” with which a Greek missionary allegedly addressed Vladimir, convincing the prince to accept Christianity. “The Philosopher’s Speech” was of great importance for the ancient Russian reader. educational value- it briefly outlined the entire “sacred history” and communicated the basic principles of the Christian faith. Various folk legends were grouped around the name of Vladimir. They were also reflected in the chronicle - in memories of the generosity of the prince, his crowded feasts, where almost all the warriors were invited, about the exploits of unknown heroes who lived during the time of this prince - about the victory of the Kozhemyaki youth over the Pecheneg hero or about the elder, with his wisdom liberated the city of Belgorod from the Pecheneg siege. These legends will be discussed below. After the death of Vladimir in 1015, internecine struggle broke out again between his sons. Svyatopolk is the son of Yaropolk and a captive nun, whom Vladimir, having killed his brother, made his wife, killed his half-brothers Boris and Gleb. The chronicle reads a short story about the fate of the martyred princes, about the struggle of Yaroslav Vladimirovich with Svyatopolk, which ended in the latter’s military defeat and terrible divine retribution. When Svyatopolk was defeated in battle. turned to flight, a demon “attacked” him, “and weakened his bones, making him unable to mount a horse.” It seems to Svyatopolk that a pursuit is following him, he hurries his warriors, who carry him on a stretcher. “Driven by God’s wrath,” Svyatopolk dies in the “desert” (in a remote, uninhabited place) between Poland and the Czech Republic, and from his graves, according to the chronicle, “emanates... the stench of evil.” The chronicler takes the opportunity to emphasize that terrible death Svyatopolka should serve as a warning to the Russian princes, to protect them from renewed fratricidal strife. This idea will be heard from the pages of the chronicle more than once: both in the story of the death of Yaroslav, and in the description of the strife among his sons in the 70s. XI century, and in the story about the blinding of the Terebovl prince Vasilko by his blood brothers - David and Svyatopolk. In 1037, the chronicle tells about the construction activities of Yaroslav (in particular, about the laying of the famous St. Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv, fortress walls with the Golden Gate, etc.) and his love of books is glorified: the prince “is diligent in books and reveres them (them) often night and day.” On his orders, numerous scribes translated books from Greek “into Slovenian (i.e. Russian) writing.” Of great importance is the dying will of Yaroslav, placed in Article 1054, who called on his sons to live in peace, to take care of the land of “their father and grandfather,” which they acquired “through their great labor,” and to obey the eldest in the family - the Kyiv prince. Weather records in The Tale of Bygone Years alternate with stories and messages, sometimes only indirectly related to political history Rus', to which, strictly speaking, the chronicle should be dedicated. Thus, article 1051 contains a lengthy story about the founding of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery. This topic will be continued in the “Tale of Bygone Years” and further: the article of 1074 tells about the death of the abbot of this monastery, Theodosius, and gives episodes of the ascetic life in the monastery of Theodosius himself and other monks; Article 1091 describes the transfer of the relics of Theodosius and praises the saint. In the article of 1068, in connection with the Polovtsian invasion of Rus', the chronicler discusses the causes of the disasters of the Russian land and explains the “finding of foreigners” by divine punishment for sins. Article 1071 reads a story about an uprising led by the Magi in the Rostov land; The chronicler talks about the machinations of demons and cites two more stories, thematically related to the previous one: about a Novgorodian who told fortunes to a magician, and about the appearance of a sorcerer in Novgorod. In 1093, the Russian princes were defeated by the Polovtsians. This event was the reason for the chronicler’s new reasoning about why God is “punishing the Russian land”, why “crying has spread throughout all the streets.” There is a dramatic description of the suffering of Russian captives who wander, driven to a foreign land, “sad, tormented, cordoned off in winter (suffering from the cold), in greed, and in thirst, and in trouble,” saying to each other with tears: “Az beg this city.” , “Yaz sowing all (villages)...” This article, as mentioned above, may have ended the Initial Code. Last decade XI century was full of stormy events. After internecine wars, the instigator and indispensable participant of which was Oleg Svyatoslavich (“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” calls him Oleg Gorislavlich), the princes gathered in 1097 in Lyubech for a congress, at which they decided from now on to live in peace and friendship, to hold their father’s possessions and do not encroach on other people's inheritances. However, immediately after the congress, a new atrocity was committed: the Volyn prince Davyd Igorevich convinced the Kyiv prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavich that the Terebovl prince Vasilko was plotting against them. Svyatopolk and Davyd lured Vasilko to Kyiv, captured him and gouged out his eyes. This event shocked all the princes: Vladimir Monomakh, according to the chronicler, complained that such evil did not exist in Rus' “neither under our grandfathers, nor under our fathers.” In article 1097 we find a detailed story about the dramatic fate of Vasilko Terebovlsky; it was probably written specifically for the chronicle and was fully included in it. We do not know exactly what the final part of The Tale of Bygone Years in the second edition looked like. In the Laurentian Chronicle, the text of the article of 1110 is artificially cut off: the record of the chronicler Sylvester follows immediately the story of a miraculous sign in the Pechersk Monastery, which is considered as the appearance of an angel; at the same time, in the Ipatiev Chronicle, following the description of the sign, one reads a discussion about angels, which, undoubtedly, was included in the original text of the article of 1110, i.e., it should have been present in the text of the second edition of The Tale of Bygone Years. In addition, it is unknown whether article 1110 was the last in this edition: after all, Sylvester’s postscript states that he wrote “books and chroniclers” in 1116. The question of the relationship between the second edition of The Tale of Bygone Years and the third edition remains controversial , as well as the exact text that ended the second edition of the Tale. Types of chronicle narration. A review of the composition “The Tale of Bygone Years” confirms the complexity of its composition and the diversity of its components, both in origin and genre. The Tale, in addition to brief weather records, also included texts of documents, retellings of folklore legends, and plot stories, and excerpts from monuments of translated literature. We will find in it a theological treatise - “the speech of a philosopher”, and a hagiographic story about Boris and Gleb, and patericon legends about the Kiev-Pechersk monks, and a church eulogy for Theodosius of Pechersk, and a casual story about a Novgorodian who went to tell fortunes to a magician . The nature of the chronicle genre is very complex; the chronicle is one of the “unifying genres” that subordinates the genres of its components - a historical story, a life, a teaching, a word of praise, etc. And yet, the chronicle remains an integral work that can be studied as a monument of one genre, as a monument of literature. In the Tale of Bygone Years, as in any other chronicle, two types of narration can be distinguished - actual weather records and chronicle stories. Weather records contain messages about events, while chronicle stories offer descriptions their. In a chronicle story, the author strives to depict an event, provide certain specific details, reproduce the dialogues of the characters, in a word, help the reader imagine what is happening, evoke his empathy. Thus, in the story about the youth who fled from Kyiv besieged by the Pechenegs in order to convey the request of Princess Olga to Voivode Pretich, not only the very fact of transmitting the message is mentioned, but precisely is told about How a youth ran through the Pecheneg camp with a bridle in his hand, asking about the supposedly missing horse (at the same time, important detail that the boy could speak Pechenezh), about how, having reached the banks of the Dnieper, he “overthrew the ports” and threw himself into the water, how Pretich’s warriors swam out to meet him in a boat; Pretich’s dialogue with the Pecheneg prince was also conveyed. This is a story, and not a brief weather record, such as: “Svyatoslav defeated the Vyatichi and laid tribute on them,” or “Tsarina Anna of Volodymyr died,” or “Mstislav went to Yaroslav from the kozary and from the kasoga,” etc. At the same time, the chronicle stories themselves belong to two types, largely determined by their origin. Some stories tell about events contemporary to the chronicler, others - about events that took place long before the chronicle was compiled; these are oral epic legends, only later included in the chronicle. Such epic legends are usually distinguished by their entertaining plot: the events they narrate are significant or amazing, the heroes of such stories are distinguished by extraordinary strength, wisdom or cunning. In almost every such story there is an effect of surprise. The plot of the story about the young man-kozhemyak (in article 992) is also built on surprise. The Pecheneg prince, who was at war with Russia, suggested that Vladimir send a warrior from his army who would measure his strength with the Pecheneg hero. Nobody dares to take on the challenge. Vladimir is saddened, but then a certain “old husband” appears to him and offers to send for his youngest son. The young man, according to the old man, is very strong: “Since childhood, no one hit him with it” (that is, threw him to the ground). Once, the father recalls, the son, angry with him, “pretored the worm with his hands” (he tore the skin with his hands, which he was crumpling at that moment: the father and son were tanners). The young man is called to Vladimir, and he shows the prince his strength - he grabs the side of a bull running past and tears out “the skin from the meat, as big as a hare’s hand.” But nevertheless, the young man is “average in body”, and therefore the Pecheneg hero who came out to duel with him is “very great and terrible” - laughs at his opponent. Here (as in the story of Olga’s revenge), a surprise awaits the negative hero; the reader knows about the strength of the young man and triumphs when he “strangles” the leather meat with the hands of the Pecheneg hero. In another story, it is not strength that triumphs, but cunning. An article from 997 tells how the Pechenegs besieged the town of Belgorod (south of Kyiv) and hoped that the townspeople were about to surrender: a “great famine” began in the city. And indeed, at the meeting, the townspeople came to the decision to open the gates to the enemy: “Who to live, who to kill,” people decide, otherwise, death by starvation is inevitable. But some unknown old man offers a way out. On his advice, they dig two wells, into which they place tubs with “tsezh” (the mash from which jelly is made) and “full” - honey diluted with water. Then they invite Pecheneg ambassadors to the city and tell them: “Why are you ruining yourself? If you can get past us? (Can you outlast us?) Even if you stand in 10 years, what can you do for us? We have more to feed from the earth.” The ambassadors, seeing the “wonderful wells,” were amazed and convinced their princes to lift the siege from the city. Epic style in the chronicle. Similar stories in the chronicle are united by a special, epic style of depicting reality. This concept reflects, first of all, the narrator’s approach to the subject of the image, his author’s position, and not just purely language features presentation. Such stories are characterized by an entertaining plot, the namelessness of the characters (a young man from Kozhemyak, an old man from Belgorod, a Kiev resident who went to the governor Pretich to inform about Olga’s decision - in the story about the siege of Kiev in article 968), short but lively dialogues; despite the general brevity of the description, some important detail for the development of the plot stands out (a bridle in the boy’s hand, a detailed description of how “wonderful” wells were built in the story about Belgorod jelly). In each such story, in the center there is one event, one episode, and it is this episode that constitutes the characterization of the hero and highlights his main, memorable feature; Oleg (in the story about the campaign against Constantinople) is, first of all, a wise and brave warrior, the hero of the story about Belgorod jelly is a nameless old man, but his wisdom, which at the last moment saved the city besieged by the Pechenegs, is the characteristic feature that won him immortality in people's memory. Epic stories are characteristic primarily of the “Tale of Bygone Years”, more closely than other chronicles associated with the folk epic; in subsequent chronicles they are found much less frequently. Another group of stories was compiled by the chronicler himself or his contemporaries. It is distinguished by a different style of narration; it does not have an elegant completeness of the plot, there is no epic laconicism and generalization of the images of the heroes. These stories, at the same time, can be more psychological, more realistic, and literary, since the chronicler strives not just to tell about the event, but to present it in such a way as to make a certain impression on the reader, to force him to relate to the characters in the story in one way or another. Among similar stories within the Tale of Bygone Years, the story about the blinding of Vasilko Terebovlsky (in article 1097) especially stands out. To show exactly how the chronicler achieves an artistic, emotional impact on the reader, let's look at two episodes from this story. The Kiev prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, succumbing to the persuasion of the Volyn prince Davyd Igorevich, invites Vasilko to come to him in order to imprison and blind him. Vasilko, not knowing the reprisal awaiting him, arrives at the “prince’s court.” Davyd and Svyatopolk lead the guest into the “istba” (hut). Svyatopolk persuades Vasilko to stay for a while, and Davyd, who is present at this conversation, “sits as if mute”: he himself slandered Vasilko and in his soul he is afraid of his own malice. When Svyatopolk left the “source”, Vasilko spoke to Davyd, but “there was no voice or obedience in Davyd” (he seemed to not hear what they were saying to him, and could not answer; this is a very rare example for the ancient Russian narrative of the older era, when the author conveys the state of mind of the interlocutor in such an unconventional way). But then Davyd comes out of the hut, and the prince’s servants rush in. The chronicler describes in detail the ensuing struggle: in order to hold back the strong and desperately resisting Vasilko, they throw him to the floor, press him with a board taken from the stove, sit on it, so that the defeated Vasilko’s chest “cracks.” The blinding itself is described in equal detail: it is entrusted to the “shepherd,” and thus the reader is prompted to compare Vasilko with an uncomplaining sheep being led to slaughter. All these details help the reader to visualize the terrible scene of the reprisal against the slandered Vasilko and convince the reader that Vladimir Monomakh was right in opposing Svyatopolk and Davyd. Researchers often turn to another, no less expressive scene from the same story. The blinded and wounded Vasilko is being transported on a cart. He's unconscious. Those accompanying him (apparently Davyd’s “youths”) take off his bloody shirt and give it to the priests of the village where they stopped for lunch to wash. Popadya, having washed his shirt, comes to Vasilko and begins to mourn him, thinking that he is already dead. Vasilko “very clearly (heard) crying, and said: “Where am I?” They (the accompanying ones) told him: “In the city of Zvizhden.” And ask for water, and they give it to him, and drink the water, and enter into the soul, and mention yourself, and touch the shirt and say: “Why in the world did they take it off me? May I accept death in that bloody shirt and stand before God.” This episode is told in such detail, with such specific details that this scene once again evokes memories of the terrible fate of the slandered prince, evokes sympathy for him, and his expressed desire to appear before God “in that bloody shirt” seems to remind of inevitable retribution, serves a journalistic justification for the completely “earthly” actions of the princes who went to war against Davyd Igorevich in order to restore Vasilko’s rights to the inheritance taken from him. Thus, together with the chronicle narrative, a special genre subordinate to the chronicle begins to form - the genre of the story of princely crimes. The socio-political significance of these stories was so great that the authors, apparently, were strongly concerned about the perfection of their literary form, which would make the story emotionally expressive and would certainly justify the position of the side that acted in such stories as an exposer of the crime committed. The style of monumental historicism in the chronicle. If the chronicle stories dating back to folklore legends were characterized by a special epic style, then the predominant and all-encompassing style in the chronicles of the 11th-12th centuries, as well as in all the literature of this period, is the style of monumental historicism. This style reveals the desire of ancient Russian scribes to judge everything from the point of view of the general meaning and goals of human existence. Therefore, the authors of the XI-XIII centuries. They strive to depict only the largest and most significant. The style of monumental historicism is characterized primarily by the desire to view the subject of the image from great distances: spatial, temporal, hierarchical. This is a style within which everything that is most significant and beautiful appears monumental, majestic, and is perceived as if from a bird’s eye view. Chroniclers (as well as authors of lives or words of praise and teachings) look at the world as if from a great distance. During this period, panoramic vision was developed, the desire to combine various geographical points remote from each other in the presentation. In the chronicles, the action is transferred from one place to another, located at the opposite end of the Russian land. The story about events in Novgorod is replaced by a story about events in Vladimir or Kyiv, then events in Smolensk or Galich are mentioned, etc. This feature of the chronicle narrative is explained not only by the fact that the chronicle usually combines various sources, sometimes written in various points of the Russian land. This feature corresponds to the spirit of the narrative of that time. It is inherent not only in the chronicle, but also in the “Teaching” of Vladimir Monomakh, and the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon, and the lives of Boris and Gleb, and “words” or teachings. At the same time, monumentalism of the 11th-13th centuries. has one sharply peculiar feature that distinguishes it from ours modern ideas about the monumental as inert, heavy, motionless. Monumentalism in ancient Russian literature was associated with completely opposite qualities, in particular with the speed of movement over large geographical spaces. The heroes of the works make transitions, move with their squads from one city to another, from one principality to the neighboring one. The historicism of the monumental style was expressed in a special passion for the historical theme. Old Russian writers sought to write not about fictional things, but about what happened historically, and when they described something fantastic (for example, miracles), they themselves, for the most part, believed in them and tried to convince readers that certain events happened in reality. The literature of that time does not know (or, more precisely, it believes that it does not know) either fictional persons or fictional events. In addition, the scribes tried to connect every historical event or character with other, equally historical events or persons - to recall the prince’s ancestors, his “fathers” and “grandfathers”, to compare the hero or event with similar heroes or events known to them from Byzantine chronicles or biblical books, look for and find analogies for everything that happened in this huge world, united in its basic laws. Literary etiquette in the chronicle. At the same time, the literature of this time was distinguished by its ceremonial nature. This manifested itself quite clearly in the phenomenon that D. S. Likhachev called literary etiquette. Literary etiquette, as it were, determines the tasks of literature, its themes, the principles of constructing plots and, finally, the visual means themselves, highlighting the circle of the most preferable figures of speech, images, and metaphors. The concept of literary etiquette is based on the idea of ​​an unshakable and ordered world, where for each person there is a special standard of behavior. Literature must accordingly affirm and demonstrate this static, normative world. This means that its subject should primarily be the depiction of normative situations: if a chronicle is written, then the focus is on descriptions of the prince’s accession to the throne, battles, diplomatic actions, the death and burial of the prince. Moreover, in this last case, a unique summary of his life is summed up, summarized in the necrological description. Similarly, the lives must necessarily tell about the childhood of the saint, about his path to asceticism, about his traditional (precisely traditional, almost obligatory for every saint) virtues, about the miracles he performed during life and after death, etc. At the same time Each of these situations, in which the hero of the chronicle or life most clearly appears in his official position as a prince or saint, should have been depicted in similar, traditional speech patterns: about the parents of the saint it was necessarily said that they were pious, about the child - the future saint - that he shunned games with peers, the battle was narrated in traditional formulas such as: “and the slaughter of evil came,” “some were cut down, and others were caught” (i.e., some were chopped up with swords, others were captured), etc. Etiquette permeates the chronicle narrative, especially in that part of it that is designed in the style of monumental historicism. In these cases, the chronicler selects for his narration only the most important events and deeds of national significance. Of course, if we demand from the style and indispensable observance of certain linguistic features (i.e., stylistic devices themselves), then it turns out that not every line of the chronicle will be an illustration of the style of monumental historicism. Firstly, because various phenomena of reality - and the chronicle could not help but correlate with it - could not fit into a pre-conceived scheme of etiquette situations, and therefore we find the most striking manifestation of this style only in the description of precisely these situations: in the image the arrival of the prince “on the table” or his appearance on a campaign, in the description of battles, in obituary characteristics, etc. d. Secondly, because in the chronicle, along with articles compiled by the chronicler in the style of monumental historicism, we find weather records and folk legends , which are characterized by a different epic style discussed above, and everyday stories. In the style of monumental historicism, for example, the events of the time of Yaroslav the Wise and his son Vsevolod are presented. Suffice it to recall the description of the battle on Alta, which brought Yaroslav victory over the “cursed” Svyatopolk, the killer of Boris and Gleb (in the Tale of Bygone Years, 1019). Svyatopolk came to the battlefield “in heavy strength,” Yaroslav also gathered “a multitude of howls, and went out against him to Lto.” Before the battle, Yaroslav prays to God and his murdered brothers, asking them for help “against this nasty murderer and proud man.” And so the troops moved towards each other, “and covered the Letetskoye field with a multitude of howls.” At dawn (“with the rising sun”) “there was a slaughter of evil, as it was not in Rus', and I was cut by the hands, and stepped three times, as if across the valleys (valleys, hollows) of my mother-in-law’s blood.” By evening, Yaroslav won, and Svyatopolk fled. Yaroslav ascended the Kiev throne, “wiped off his sweat with his retinue, showing victory and great labor.” Everything in this story is intended to emphasize the historical significance of the battle: an indication of the large number of troops, and details indicating the ferocity of the battle, and the pathetic ending - Yaroslav solemnly ascends to the Kiev throne, which he won through military labor and the struggle for a “just cause.” But it can be noted that what we have before us is not so much an eyewitness account of a specific battle, but rather a skillful combination of traditional plot motifs and speech formulas, which described other battles in the same “Tale of Bygone Years” and subsequent chronicles: the phrase “slaughter of evil” is traditional, the ending is traditional, telling who “overcame” and who “ran”; Usually for the chronicle narrative, an indication of the large number of troops, and even the formulas “as if by the share of the mother-in-law’s blood” or “wiped away the sweat, showing victory and great labor” are found in descriptions of other battles. In a word, we have before us one of the examples of etiquette depiction of a battle. The obituary characteristics of the princes are created with special care in The Tale of Bygone Years. For example, according to the chronicler (in article 1093), Prince Vsevolod Yaroslavich was “mockishly loving of God, loving the truth, providing for the poor (caring for the unfortunate and poor), giving honor to the bishop and presbytery (priests), loving the monks and giving their demands (required) by them.” This type of chronicle obituary will be used more than once by chroniclers of the 12th and subsequent centuries. The use of literary formulas prescribed by literary etiquette gave the chronicle text a special artistic flavor: not the effect of surprise, but, on the contrary, the expectation of meeting the familiar, the familiar, expressed in a polished, tradition-sanctified form. This same technique is well known to folklore - let us remember the traditional plots of epics, triple repetitions of plot situations in them, constant epithets and similar etiquette artistic means. The style of monumental historicism and its inherent literary etiquette, therefore, is not evidence of limited artistic possibilities, but, on the contrary, evidence of a deep awareness of the role of the poetic word. But at the same time, this style naturally constrained the freedom of plot narration, since it sought to unify and express various life situations in the same speech formulas and plot motifs. The combination of monumental historicism and epic styles in The Tale of Bygone Years created its unique literary appearance, and its stylistic influence will be clearly felt for several centuries: chroniclers will begin to apply or vary those literary formulas that were first used by the creators of the Tale of Bygone Years, imitate the characteristics present in it, and sometimes even quote the “Tale”, introducing fragments from this monument into your text. The Tale of Bygone Years has retained its aesthetic charm to this day, eloquently testifying to the literary skill of ancient Russian chroniclers. "The Tale of Bygone Years" of the second edition was included in the chronicle collection beginning of XIII V. (which has not reached us), to which the Radzivilovskaya and Moscow Academic Chronicles go back, and through the code of 1305 (also not preserved) - entered the Laurentian Chronicle, rewritten in 1377 in Nizhny Novgorod for Prince Dmitry Konstantinovich, and in the chronicle codes compiled at the court of the Grand Dukes of Moscow and Moscow Metropolitans. The oldest of such codes that reached modern times was the Trinity Chronicle of 1408; in 1812 it burned down, but the published part of its text, as well as extracts made from this chronicle by N. M. Karamzin, allow us to judge that the text of the “Tale of Bygone Years” in the Trinity Chronicle was very close to the one we we know from the Laurentian Chronicle. In all-Russian chronicles of the 15th century. the text of the “Tale of Bygone Years” turns out to be supplemented by fragments from the Novgorod chronicles, in which, as mentioned above, the text of the “Initial Code” was preserved. “The Tale of Bygone Years” with certain changes - abbreviations or additions - begins with almost all Russian chronicle collections of the 15th-16th centuries. . South Russian chronicle of the 12th century. The Tale of Bygone Years brought the narrative up to the first decade of the 12th century. During this century, chronicle writing continued in various Russian principalities. However, these chronicles have not survived, and we know about them only from later chronicles, where they were included partially or completely. We learn about southern Russian chronicles, for example, from the so-called Kyiv Chronicle. This conventional name is given by researchers to the articles of the Ipatiev Chronicle, which describe events from 1117 to the end of the 12th century. . This part of the chronicle, believed to have been edited at the end of the 12th century. the abbot of the Vydubitsky monastery (near Kiev) Moses, is a collection that used the Kyiv grand-ducal chronicles, the chronicle of Pereyaslavl the Russian, the family chronicle of the Rostislavichs - the descendants of Prince Rostislav Mstislavich, the grandson of Vladimir Monomakh. If the chroniclers of the 11th century. sought to comprehend the events of their time against the background of the previous centuries-old history of Rus', then the southern Russian chroniclers of the 12th century. completely immersed in the description of the turbulent life of their principalities and destinies. In the Kyiv Chronicle, we meet primarily not with stories and epic legends, but with weather records - sometimes brief, sometimes very detailed and detailed, but nevertheless not possessing an integral composition, without which a chronicle story is unthinkable. The only exceptions to this general trend are stories about princely crimes: the story about the murder of Igor Olgovich under 1147, the story about the perjury of Vladimir Galitsky under 1140-1150, the story about the murder of Andrei Bogolyubsky under 1175; The story about Igor Svyatoslavich’s campaign against the Polovtsians in 1185 also has a completeness of plot. Let us dwell, as an example, on the story about the murder of Andrei Bogolyubsky. A short (and, according to most scholars, the original) version of this story is found in the Laurentian Chronicle; the story based on it in the Ipatiev Chronicle is more detailed and has high artistic merit. It is possible that the compiler of this narrative was Kuzmische Kiyanin, an eyewitness to the tragic events. At the beginning of the story, there is a lengthy account of Andrei's piety, his generosity, the temples built at his command and their luxurious decoration. This exposition should raise the authority of the prince in the eyes of the reader, leading to the idea that his murder is not only an act of cruelty and treachery, but also reprisal against a righteous man pleasing to God. As prescribed by the hagiographical canon, the story emphasizes that Andrei “heard the enemy’s murder in advance,” but this only aroused religious zeal in him. Then the author proceeds to a direct story about the events of 1175. The leader of the conspiracy was a certain Yakim, the “beloved servant” of the prince. Like ferocious animals, the conspirators rushed to the prince’s “bedroom”. However, they are overcome by fear, they go into the medusha (pantry) and drink wine, hoping that the hops will give them courage. “Soton will cheer (them) in the medush and serve them invisibly, keeping up and strengthening,” says the chronicler, hinting that the murder is committed at the instigation of the devil and under his direct supervision. Then the conspirators approach the door of the lien and call out to the prince: “Mister! Sir! The prince realizes that it is not Procopius behind the doors (apparently one of the prince’s servants), whom one of the conspirators pretends to be. Realizing that they have been exposed, the killers break down the doors and break into the lodge. The prince wants to grab the sword, but it turns out that the sword was stolen in advance. A fierce struggle ensues - the prince is strong and fiercely resists, the conspirators “slash and (his) swords and sabers, and give him spear wounds.” Taking advantage of the fact that the conspirators came out, carrying out their comrade who was injured in the battle, Andrei also leaves the lodge and hides under the entryway. But the killers look for him following the traces of blood on the steps and kill him. The prince's corpse was thrown on the ground near the porch, his palace was plundered. Seeing this, Kuzmische with an angry reproach turns to one of the conspirators - the housekeeper Ambala, asks him to give him a carpet to cover the body of the murdered man, and reminds: “Do you remember... in which suits (in what clothes) he came to fight? Now you are standing in oxamite (oxamite is expensive silk fabric), and the prince is lying naked.” The story about the murder of Andrei Bogolyubsky combines purely etiquette moments (for example, references to the intervention of the devil, a mention that the prince knew about the impending assassination attempt in advance, monologues that the prince pronounces in the most tense moments - in the face of the murderers) with vivid, life-like details and episodes : it is enough to recall the conversation between the prince and the conspirators through the locked door of the lien, or final scene, when Kuzmische Kiyanin denounces the housekeeper Ambala. This is a combination of “purely everyday manner” and “ real story with an abundance of everyday details and lively dialogues” is largely the result of the processing that the story of the Laurentian Chronicle, compiled in a book style, underwent under the pen of Kuzmishch Kiyanin, whom researchers, not without reason, consider to be the author of the version included in the Ipatiev Chronicle. However, there are few such stories in the Kyiv Chronicle. The main part of it is occupied by weather articles, very lengthy, reporting in detail on the diplomatic and state activities of the princes, numerous armed conflicts, etc. However, in this detailed listing of facts and events, there is no attempt to create complete plot stories. For the Kyiv Chronicle, especially starting from the articles of the 40s. XII century, the chroniclers’ special predilection for external, stylistic devices, characteristic of the style of monumental historicism: traditional etiquette descriptions of battles, stereotypical descriptions of the burials of princes and their necrological characteristics are constantly found here. However, in general, the Kyiv Chronicle lacks the compositional harmony that was characteristic of The Tale of Bygone Years. Chronicle of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' XII V. Since the middle of the 12th century. The role of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality in all-Russian affairs is becoming more and more noticeable. The military and political activity of this “outside land” in the recent past could not but influence the revival of ideological life. In place of brief records, which are believed to have been kept since the beginning of the 12th century. in Rostov and Vladimir, chronicle collections arrive. These vaults themselves have not reached us, but are reflected in later chronicles. Comparison of them made it possible to establish that the Vladimir chronicle code of the end of the 12th century. preserved as part of the Laurentian Chronicle, and the arch of the early 13th century. - in the Radzivilov and Moscow Academic Chronicles, as well as in the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl of Suzdal. The Vladimir chronicle sought to establish the authority of its principality and substantiate its claims to political and church hegemony in Rus'. That is why the Vladimir chronicles were not limited to describing local events, but presented a broad picture of the history of the entire Russian land. South Russian events were presented mainly according to the chronicles of Pereyaslavl South, with which the Vladimir princes had strong political ties. The chroniclers of the Vladimir Code of the late 12th century, reflected in the Laurentian Chronicle, constantly insert moralizing and pious reasoning into their narrative, emphasizing that their principality was under the patronage of the patronal icon - Our Lady of Vladimir and the patronal church - the Assumption of Our Lady, where this icon was located; It is the people of Vladimir who are glorified by God throughout the entire earth “for their truth.” Vladimir princes, according to the chroniclers, are full of piety and wisdom, their obituary characteristics are solemnly pompous, peppered with quotations from the Holy Scriptures. The arch of the early 13th century, reflected in the Radzivilov Chronicle, has a somewhat different character. According to the observations of M.D. Priselkov, its compiler “belonged to the number of reformers of the chronicle language”: he systematically replaced outdated words and turns, striving to create a “modern and understandable” syllable. In addition, he omitted from the narrative what he considered insignificant news, for example, information about the installations and deaths of some bishops, about the deaths and burials of princesses and princesses; when indicating the days when the described events took place, he omitted information about the saints who were revered on those days, etc. Dating back to the arch of the early 13th century. The Radzivilov Chronicle contains more than 600 miniatures (colored drawings), which illustrate the text of the “Tale of Bygone Years” and the Vladimir Chronicle of the 12th century. , it is possible that the vault of the early 13th century was already illustrated. and miniatures of the Radzivilov Chronicle - copies of his miniatures. Novgorod chronicle of the 12th century. The Novgorod chronicle has a completely different character. According to the hypothesis of D. S. Likhachev, after the political coup of 1136, as a result of which the prince was evicted outside the city and Novgorod turned into a boyar republic, the opening Novgorod chronicle collection “The Tale of Bygone Years” was replaced by the “Initial Code”, which was distinguished by its anti-princely spirit , which corresponded to the political mood in Novgorod at that time. The chronicles of the 12th century, which continued this new, revised beginning of the story about the first centuries of the existence of Rus', differed very significantly from the contemporary southern Russian or Vladimir-Suzdal. First of all, it was emphasized locally: Novgorod chroniclers rarely and sparingly speak about all-Russian events or events in other Russian lands. Absent from the Novgorod Chronicle was also church rhetoric, which, as was said, distinguished the chronicles of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus'. For example, if the chroniclers there, speaking about any unusual celestial phenomena or natural disasters, necessarily sought to interpret them in the spirit of the church worldview, seeing in them either a punishment “for sins”, or a formidable or good omen, then the Novgorod chroniclers are laconic and businesslike: about the hurricane that happened in 1125, the chronicle reports: “In the same summer there was a great storm with thunder and hail, and the mansions of Razdir, and from the shrines (churches) floods (vault coverings) of Razdir, herds of cattle drowned in Volkhov, and others only two pereimasha are alive,” about the famine in 1127 it is said: “And in the fall, kill the frost, eat (here: spring bread) all and ozimitsa (winter crops), and would famine and ceres winter (all winter), rye osminka for half a hryvnia.” The Novgorod chronicle of this time is distinguished by its unartificial style (here we will hardly find etiquette formulas in the spirit of monumental historicism, so characteristic of southern Russian chronicles), democratic language, which has preserved much dialect words and reflecting the peculiarities of local Novgorod pronunciation. The older Novgorod chronicles were reflected in the so-called First Novgorod Chronicle in its two editions (editions). The older edition is represented by the Synodal List of the XIII-XIV centuries. (unfortunately, defective - without beginning). This is the oldest manuscript with chronicle text that has reached us. The oldest copies of the Novgorod First Chronicle of the younger edition date back to the middle of the 15th century. . The Novgorod chronicle for a long time remained isolated from the chronicle of other Russian lands, until in the 15th century. Novgorod vaults will not be used as one of the sources for the new all-Russian chronicle vault. However, it was the Novgorod First Chronicle that preserved in its composition the most interesting literary monument (possibly of Kyiv origin) - the story of the capture of Constantinople (Constantinople) by the “fryags” (crusaders) in 1204, during the fourth crusade. Compiled by an eyewitness to the events (or from the words of an eyewitness), this story is the first Russian detailed report on the events in Byzantium, while the warrior turned out to be well aware of the political background of the events and competently outlined all the circumstances of the siege, capture and plunder of Constantinople.

“The Tale of Bygone Years” is a collection, and therefore we will not find ideas here that cover all annual articles without exception. And yet, it is possible to highlight several points to which the compilers of the “Tale” turn again and again. A whole series of information included in the chronicle has a pronounced anti-Byzantine orientation. The idea of ​​independence from Byzantium, after the conversion of Rus' to Christianity, which probably expressed some claims not only to church leadership, but also to secular vassalage, according to researchers, was one of the central ones in the code of Nikon the Great. It was precisely in defiance of Byzantium that stories about the campaigns against Constantinople by Igor, Svyatoslav and especially Oleg, who demonstratively hung his shield on the gates of the Byzantine capital, could appear in the Russian chronicle.

Describing any contacts between Russian princes and the Byzantines, the chronicler is most concerned about how not to undermine the authority of the Slavic rulers. In any situation, he invariably portrays them not as modest supplicants, but as equal partners, often superior in intelligence and ingenuity to the prim Byzantine basileus. For example, according to the chronicle story, Princess Olga, who went to Constantinople, allegedly told the ruling Constantine Porphyrogenitus there “if you want to baptize me...”, thereby turning the matter around as if it was not she who came to ask for baptism, but the emperor who was very much seeking it. In his further narration, the chronicler will not forget to mention the godname of the Slavic princess - Elena, “like the ancient queen, mother of the Great Constantine,” and the fact that it was Olga, who had barely managed to be baptized, who reminded the Byzantine ruler who wanted to marry her while his wife was alive about Christian custom, according to for whom marriage between god-relatives is impossible. The author did not forget to include in his narrative a kind of recognition by the emperor of Olga’s moral superiority, as well as a memory of how, having arrived in Kiev, the decisive princess sent unsalted Byzantine messengers, asking them to remind the emperor of how disrespectfully they treated the Kyiv embassy in Constantinople.

Anti-Byzantine sentiments were also reflected in a unique way in those articles of the chronicle that talk about Vladimir’s adoption of Christianity. It seems that the author is doing everything possible to belittle the role of Byzantium in this event. According to the chronicle, before accepting faith from the Greeks, the Kiev prince listens to the messenger of several religions, then sends a special embassy to Europe. The chronicler carefully emphasizes the special honors that were given to the Russians in Constantinople.

To top it all off, the chronicle sets out the so-called “Korsun Legend”. In this episode, the tone of the dialogue conducted by the chronicle Vladimir with the Byzantine brother emperors is especially indicative, since it is not about baptism at all, but about a wedding. Having captured the largest Greek colony in the Northern Black Sea region, Chersonese, the steppe pagan, who previously would not have been taken seriously in the Byzantine capital, asks for anything. On the contrary, he threatens the rulers of the empire with a new campaign against Constantinople and demands their sister, the porphyry princess Anna, as his wife. In these negotiations, with a significant flavor of blackmail, baptism turns out to be a concession to which Vladimir agrees, meeting the Byzantine rulers halfway. The legend ends with one more detail designed to elevate Vladimir above the Greeks: as a “vena” - the bride price required according to Slavic customs - the cunning Kiev prince gives the Byzantines the city of Korsun captured from them, thus managing to observe the customs and not go bankrupt too much.

And finally, most likely, it was precisely to spite Byzantium that the legend about the walk of the Apostle Andrew ended up in the Tale of Bygone Years. It seems that the search for a worthy heavenly patron for Rus' seriously occupied the compilers of the first Russian chronicles; at least, they included in their narrative a legend of Moravian origin about Slavic letters, where Paul is named the teacher of Rus'. However, this was not enough for later editors, and in the text of the chronicle there appears a story about Andrew, the apostle from the twelve and, most importantly, the heavenly patron of Byzantium. And it doesn’t matter that this story from a historical point of view looks more than doubtful: it is completely incomprehensible why the apostle, who, if you believe his biography, never went further than the Scythians, had to go so deep into the wilds of the Dnieper forests that were absolutely deserted in the middle of the 1st century AD. And the very description of the legendary path “from the Varangians to the Greeks” is given in the chronicle through the eyes of a person located somewhere in the center of the Central Russian plain, in the “Okovsky Forest”. But the churches of the two powers could now consider themselves equal in status.

Another constant concern of the compilers of The Tale of Bygone Years was the description, assessment of the actions and justification of the legitimacy of the power of the ruling Rurik dynasty. This is explained not only by the fact that the chronicle was created in monasteries closely associated with the grand princely throne (Kievo-Pechersk and Vydubitsky), and apparently had the status of an official state document - it’s just that the very idea of ​​​​Slavic statehood was associated with princely power in the 12th century . Let me remind you that in the title of the “Tale” the question of the origin of Rus' and the emergence of princely power in it are put side by side.

The degree of reliability of the information provided by 12th-century chroniclers about the first Russian princes can be assessed in different ways. Most likely, narrating the events of two hundred to three hundred years ago and relying largely on the material of oral legends, ancient historiographers did not recreate the material appearance of historical figures, but recorded princely portraits as they appeared in the popular consciousness. Another thing is certain: despite the fact that the chronicle was compiled and edited mainly by monastics, in the descriptions of the Kiev rulers it is often not Christian, but rather princely virtues that come to the fore - military valor, the ability to strengthen the power of the country, subjugating the surrounding peoples to it, the ability to go out with honor from difficult diplomatic situations. The compilers of the chronicle equally endow both the ancient pagan princes and the Christian rulers who replaced them with these qualities.

Genre originality of "The Tale of Bygone Years"

Unlike folklore, which is not characterized by a mixture of different genres within one work, "The Tale of Bygone Years" was set of primary genre formations. The ensemble of the chronicle included legends and tales, tales and military stories, teachings and parables, signs and wonders.

The simplest and oldest form of chronicle narration was the weather record, which recorded isolated facts of history. Its main features are documentary accuracy, extreme laconicism, lack of emotional overtones and author's commentary. The message was introduced into the chronicle narrative using traditional formulas: " In the summer6596 . The church of St. Michael of the Vsevolozh monastery is sacred... Same summer Svyatopolk went from Novgorod to Turov to reign. It's summer Nikon, abbot of Pechersk, died. Same summer took the Bulgarians Murom."

NS claimed to be “literary”, pursuing an informative goal, and a chronicle story, which, unlike a weather record, had the character of a detailed documentary message: “In the summer of 6534, Yaroslav bought many wars and came to Kiev, and made peace with his brother Mstislav at Gorodets. And "The Russian land was divided along the Dnieper: Yaroslav came to this country, and Mstislav came to it. And they began to live peacefully and in brotherly love, and strife and rebellion ceased, and there was great silence in the land." Written in the fresh wake of the event, the chronicle message retained lively intonations oral history and reflected the author’s assessment of what happened.

The chronicle tales in the “Tale of Bygone Years” are a literary adaptation of an oral source to which the chronicler turned if there was no more reliable material at hand. They restore the pre-literate period of Russian history on the basis of folk legends, toponymic legends or druzhina heroic epics. These stories in the chronicle are characterized by plot and an attempt by the author to create the illusion of authenticity by enclosing the legendary basis in a “historical frame.”

For example, in the chronicle tale of Oleg’s death from his horse, dates – real and symbolic – serve as a means of documenting the narrative. The chronicler, including the story of Oleg’s death in an article in 912, reports that he “remained for years” in the war with the Greeks, and “all the years of his reign were 33.” The history of the conclusion of a peace treaty between the Greek land and Russia, extracts from the “Chronicle” of George Amartol about cases when the predictions of sorcerers came true - the whole historical context was called upon to testify to the authenticity of the description of the death of the great commander from a snake bite (according to other chronicle versions, he died “going overseas” and was buried in Ladoga). The story reveals the author’s assessment of what is depicted, no matter how dispassionate the narrative may seem. The chronicler's attitude towards the triumphant commander, whose shield adorned the gates of the conquered Constantinople, is ambivalent. On the one hand, he captured the people’s attitude towards Oleg through the nickname “Prophetic”, reflected the “great lament” over his death and the memory of the prince’s burial place on Mount Shchekovitsa, which has survived centuries. On the other hand, respect for Oleg’s military victories fades in the chronicler’s mind in front of the lack of faith of a man who imagined himself invincible against enemies and fate itself, who laughed at the prediction of the Magi and reproached them: “It’s wrong to say the word, but all that is a lie: the horse died, but I'm alive." The horse, according to the ancient beliefs of the Slavs, is a sacred animal, a helper and friend of man, a talisman. Having stepped on the skull of his beloved horse with his foot, Oleg doomed himself to an “evil” death, death-punishment. The reader is warned about the inevitability of a tragic outcome by the opening lines of the story. The chronicler connects the action with the arrival of autumn, which sets the theme of death, and with the period when Oleg lives, “having peace to all countries,” i.e. when a commander’s hundred talents are unclaimed.

Proximity to hagiographic literature discover the stories of the "Tale of Bygone Years" about two Varangian martyrs, about the founding of the Kisvo-Pechersky Monastery and its ascetics, about the transfer of the relics of Saints Boris and Gleb, about the repose of Theodosius of Pechersk. Glorifying the spiritual feat of the first Pechersk saints, who “like the siyahu who shone in the Russian land,” the chronicler cannot hide the shadow sides of monastic life. From the chronicle “word” about Matthew the Seeful, it is known that some of the brethren during church service“having committed any kind of guilt, leaving the church, and going to the cell and saving, and not returning to the church until the funeral service.” Others, like Mikhail Tolbekovich, fled from the monastery, unable to withstand the harsh monastic life. An ancient Russian writer explained these cases of deviation from the norms of Christian piety by the eternal machinations of the devil, who now takes the form of a “Polye” (Pole, Catholic) and, invisible to everyone except the saint, walks around the church, scattering “modelings” - flowers that force the monks to sleep during services, he appears at the monastery in the form of a demon sitting on a pig in order to “delight” those who long to return to the “world.”

With genre funeral words of praise Associated in the chronicle are obituary articles that contain verbal portraits of deceased historical figures. This is the chronicle description of the Tmutarakan prince Rostislav, who was poisoned during a feast by a Byzantine warrior: “Rostislav was a good man for the army, and he grew up with a beautiful face and was merciful to the poor.” A chronicle article from 1089 contains a panegyric to Metropolitan John, who was “cunning in books and learning, merciful to the poor and widows, kind to everyone, to the rich and to the poor, humble in mind and meek, and silent, speaking with holy books, comforting the sad , and such a thing would not have happened before in Rus', nor would it be like this." When creating a portrait of the hero, the chronicler observed the principle of the priority of spiritual beauty over external beauty, paying special attention to the moral qualities of a person.

The landscape sketches found in The Tale of Bygone Years are symbolic. Unusual natural phenomena are interpreted by the chronicler as signs- warnings from above about future disasters or glory. The ancient writer explained the fire in Novgorod not by the internecine struggle of the princes, but by the fact that before that “Volkhovo was destroyed for 5 days. And this sign of evil came quickly: on the 4th summer the whole city burned.” The sign of 1113, when “little was left of the sun, like the moon with its horns down,” also foreshadowed trouble - the death of Prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavich and the uprising in Kyiv.

In the depths of the "Tale of Bygone Years" begins to form war story. Elements of this genre formation are already present in the story about Yaroslav’s revenge on Svyatopolk the Accursed. The chronicler describes the gathering of troops and the march, the preparation for the battle of opponents separated by the Dnieper, the climax - “the slaughter of the evil one” - and the flight of Svyatopolk. Stylistic formulas typical for a military story permeate the chronicle story about the battle of Yaroslav with Mstislav in 1024: “Mstislav, in the evening, killed his squad, and put the north [northerners] in front of the Varangians, and he himself stood with his squad against the wings.<...>And Mstislav said to his squad: “Let’s go to it.” And Mstislav and Yaroslav went against... And the slaughter was strong, like shining and shining weapons, and the thunderstorm was great and the slaughter was strong and terrible.”

The mosaic structure of the chronicle led to the fact that under one year it contained messages of very different content. For example, a chronicle article from 1103 told about the princely congress in Dolobsk, about the locust invasion, about the founding of the city of Yuryev by Prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, about the battle of the Russian army with the Mordovians. What makes such a “mosaic” historical information into a coherent and harmonious literary whole?

First of all this unity of thematic range: before us are individual milestones in the history of Rus'. In addition, the presentation of the material regulates weather principle: the strict attachment of each fact to a specific year connects the links into a single chain. It should be taken into account that the compiler of the “Tale” used the medieval system of chronology, in which the starting point was the “creation of the world” (to translate into the modern system, where calculation is carried out from the Nativity of Christ, it is necessary to subtract 5508 from the chronicle date). The chronicler’s desire to “put the numbers in a row,” i.e. to present the material he selected in a strict time sequence, according to scientists, is associated with such characteristic features of the social life of the Middle Ages as “decency” and “orderliness.” The ancients saw beauty and harmony in maintaining order, while disruption of the usual rhythm in the life of nature, society, and literature was perceived by them as a manifestation of the ugly and immoral. The chronological connection of events in the chronicle was reinforced by genealogy - the idea of ​​succession of power of the Rurikovichs. The chronicler is always attentive to what kind of “grandfather’s” glory the ruler of Rus' inherits, whether he is a descendant of Oleg Gorislavich or belongs to the family of Vladimir Monomakh.

The weather principle of reporting events also had certain costs. By condensing disparate news into one year, the chronicler was forced to break the unity of the narrative series in the story of an event that lasted several years: under one year there was a story about the gathering of the Russian army on a campaign, under another there was a description of the decisive battle, under the third there was the text of a peace treaty. Fragmentation in the presentation of historical events hindered the development of Russian fiction, entertaining and action-packed stories. The structure of "The Tale of Bygone Years" is characterized by a confrontation between two trends: the desire for isolation, independence of each chronicle story, on the one hand, and the opportunity to "open" the narrative, stringing new works on a single chronological core historical topic- with another.

"The Tale of Bygone Years" is a collection in the broadest sense of the word; a monument that combines works of different times, different authors, having different sources and political orientation, differing in genre and style. It cements the monumental but harmonious edifice of the chronicle, despite the heterogeneity of the events described in it, common historical theme products of terms and chronological principle of organizing material in the vault. The main ideas of the chronicle are the idea of ​​​​the independence of Rus', the assertion of superiority Christian faith over paganism, the inseparability of Russian history from the general historical process, a call for unity of action, for the conciliarity of the spirit of the Russian people.

The significance of "The Tale of Bygone Years" in the history of Russian chronicles

The presentation began with "The Tale of Bygone Years" national history the next generations of Russian chroniclers. Already in the 12th century. The geography of chronicle writing is expanding, and differences are emerging between specific chronicle collections. For example, scientists consider the distinctive features of the Novgorod chronicle to be anti-princely in orientation, since Novgorod, after the political coup of 1136, turned into a boyar republic, as well as the rarity and sparsity of messages of a general Russian nature. Unlike the Vladimir-Suzdal chroniclers, the Novgorodians avoided church rhetoric; The style of their weather articles is concise and matter-of-fact. If they were depicting a natural disaster, they would provide information about the severity of the hurricane or flood and the damage it caused. The Vladimir chronicle sought to substantiate the claims of its principality to church-political hegemony and therefore was attentive to events on both a local and national scale, while the southern Russian chroniclers were absorbed in describing the turbulent history of their destinies. The main form of South Russian chronicles of the 12th century. was a weather record; Only some stories about boyar and princely crimes (about the murder of Andrei Bogolyubsky, 1175) and military stories (about the campaign of Prince Igor Svyatoslavich against the Polovtsians, 1185) retain the action-packed nature of the story.

"The Tale of Bygone Years" had a decisive influence on the formation of regional and all-Russian chronicle collections, which included it in their composition. The oldest copies of the “Tale” are found in the Laurentian (XIV century), Ipatiev and Radzivilov (XV century) chronicles. “The Tale of Bygone Years” served as a source of poetic plots and images for many writers of the New Age: it is enough to recall the historical tragedies of A. P. Sumarokov and Ya. B. Knyazhnin, “Duma” by K. F. Ryleev. Chronicle tales, which A. S. Pushkin valued for the poetry of touching innocence, inspired him to create the historical ballad “Song of the Prophetic Oleg”, the image of Pimen in the tragedy “Boris Godunov”.