The history of the creation of the chronicle of temporary years. "The Tale of Bygone Years

Almost from the very beginning of writing in Rus', chronicles appeared, that is, historical codes, chronicles. In the monasteries, the monks kept Easter, tables on which they calculated what date Easter would be, all the holidays and fasts that moved along with the Easter day. In the free cells of these tables, or in the wide margins, the monks often wrote down some brief historical information that marked this year - or a remark about the weather of this year, or some unusual phenomenon. For example: “Prince Vasily of Kostroma died”, or “melt winter”, “dead (rainy) summer”; sometimes, if nothing special happened that year, it was written: “there was silence,” that is, there was no war, no fire, or other disasters, or: “nothing happened.”

Tale of Bygone Years

Sometimes, instead of such brief notes, whole stories were inserted, especially interesting because they were written by contemporaries or even eyewitnesses of the event. So, little by little, historical chronicles were compiled - chronicles - first in the form of notes on Easter tables, later - in the form of independent chronicles.

At the beginning of the 12th century, a remarkable historical and literary work called "The Tale of Bygone Years" was written in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. Here is its full title: "This is the story of temporary (past) years, where did the Russian land come from, who in Kiev began first to reign, and where did the Russian land come from."

Who wrote The Tale of Bygone Years is not exactly known. At first they thought that its author was the same Rev. Nestor who wrote the life of the Rev. Feodosia. Rev. Nestor undoubtedly kept a chronicle - in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery there are the relics of two Nestors: the "chronicler" and another, Nestor "non-bookish", named so in contrast to the first. Undoubtedly, some of the works of Rev. Nestor became part of the Tale, so, for example, his entire life of St. Theodosius. But at the end of the Tale there is a postscript: “Hegumen Sylvester of St. Michael (of a monastery near Kyiv) wrote books and a chronicler.”

Some scholars suggest that hegumen Sylvester was only a copyist of the Tale, and not the author, perhaps he supplemented it. In those days, scribes often put their name at the end of the manuscript they copied.

So, the name of the author is not exactly established. In any case, he was a spiritual man, deeply religious and very well-read and educated. It can be seen that for compiling the Tale, he used many chronicles (Novgorod and early Kiev), lives, legends, teachings and Greek chronicles, from where, for example, trade agreements between our first princes and Byzantium were taken.

The story of the Tale begins with the Flood. It is about the Babylonian pandemonium, about the division of languages. One of these "languages", from the "Afetov tribe", was the "Slovenian language", that is, the Slavic people.

The author then tells about the settlement of the Slavs on the Danube, about their resettlement from there in different directions. The Slavs who went up the Dnieper and to the north were our ancestors. Everything that we know about the ancient Slavic tribes, about Drevlyans, clearings, northerners, - about their customs, mores, about the beginning of the Russian state and about our first princes - we know all this from the Tale of Bygone Years and should be especially grateful to its author, who laid the foundation for Russian history.

The composition of the Tale includes many ancient tales, traditions and legends. For example, a legend is told about the preaching of the Apostle Andrew on the shores of the Black Sea (which the author calls the "Russian" sea), that the Apostle Andrew went up the Dnieper to the place where Kiev was later founded, hoisted a cross on the mountains of Kiev and predicted that in this place "the grace of God will shine." The story about the founding of Kyiv speaks of the legendary princes Kyi, Schek and Khoriv and their sister Lybid, but the author does not pass off their existence as a historical fact, but tells it as a legend.

A fateful event for Rus', the development of its culture and literacy was the creation of the Slavic alphabet by Cyril and Methodius in 863. The chronicle tells about it this way: the Russian princes turned to the Byzantine tsar Michael with a request to send them teachers who "could tell about book words and their meaning." The tsar sent them "skillful philosophers" Cyril (Konstantin) and Methodius. “When these brothers came, they began to compose the Slavic alphabet and translated the Apostle and the Gospel. And the Slavs were glad that they heard about the greatness of God in their own language.

Further events are transmitted with greater certainty. Bright, colorful characteristics of the ancient princes are given: for example, Prince Oleg. It tells about his campaign against Constantinople with episodes of a folklore character (Oleg approaches the walls of the city in boats moving under sail on land, hangs his shield over the gates of Constantinople).

Prince Oleg nails his shield to the gates of Constantinople. Engraving by F. Bruni, 1839

Here is the legend about the death of Oleg. The sorcerer (pagan priest) predicted the prince's death from his beloved horse. Oleg doubted this prophecy, wished to see the bones of the deceased horse, but a snake crawling out of the skull stung him. This chronicle episode formed the basis of the ballad A. S. Pushkin « Song about the prophetic Oleg».

The story goes on about Princess Olga, who was "the wisest of all people", about her son, Prince Svyatoslav. Despite the fact that he was a pagan and did not want to adopt Christianity, following the example of his mother, the author speaks rather sympathetically about his directness, well-known nobility, famous words - “I’m coming at you”, with which he warned his enemies about the attack.

But the author considers the baptism of Rus' to be the most important event in Russian life and dwells on it in particular detail. Talking about the holy prince Vladimir, he speaks of the enormous change that took place in his character with the adoption of Christianity.

The Tale also includes the life of St. princes Boris and Gleb, written by Jacob Mnich (ch. 10th). The author speaks with great sympathy and respect about Prince Yaroslav the Wise. The story "The Tale" was brought to the year 1110.

There are continuations of this annalistic code, which were kept in different monasteries and therefore bore the names of different cities: Kiev, Volyn, Suzdal chronicles. One of the Novgorod chronicles, Joakimov's, which has not come down to us, is considered even older than the Tale of Bygone Years.

But in the Tale there is one quality that belongs only to her: it was written before the division of Rus' into destinies, the author looks at the Slavs as one whole people, does not give any local imprint to her story. That is why The Tale of Bygone Years can rightly be called an all-Russian, all-Russian chronicle.

For more than 900 years, Russians have been drawing information about their history from the famous Tale of Bygone Years, the exact date of which is still unknown. There is also much controversy about the authorship of this work.

A few words about myths and historical facts

Scientific postulates often change over time, but if in the field of physics, chemistry, biology or astronomy such scientific revolutions are based on the discovery of new facts, then history has been rewritten more than once to please the authorities or according to the dominant ideology. Fortunately, a modern person has a lot of opportunities to independently find and compare facts regarding events that occurred many centuries and even millennia ago, as well as get acquainted with the point of view of scientists who do not adhere to traditional views. All of the above applies to such an important document for understanding the history of Russia as The Tale of Bygone Years, the year of creation and authorship of which have recently been questioned by some members of the scientific community.

"The Tale of Bygone Years": authorship

From the Tale of Bygone Years itself, one can only learn about its creator that at the end of the 11th century he lived in the Pechora Monastery. In particular, there is a record of the Polovtsian attack on this monastery in 1096, which was witnessed by the chronicler himself. In addition, the document mentions the death of Elder Jan, who helped write the historical work, and indicates that the death of this monk occurred in 1106, which means that at that time the person who made the record was alive.

Russian official science, including Soviet, since the time of Peter the Great believes that the author of the story "The Tale of Bygone Years" is the chronicler Nestor. The oldest historical document that refers to it is the famous one written in the 20s of the 15th century. This work includes in a separate chapter the text of The Tale of Bygone Years, which is preceded by a mention as its author of a certain black-bearer from the Pechersk Monastery. The name of Nestor is first found in the correspondence of the monk Polycarp of the Caves with Archimandrite Akindin. The same fact is confirmed by the "Life of St. Anthony", compiled on the basis of oral monastic traditions.

Nestor the Chronicler

The “official” author of the story “The Tale of Bygone Years” was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church, so you can read about him in the lives of the saints. From these sources we learn that the Monk Nestor was born in Kyiv in the 1050s. At the age of seventeen, he entered the Kiev Caves Monastery, where he was a novice of the Monk Theodosius. At a fairly young age, Nestor took the tonsure, and later he was ordained a hierodeacon. He spent his whole life in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra: here he wrote not only The Tale of Bygone Years, the year of creation of which is not known for certain, but also the famous lives of the holy princes Gleb and Boris, as well as a work telling about the first ascetics of his monastery. Church sources also indicate that Nestor, who had reached a ripe old age, died around 1114.

What does "The Tale of Bygone Years" tell about?

“The Tale of Bygone Years” is the history of our country, covering a huge time period, incredibly rich in various events. The manuscript begins with a story about one of which - Japheth - went to manage such lands as Armenia, Britain, Scythia, Dalmatia, Ionia, Illyria, Macedonia, Media, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, Thessaly and others. The brothers began the construction of the Pillar of Babylon, but the angry Lord not only destroyed this structure, which personifies human pride, but also divided the people “into 70 and 2 nations”, among which were the Norics, the progenitors of the Slavs, descended from the sons of Japheth. Further, the Apostle Andrew is mentioned, who predicted that a Great City would appear on the banks of the Dnieper, which happened when Kyiv was founded with the brothers Shchek and Khoriv. Another important mention concerns the year 862, when “Chud, Slovene, Krivichi and all” went to the Varangians to call them to reign, and the three brothers Rurik, Truvor and Sineus with their families and close associates came at their call. Two of the alien boyars - Askold and Dir - asked to leave Novgorod for Tsargrad and, seeing Kyiv on the way, stayed there. Further, The Tale of Bygone Years, the year of the creation of which historians have yet to clarify, tells about the reign of Oleg and Igor and tells the story of the baptism of Rus'. The story ends with the events of 1117.

"The Tale of Bygone Years": the history of the study of this work

The Nestor Chronicle became known after Peter the Great in 1715 ordered a copy to be made from the Radzivilov list stored in the library of Koenigsberg. Documents have been preserved confirming that Jacob Bruce, a person remarkable in all respects, drew the attention of the tsar to this manuscript. He also handed over the transcription of the Radzivilov list into modern language, which was going to write the history of Russia. In addition, such well-known scientists as A. Shleptser, P. M. Stroev and A. A. Shakhmatov were engaged in the study of the story.

Chronicler Nestor. “The Tale of Bygone Years”: the opinion of A. A. Shakhmatov

A new look at The Tale of Bygone Years was proposed at the beginning of the 20th century. Its author was A. A. Shakhmatov, who proposed and substantiated the “new history” of this work. In particular, he argued that in 1039 in Kyiv, on the basis of Byzantine chronicles and local folklore, the Kiev code was created, which can be considered the oldest document of this kind in Rus'. Approximately at the same time in Novgorod it was written It was on the basis of these two works in 1073 that Nestor first created the first Kiev-Pechersk Code, then the second, and finally the Tale of Bygone Years.

Was The Tale of Bygone Years written by a Russian monk or a Scottish prince?

The last two decades have been rich in all sorts of historical sensations. However, in fairness, it must be said that some of them have not found scientific confirmation. For example, today there is an opinion that the Tale of Bygone Years, whose year of creation is known only approximately, was actually written not between 1110 and 1118, but six centuries later. In any case, even official historians admit that the Radzivilov list, that is, a copy of the manuscript, the authorship of which is attributed to Nestor, was made in the 15th century and then decorated with numerous miniatures. Moreover, Tatishchev wrote the “History of Russia” not even from him, but from a retelling of this work into the language of his day, the author of which, perhaps, was Jacob Bruce himself, the great-great-grandson of King Robert the First of Scotland. But this theory does not have any serious justification.

What is the main essence of Nestor's work

Experts who hold an unofficial view of the work attributed to Nestor the Chronicler believe that it was necessary to justify autocracy as the only form of government in Russia. Moreover, it was this manuscript that put an end to the question of the rejection of the "old gods", pointing to Christianity as the only correct religion. This was its main essence.

“The Tale of Bygone Years” is the only work that tells the canonical version of the baptism of Rus', all the rest simply refer to it. This alone should make one study it very closely. And yet it is the “Tale of Bygone Years”, the characteristic of which is now being questioned in official historiography, is the first source telling that the Russian sovereigns descended from the Rurikovich. For each historical work, the date of creation is very important. The Tale of Bygone Years, which is of exceptional importance for Russian historiography, does not have one. More precisely, at the moment there are no irrefutable facts that allow us to indicate even a specific year of its writing. And this means that new discoveries are ahead, which, perhaps, can shed light on some dark pages in the history of our country.

According to the generally accepted hypothesis - "The Tale of Bygone Years" was created on the basis of the chronicles preceding it at the beginning of the 12th century. monk of the Kiev Caves Monastery Nestor (p. 149, Introduction of Christianity in Rus', Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, edited by Professor A.D. Sukhov, M., Thought, 1987). And one can agree with this statement that the hypothesis is generally accepted, since it wanders from book to book, from textbook to textbook, becoming by today a statement “by itself”, that is, not requiring any proof. So B.A. Rybakov (“The World of History”, M, “Young Guard”, 1987) in particular writes:
"Checking the tendentiously selected arguments of the Normanists, one should pay attention to the fact that tendentiousness appeared in our sources themselves, dating back to Nestor's Tale of Bygone Years." (p.15)
Thus, Nestor's authorship is confirmed by each new book and each new academic authority.

For the first time about the authorship of Nestor in domestic science, V.N. Tatishchev:
"We have a considerable number of Russian stories under different names of different times and circumstances ... there are three common or general ones, namely:
1) Nestorov Vremennik, which is laid as a foundation here. "(Russian History. Part 1, V)
Following him, N.M. Karamzin:
"Nestor, as a monk of the Kievskopechersky Monastery, nicknamed the father of Russian History, lived in the 11th century." (p.22, History of the Russian State, vol. 1, M. “Slog”, 1994)

More detailed information on this subject is given by V.O. Klyuchevsky:
"The story about the events of that time, preserved in the ancient chronicles, was formerly called the Chronicle of Nestor, and now it is more often called the Primary Chronicle. If you want to read the Primary Chronicle in its most ancient composition, take its Laurentian or Ipatiev list. The Laurentian list is the most ancient from the surviving lists of the all-Russian annals.It was written in 1377 by "the thin, unworthy and sinful servant of God Mnich Lavrentiy" for the Prince of Suzdal Dmitry Konstantinovich, father-in-law of Dmitry Donskoy, and was then kept in the Nativity Monastery in the city of Vladimer on the Klyazma.
The story from the middle of the 9th century to 1110 inclusive according to these two lists is the oldest form in which the Primary Chronicle has come down to us.
Nestor, who wrote the chronicle, is mentioned by the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Polikarp in his letter to Archimandrite (1224 - 1231) Akindin.
But they did not agree with this statement already in the 15th century, since the Tale of Bygone Years ends with the words:
Hegumen Sylvestor of St. Michael wrote this book, a chronicler, hoping to receive mercy from God, under Prince Vadimir, when he reigned in Kiev, and at that time I was hegumen of St. Michael in 6624 (1116), indiction in the 9th year.
In one of the later vaults, Nikonov, under 1409, the chronicler makes the following remark:
I wrote this not in annoyance, but following the example of the initial Kyiv chronicler, who, regardless (of anyone), tells about all the events in our land; and our first rulers, without anger, allowed to describe everything good and bad that happened in Rus', as under Vladimir Monomakh, without embellishment, the great Sylvestor Vydubitsky described it.
In this remark, an unknown chronicler calls Sylvestor great, which would hardly apply to a simple copyist, albeit a significant work.
Secondly, he calls him a Kyiv chronicler and at the same time hegumen of the Vydubitsky monastery. In 1113, Vladimir Monomakh became the Grand Duke of Kiev, a man with a heart for the fate of the Russian Land, obviously, he instructed Sylvestor in 1114 to bring together the chronicle lists then available in Kiev as a teaching aid for young princes and boyar children.

Thus, by the beginning of the 20th century, two stable versions of the authorship of The Tale of Bygone Years had developed:
1. From a letter from Polycarp to Archimandrite Akindin - Nestor.
2. From the texts of the Laurentian and Nikon chronicles - Sylvester.

At the beginning of the XX century. Shakhmatov A.A., one of the most famous Russian philologists of that time, undertakes to study the authorship of the Tale. (Research on the most ancient Russian chronicles, 1908) which comes to the following conclusion:
"In 1073, the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Nikon the Great, using the "Ancient Kiev code", compiled the "First Kiev-Picher code", in 1113 another monk of the same monastery, Nestor, continued Nikon's work and wrote the "Second Kiev-Pechersk code ". Vladimir Monomakh, having become the Grand Duke of Kiev after the death of Svyatopolk, transferred the chronicle to his patrimonial Vydubitsky monastery. Here hegumen Sylvestor carried out an editorial revision of Nestor's text, highlighting the figure of Vladimir Monamakh. "
According to Shakhmatov, the first edition is completely lost and can only be reconstructed, the second is read according to the Laurentian Chronicle, and the third according to the Ipatiev Chronicle. Later this hypothesis was confirmed by Likhachev (Russian chronicles and their cultural and historical significance, 1947) and Rybakov (Ancient Rus'. Legends. Epics. Chronicles, 1963).

Developing Sylvestor's theory of indirectness in relation to the main text of the Tale, Rybakov writes:
“Vladimir Monomakh seized the chronicle from the rich, illustrious Caves Monastery and handed it over to the hegumen of his court monastery, Sylvestor. this history of revisions and editing was clarified in detail by A. A. Shakhmatov (p. 211, World of History)

After such a statement, to doubt the authorship of Nestor is to cover oneself with the shame of ignorance, and there is no worse thing for a scientist. So this version roams the pages of scientific and popular publications as a scientific canon of academic authority.
But, since doubts about the validity of this theory agitated minds in the 19th century, it would be nice to believe it again, especially since there is every reason to believe it is erroneous.

The history of the Russian Orthodox Church does not know an outstanding church figure with that name in the 12th century (see "Christianity", Reference Book, M., Respublika, 1994), therefore all information about him can only be gleaned from "The Life of Our Reverend Father Theodosius , hegumen of the Pechersk "monk of the same monastery Nestor:
"I remembered this, sinful Nestor, and, having strengthened myself with faith and hoping that everything is possible, if there is God's will, I proceeded to the narration of the Monk Theodosius, the former abbot of this monastery of the holy mistress of our Mother of God..." (1.)

For the first time, Great Nikon is found on the pages of the narrative at the time of the tonsure of Theodosius as a monk:
"Then the elder blessed him (Antony of Pechersk 983-1073) and ordered the great Nikon to tonsure him ..." (15.).

As the Russian Orthodox Church suggests, Theodosius was born c. 1036 ("Christianity"). As indicated in the Life, at the age of 13 he was still at home. Thus, at the earliest he could take the veil as a monk at the age of 14, that is, in 1050. Moreover, Nestor writes about Nikon:
"... That Nikon was a priest and a wise black-bearer" (15.)

The priest is the middle rung of the hierarchical ladder of Orthodox clergy, but does not belong to the monastic rank, at the same time, the Chernoryets is a synonym for the concept of monk, monk. Thus, Nestor defines Nikon as a monk of the middle hierarchical rank, which in monasticism corresponds to the title of abbot, head of the monastery. So, Nikon in 1050 is hegumen of the monastic community founded by Blessed Anthony. Even if we assume that he became abbot, just like Theodosius in 24, and by the time Theodosius arrived, he had been in charge of the monastery for at least a year, then obviously he should have been born c. 1025, that is, 11 years earlier than Theodosius.

Of all the works of Nikon in the field of abbess, Nestor paid attention only to the message about his tonsure as a monk from the prince's house, for which he drew the wrath of Izyaslav. As a result, approx. In 1055 he was forced to leave the monastery and go to Tmutorokan (Toman). After the death of Rostislav in 1066, Prince of Tmutorokan, Nikon returns to the Caves Monastery and, at the request of Theodosius, remains in it. The only phrase from the "Life" that can somehow connect Nikon with the "Tale" is the following:
"The great Nikon used to sit and write books ..." (48.)

Obviously, this remark of Nestor was considered by Chess as a weighty argument in favor of Nikon's authorship, although Nestor also notes another skillful scribe, the monk Hilarion, but for some reason Shakhmatov did not like him, obviously because he was not great, and therefore did not become the author of the famous work .

In 1069, “the great Nikon, seeing the princely strife, withdrew with two Chernorizians to the above-mentioned island, where he had founded a monastery in the past, although Blessed Theodosius begged him many times not to be separated from him while both were alive, and not to leave him. But Nikon did not listen to him ... "(99). Later, from the text of the "Life" it becomes known that he accepted the abbot of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery after the departure of hegumen Stephen (76.), Who was abbot after Theodosius (101.), at least until 1078. No other information about Nikon in no historical literature.

As can be seen from the description of Nestor, Nikon was in Tmutorokan from 1066 to 1078, and it is practically unlikely that he would have time to work on such a serious work as The Tale, which requires a huge amount of auxiliary material, which simply could not be in recent times. built a remote monastery. Therefore, it is completely incomprehensible on what basis Shakhmatov introduces him into the circle of the authors of the Tale, and even during his absence in Kiev, except for the fact that he twice during his life hegumen in the Kiev-Pechersky Monastery, which in itself is not yet a basis for authorship.

It should also be noted that the creation of works of this level, which describes the life of the state elite, is not possible without close cooperation with her, which Nikon could probably only dream of, since he was twice forced to hide from the Grand Duke in the literal sense in the backyards of Russia, and the first time, due to a minor quarrel, about the unauthorized monastic vows of a princely offspring, he had to flee and hide in Tmutorakan for almost ten years. It is hard to imagine that being in such a relationship with the Grand Duke, an ordinary hegumen, who did not show himself in anything special, would take up the creation of such an epic work. Thus, the likelihood that Nikon was somehow involved in writing the Tale is close to zero.

Nikon's non-involvement in the Tale is indirectly confirmed by its text itself. So the "Tale" notes that Theodosius died in 1074, and in 1075 Abbot Stefan begins the construction of the Caves Church. Since, according to Nestor, Nikon again accepted the abbess of the Kiev Caves Monastery after the departure of Stephen, the chronicle, since it was written by Nikon, should have reflected the consecration of the Caves Church as a separate special event, significant for Nikon himself, but no, about the illumination of the church , the construction of which was completed on July 11, 1078, there is not a word under this year. But under 1088, a laconic entry appears: “... Nikon, hegumen of the Caves, died.” (Pay attention to “Nikon”, and not “great Nikon”, as in Nestor). The next year, 1089, an entry appears: “The Church of the Caves was consecrated ...” and then comes an almost page-long text very similar to Nestor’s verbose and ornate style, that is, a year after Nikon’s death.
The improbability of this insert lies in the fact that the church was built in three years and then it is not illuminated for 11 years, that is, it stands inactive in an active monastery. Even by today's standards, this event is difficult to imagine, and by those times it was not at all possible. The deadline for consecration could be 1079, but the logic of presentation in this chronological period is such that it was impossible to insert a verbose ornate insert there and someone (perhaps Nestor) inserts it under 1089, correctly believing that no one will pay attention to this . If the fact of such a delay in the consecration of the church really took place, then Nikon, as the alleged author of the Tale, would certainly have given the reason that prevented him from consecrating her to his abbess.

Shakhmatov names Nestor himself as the second author of the Tale.
For the first time, as noted above, its authorship was confirmed by the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Polycarp (c. 1227), but more than a hundred years later, after writing the Tale, and the letter does not clearly indicate that this particular work is meant . Thus, the connection of Nestor with the "Tale" in this case looks somewhat arbitrary.

In order to confirm or refute this assumption, it is necessary to compare two works “The Life of St. Theodosius", whose authorship is not in doubt, with "The Tale".

Shakhmatov notes that Nestor's authorship is most fully seen in the Laurentian Chronicle. Therefore, we will use the translation of Likhachev, which was made from the Laurentian Chronicle (manuscript of the State Public Library named after M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, code F, item N2).

The manuscript of The Tale of Bygone Years begins with the words: “So let us begin this story.”, and then comes the meaningful text.
The manuscript "Life of St. Theodosius” begins with the words (manuscript of the State Historical Museum in Moscow, Synodal collection N1063 / 4, translated by O.V. Tvorogov): “Lord, bless, father!” and then more than a page of panegyric maxims, and only after that the meaningful text begins.
In the first, both the beginning and the entire text (if we do not consider numerous inserts) are maximally brevity, in the second there are huge panegyric inserts, sometimes obscuring the main text.
A stylistic comparison of both texts relates them to each other as the texts of Tolstoy and Chekhov. If a philologist, picking up the texts of Tolstoy and Chekhov, without a title page is not able to understand whether they belong to one author or two, then this is already at the level of pathology. In psychoanalysis, such a state is defined as the underground - paralysis of the will in front of the sacred taboo. It is impossible to explain this phenomenon otherwise. Shakhmatov, who is considered one of the outstanding domestic philologists, is not able to distinguish Tolstoy from Chekhov by presentation, it is simply impossible to believe in this, especially since another philologist-academician Likhachev echoes him, and, nevertheless, the fact remains neither one nor the other. the other, or anyone at all, does not see this stylistic difference.

Another striking example is the story of the pillar of fire in both works.
In Life we ​​read:
"The Blessed Prince Svyatoslav, who was not far from the monastery of the blessed, suddenly saw a pillar of fire that rose above that monastery to the very sky. And no one else saw only the prince alone ... Our father Theodosius died in the year 6582 (1074) - the month of May on the third day on Saturday, as he himself predicted, after sunrise."
In the "Tale" under the year 1074 we read:
“Theodosius hegumen of the Caves has passed away ...”, and nothing more.

As an argument, the assertion is given that the subsequent fragment of the text, which speaks of an unusual phenomenon, is simply lost. But bad luck, under the year 1110 we read:
"In the same year there was a sign in the Caves Monastery on the 11th day of February: a pillar of fire appeared from earth to heaven, and lightning illuminated the whole earth, and it thundered in the sky at the first hour of the night, and all people saw it. This same pillar first became over the stone refectory, so that the cross was invisible, and after standing a little, he went to the church, and stood over the coffin of Feodosiev, and then went to the top of the church, as if facing east, and then became invisible.

Having read both texts at the same time, only in a completely relaxed state of mind can one say that it was written by the same person at the same time, because to explain how it is possible to confuse the sequence and content of an event in such a way (if you are undoubtedly talented) in two different states, based on Shakhmatov's version, from the point of view of a normally functioning brain, it is not possible. One could still agree with the mistake of the year, but at the same time it is simply not possible to make a mistake in the date, May 3 and February 11. In the "Life" only the prince is a witness, in the "Tale" "all the people." In the "Life" there is only a brief vision, in the "Tale" a detailed, conscientious description of the phenomenon.
If, nevertheless, we continue to follow the generally accepted hypothesis, although it is already clear that it is not consistent, then one more oddity will have to be explained. In the "Tale" all sorts of strange events are recorded quite conscientiously, which sometimes seem completely unbelievable:
"In the year 6571 (1063) ... in Novgorod, the Volkhov flowed in the opposite direction for five days."
In Life we ​​read:
"One night he (one of Izyaslav's boyars) was driving across the field 15 fields (10.6 km) from the monastery of Blessed Theodosius. And suddenly he saw the church under the very clouds." (55.)
It is hard to imagine that describing a similar incident twice in the Life, Nestor forgot to include it in the Tale. But this case, obviously, was not a sufficient argument to refuse the authorship of Nestor.

Then we open the Tale under the year 6576 (1068):
“Izyaslav, seeing (what they want to do) with Vsevolod, fled from the yard, but people freed Vseslav from the cut - on the 15th day of September - and glorified him among the princely court. Izyaslav fled to Poland.
Vseslav was in Kyiv; in this, God showed the power of the cross, because Izyaslav kissed the cross to Vseslav, and then grabbed him: because of this, God brought the filthy ones, but Vseslav obviously delivered the honest cross! For on the day of the exaltation, Vseslav sighed and said: “O cross! honest! Since I believed in you, you delivered me from this dungeon.”
(The Feast of the Exaltation is celebrated on September 14, but on this day Vseslav was still in captivity, so they obviously celebrated it a second time on September 16, combining it with the miraculous release of Vseslav)
The same event in the "Life" is described exactly the opposite:
"... discord began - at the instigation of the evil enemy - among the three princes, blood brothers: two of them went to war against the third, their elder brother, the Christ-lover and truly God-lover Izyaslav. And he was expelled from his capital city, and they came to that city, they sent for our blessed father Theodosius, inviting him to come to them for dinner and join the unrighteous union. One of them sat on the throne of his brother and father, and the other went to his inheritance. Then our father Theodosius, filled with the spirit saint, began to reproach the prince ... "

The most interesting thing about this is that Rybakov (p. 183), who insists on some revisions of the Tale by Vladimir Monomakh, nevertheless adheres to the version of the Tale, and not the Life. But as you can see from the above passages, this is a completely different presentation of the same event. If Nestor's point of view is correct, then why doesn't Rybakov use it in his presentation? If the point of view of the Tale is correct, then Nestor cannot be its author in any way, since this is already beyond any common sense, and it is better to generally consider that the Tale is a complete fiction than to treat it as a collection of “what I want, then I write."

Another oddity that researchers do not pay attention to is the episodes describing the laying of the foundation stone of the Church of the Holy Mother of God in Tmutarakan.
In the Tale, this event is associated with the victory of the Tmutarakan prince Mstislav Vladimirovich in connection with his victory over the Kosozh prince Reded in 1022.
In the Life, Nestor attributes this event to the great Nikon, when he was on the run after 1055.
How can you be so wrong describing the same event at the same time? It just doesn't fit in my head.

So, if we still consider that The Tale of Bygone Years is a serious work and reflects, on the whole, the real picture of the events of that period, then it must be recognized that neither Nikon nor Nestor could be its authors. But then in this case, the only known author is Sylvestor, hegumen of the Vydubitsky monastery in Kyiv.

Only one unresolved question remains - did Vladimir Monomakh correct the Tale of Bygone Years, as Rybakov claims.
To do this, open the "Instruction of Vladimir Monomakh" in Likhachev's translation. By the way, it should be taken into account that the "Instruction" is read only in the Laurentian Chronicle, that is, in conjunction with the "Tale", which is an additional indirect confirmation of Sylvestor's authorship. So, we read:
“Then Svyatoslav sent me to Poland; I followed Glogov to the Czech Forest, and walked in their land for four months. And in the same year my eldest son, Novgorodian, was born. Pereyaslavl, and again to Turov.
The same year 1076 in the Tale:
“Vladimir, the son of Vsevolod, and Oleg, the son of Svyatoslav, went to help the Poles against the Czechs. In the same year, Svyatoslav, the son of Yaroslav, died on the 27th month of December, from cutting the nodule, and was laid in Chernigov, at the Holy Savior. after him on the table (Chernigov) Vsevolod, the month of January on the 1st day.

If this text had been corrected by Vladimir, then the information about Oleg would have been removed from it, since he does not mention this in his “Instruction”, quite possibly for some political or personal reasons. And yet in the "Tale" there remains a text that contradicts the statement of the prince himself.

Another important contradiction of these passages is its dating.
Yaroslav links this campaign with the birth of his first-born Vladimir, the future Prince of Novgorod. According to the Tale, this event took place in 1020. The Tale does not give any campaigns of Yaroslav at that time. If Vladimir corrected the "Tale", then he would have to transfer this event from 1076 to 1020, and correct it stylistically under the "Instruction".

Even more interesting evidence is contained in the description of the next year.
In the Teaching we read:
"Then we went again in the same year with my father and with Izyaslav to Chernigov to fight Boris and defeated Boris and Oleg ..."
"Story":
"In the year 6585 (1077). Izyaslav went with the Poles, and Vsevolod went against him. Boris sat in Chernigov, the 4th day of May, and reigned for eight days, and fled to Tmutorokan to Roman, Vsevolod went against his brother Izyaslav to Volyn; and they created the world, and, having come, Izyaslav sat down in Kiev, the month of July on the 15th day, Oleg, the son of Svyatoslav, was with Vsevolod in Chernigov.

It is absolutely not clear under what conditions these two passages can be considered corrected among themselves, in my opinion, it is probably difficult to think of anything more contradictory. But this is only, in my opinion, in the opinion of modern historical science, these passages are written by one hand.

And further.
In the teaching there is no binding of events to specific dates, all events are described as completely known to readers: this year, this year, next year, etc. Considering that the events described are not presented in chronological order, it is absolutely impossible to understand from the text of the “teaching” what happened after what. Therefore, immediately after the birth of Vladimir in 1020, the notice of the death of Svyatoslav in 1078 follows. What adjustment can we talk about in this case?

So, all doubts about the influence of Vladimir Monomakh on the content of the text of the Tale are dispelled, but one unexplained fact remains. The chronicle ends in 1110, and Sylvestor writes that he finished it in 1116. Why did he miss six whole years in it? The answer to this question can be found in the word "chronicle" and the events that preceded the great reign of Vladimir Monomakh.

All researchers perceive the "Tale" as a chronicle, but in the XI century, educated people who read Greek and Latin books already knew how the chronograph (chronographer) differs from the story. Therefore, the title must be read, as it is written not “The Chronicler of the Russian Princes”, but namely “The Tale of Bygone Years, where did the Russian land come from, who in Kiev first began to reign and how the Russian Land arose.” The story is not a chronicle, and it can be finished when its author decides, unlike the chronicle, the writing of which ends only with the impossibility of writing it further. Thus, the "Tale" is a kind of history textbook for young princes and boyars. And the fact that Selvestor finished this textbook in 1110 only says that those for whom it was intended did not need information after 1110, since it was the present known to them from personal life experience. And yet why 1110 and not 1116? To answer this question, it is necessary to study the events on the eve of the great reign of Vladimir Monomakh.

Beginning in 1096, Vladimir took diplomatic measures to remove his competitors from reigning, which were not characteristic of the princely environment of that time. Preparing for the princely congress, at which he wanted to deprive Oleg of the Chernigov reign, Vladimir is preparing a corresponding speech, and most likely a collection of documents substantiating his claims. But the congress, held at the end of 1097 in the Drevlyansk Lyubich, did not bring him victory. The congress decided: "... let everyone own his patrimony." Preparing for the next congress, Monomakh writes his Teaching. But even this congress, held in Uvetichi in 1100, did not bring Vladimir success, after which he completely abandoned diplomatic receptions and in 1113, taking advantage of the death of Svyatoslav and the Kiev uprising, he became the Grand Duke of Kiev.
It was the princely congress of 1100 that became a turning point in Monomakh's worldview, it was this year that his efforts to collect historical materials ended, but the princely chronicler still continued to keep weather chronicles until his death in 1110 (his name is still unknown). In 1114, Monomakh instructed Sylvestor to put together scattered material on the history of Russian princes, which he actually talentedly did, summarizing the material presented by Vladimir into a single "Tale" for edification and science to young princes. The main goal pursued by Vladimir was the justification of his autocracy and the subordination of the specific principalities to the Grand Duke.
And although Sylvestor knew that he was not writing a chronicle, but a story, he still could not resist comparing himself with a chronicler, although it is quite possible that in his time everyone who took up a pen could call themselves chroniclers.

I wrote this with the mournful hope that the coming times of Russia will restore the glorious name of the Great Sylvester, when the honor of a scientist will be valued more than his title.

The earliest monument of the Russian chronicle is the work "The Tale of Bygone Years". It describes historical events that took place in the period before 1117. At the same time, many experts doubt the authenticity of the document, citing various arguments.

But the Tale ... is undoubtedly a landmark phenomenon both in Russian literature and in the history of the state, allowing you to trace the path of Kievan Rus from the beginning of its formation.

In contact with

The history of the creation of the work

Historians and literary critics agree that the author of this work is the monk Nestor. He lived and worked at the turn of the XI-XII centuries. Although his name appeared as the author in later editions of the chronicle, he is considered the author.

At the same time, experts, calling her herself ancient chronicle, still believe that The Tale of Bygone Years is a literary transcription of more ancient works.

The first edition of the code was written by Nestor in 1113, subsequently there were two more arrangements: in 1116 her rewritten by the monk Sylvester, and in 1118 another unknown author.

Currently the first edition is considered lost, the most ancient version that has come down to us is a copy of the monk Lawrence, made in the XIV century. It was she who was compiled on the basis of the second edition of the chronicle.

Also have Ipatiev copy, written on the basis of the third edition.

He paid the greatest attention to the structure and sources of the chronicle in his studies Academician A.A. Shakhmatov. He substantiated the existence and history of the creation of each of the three versions of the chronicle. He also proved that the work itself is only transcription of older sources.

Main content

This chronicle is major work, which describes the key events that took place from the moment the first came to the period when the work itself was created. Below we consider in detail what this chronicle tells about.

This not a complete work, its structure consists of the following elements:

• historical notes;
• articles describing events for one particular year;
• the lives of the saints;
• teachings from various princes;
• some historical documents.

Attention! The structure of the chronicle is complicated by the fact that in later years additional insertions were made into it in a rather free mode. They break the logic of the overall narrative.

In general, the whole work uses two types of storytelling: these are actually chronicles and weather notes. In the work, the monk seeks to tell about the event itself; in the annual records, he reports on this or that event. Then the author, on the basis of heart notes, writes a chronicle, filling it with colors and details.

Conventionally, the entire chronicle is divided into three large blocks:

1. The formation of Russian statehood from the moment when the first Slavs settled. They are considered to be the descendants of Japheth, and the story begins in biblical times. The same block describes the moment when the Varangians were called to Rus', as well as the period when the process of the baptism of Rus' was established.
2. The second and largest block consists of fairly detailed descriptions activities of the princes of Kievan Rus. It also describes the lives of some saints, the history of Russian heroes and the conquests of Rus';
3. The third block describes the events of numerous wars and campaigns. Here are the obituaries of the princes.

Prophetic Oleg, who, according to the legend of the Tale of Bygone Years, was destined for death from his horse.

The work is enough heterogeneous in structure and presentation, but 16 chapters can be distinguished in the annals. Among the most interesting chapters from a historical point of view, three can be noted: about the Khazars, about Olga's revenge, about the activities of Prince Vladimir. Consider a summary of the work by chapter.

The Slavs encountered the Khazars after they settled and founded Kyiv. Then the people called themselves glades, and three brothers became the founders of Kyiv - Kiy, Shchek and Khoriv. After the Khazars came to the meadows for tribute, they conferred for a long time. In the end, they decided that tribute to the Khazars from each hut will be represented by the sword.

Khazar warriors will return to their tribe with tribute and will boast, but their elders will see such a tribute as a bad sign. Khazars were in circulation sabers A weapon that has a sharp edge on one side only. And the glade applied with swords, a double-edged weapon. And seeing such a weapon, the elders predicted to the prince that tributaries with double-edged weapons would eventually become collect tribute from the Khazars. This is what happened afterwards.

Princess Olga, the wife of Prince Igor, is probably the only woman about whom much is told in the annals. Her story begins with an equally entertaining story about her husband, who, due to greed and excessive collection of tribute, was killed by the Drevlyans. Olga's revenge was terrible. The princess, left alone with her son, became a very profitable match for remarriage. And the Drevlyans themselves, deciding reign in Kyiv, sent matchmakers to her.

First, Olga prepared a trap for matchmakers, and then, having gathered a huge army, went to war against the Drevlyans, to avenge her husband.

Being a very smart and cunning woman, she was not only able to avoid an unwanted marriage, but was also able to completely protect yourself from the revenge of the Drevlyans.

To do this, the princess completely burned the capital of the Drevlyans - Iskorosten, and either killed the Drevlyans themselves or took them and sold them into slavery.

Olga's revenge for her husband's death was truly terrible.

Prince Vladimir became best known for the fact that baptized Rus'. He came to faith not quite voluntarily, for a long time choosing which faith to be in and which god to pray to. And even having chosen, he put all sorts of conditions. But after being baptized, he began to actively preach Christianity in Rus', destroying pagan idols and persecuting those who did not accept the new faith.

The baptism of Rus' is described in great detail. Also, Prince Vladimir is mentioned a lot in connection with his military action against the Pechenegs.

As an example, we can cite the following excerpts from the work:

• This is how Prince Vladimir says that it is necessary to destroy the pagan gods: “If it sticks somewhere, push it with sticks until it carries it through the rapids.”
• And this is how Olga spoke, realizing her plan of revenge on the Drevlyans: “Now you have neither honey nor furs.”

About the baptism of Rus'

Since the chronicle was written by a monk, its content has a lot of references to the Bible and imbued with the spirit of Christianity.

The very moment when Prince Vladimir was baptized is the main one in the annals. In addition, the prince, before being baptized, is described as a person who did not restrain himself in desires, who committed unrighteous actions from the point of view of Christianity.

The moment is also described as it overtakes God's punishment for breaking a vow He was blind and received his sight only after he was baptized.

In the "Tale of Bygone Years", in the chapters that talk about the baptism of Rus', foundations of the Orthodox faith, in particular, it substantiates who or what can be the object of worship.

The chronicle lays the groundwork for the process of the baptism of Rus', saying that only the righteous, who are considered Christians, can go to heaven.

The chronicle also describes the beginning of the spread of the Christian faith in Rus': what exactly was done, what churches were built, how worship was performed, how the structure of the church was organized.

What does the Tale of Bygone Years teach?

"The Tale of Bygone Years" is landmark work for literature and history of Russia. From a literary point of view, this unique historical monument Slavic writing in the chronicle genre, the date of writing of which is considered to be 1113.

The main theme of the chronicle is description of the history of the emergence and development of Rus'. Its author wanted to popularize the idea of ​​the power of the Russian state in that period. Whatever event was described by the monk, he considered each from the point of view of the interests of the entire state, and also evaluated the actions of the characters.

Chronicle as a literary monument important for its role in the teaching of that time. Separate parts of the work served as material for reading for children that time. Until specialized children's literature appeared, children mostly passed through the science of reading by reading chronicles.

The role of this work is also important for historians. There is a certain criticism of the correctness of the presentation and evaluation of some historical events. Many researchers believe that the author of the work was very biased. But all these assessments are made from the point of view of modern man, which can also be biased in judging the chronicler's work.

Attention! Such a presentation made it possible to make the work a source for the creation of many later chronicles, in particular, chronicles of cities.

The Tale of Bygone Years. Prince Oleg. Nestor - chronicler

Tale of Bygone Years - Igor Danilevsky

Conclusion

"The Tale of Bygone Years" is one and first known historical evidence how the Russian statehood developed and established. The role of the work is also important from the point of view of assessing the events that took place in ancient times. What the chronicle teaches, in general, is clear.

"The Tale of Bygone Years" is an outstanding historical and literary monument, reflecting the formation of the ancient Russian state, its political and cultural flourishing, as well as the beginning of the process of feudal fragmentation. Created in the first decades of the 12th century, it has come down to us as part of the annalistic codes of a later time. The oldest of them are the Laurentian Chronicle of 1377, the Ipatiev Chronicle of the 20s of the 15th century, and the First Novgorod Chronicle of the 30s of the 14th century.

In the Laurentian Chronicle, the "Tale of Bygone Years" is continued by the Northern Russian Suzdal Chronicle, brought up to 1305, and the Hypatian Chronicle, in addition to the "Tale of Bygone Years", contains the Kievan and Galician-Volyn chronicles, brought up to 1292. All subsequent chronicle collections of the 15th - 16th centuries. they certainly included The Tale of Bygone Years in their composition, subjecting it to editorial and stylistic revision.

FORMATION OF THE CHRONICLE

Hypothesis of A. A. Shakhmatov

The history of the emergence of the Russian chronicle attracted the attention of more than one generation of Russian scientists, starting with V.N. Tatishchev. However, only A.A. Shakhmatov, an outstanding Russian philologist, at the beginning of this century managed to create the most valuable scientific hypothesis about the composition, sources and editions of The Tale of Bygone Years. When developing his hypothesis, A.A. Shakhmatov brilliantly applied the comparative-historical method of philological study of the text. The results of the research are presented in his works "Research on the most ancient Russian chronicle codes" (St. Petersburg, 1908) and "The Tale of Bygone Years", vol. 1 (Pg., 1916).

In 1039, a metropolis was established in Kyiv - an independent church organization. At the court of the metropolitan, the "Ancient Kiev Code" was created, brought to 1037. This code, assumed A.A. Chess, arose on the basis of Greek translated chronicles and local folklore material. In Novgorod, in 1036, the Novgorod Chronicle was created, on its basis and on the basis of the "Ancient Kyiv Code" in 1050, the "Ancient Novgorod Code" appeared. In 1073, the monk of the Kiev Caves Monastery Nikon the Great, using the "Ancient Kiev Code", compiled the "First Kiev Caves Code", which also included records of historical events that occurred after the death of Yaroslav the Wise (1054). On the basis of the "First Kiev-Pechersk vault" and the "Ancient Novgorod vault" of 1050, it was created in 1095.

"Second Kiev-Pechersk vault", or, as Shakhmatov first called it, "Initial vault". The author of the "Second Kiev-Pechersk code" supplemented his sources with materials from the Greek chronograph, Paremiynik, oral stories of Jan Vyshatich and the life of Anthony of the Caves. The "Second Kiev-Pechersk vault" also served as the basis for "The Tale of Bygone Years", the first edition of which was created in 1113 by the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor, the second edition - by the hegumen of the Vydubitsky Monastery Sylvester in 1116 and the third - by an unknown author - confessor Prince Mstislav Vladimirovich

The first edition of Nestor's Tale of Bygone Years focuses on the historical events of the late 11th - early 12th centuries. devoted to the great prince of Kyiv Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, who died in 1113. Vladimir Monomakh, having become the great prince of Kyiv after the death of Svyatopolk, transferred the keeping of the chronicle to his patrimonial Vydubitsky monastery. Here hegumen Sylvester carried out the editorial revision of Nestor's text, bringing to the fore the figure of Vladimir Monomakh. The text of the first Nestor edition of The Tale of Bygone Years, which has not been preserved, is reconstructed by A. A. Shakhmatov in his work The Tale of Bygone Years (vol. 1). The second edition, according to the scientist, was best preserved by the Laurentian Chronicle, and the third by the Ipatiev Chronicle.

The hypothesis of A. A. Shakhmatov, which so brilliantly restores the history of the origin and development of the initial Russian chronicle, however, remains a hypothesis for the time being. Its main provisions were objected to by V.M. Istrina.

He believed that in 1039, at the court of the Greek Metropolitan, by shortening the chronicle of George Amartol, a "Chronograph according to the Great Presentation" appeared, supplemented by Russian news. Separated from the Chronograph in 1054, they made up the first edition of The Tale of Bygone Years, and the second edition was created by Nestor at the beginning of the second decade of the 12th century.

Hypothesis D.S. Likhachev

Interesting refinements of the hypothesis of A. A. Shakhmatov were made by D. S. Likhachev 1. He rejected the possibility of the existence in 1039 of the "Ancient Kiev code" and connected the history of the emergence of chronicle writing with a specific struggle that the Kiev state had to wage in the 30s - 50s XI century against the political and religious claims of the Byzantine Empire. Byzantium sought to turn the Russian church into its political agents, which threatened the independence of the ancient Russian state. The claims of the empire met with an active rebuff from the grand ducal power, which in the struggle for the political and religious independence of Rus' was supported by the broad masses of the population. The struggle of Rus' with Byzantium reaches particular tension in the middle. XI century. The Grand Duke of Kyiv Yaroslav the Wise succeeds in raising the political authority of Kyiv and the Russian state. It lays a solid foundation for the political and religious independence of Rus'. In 1039, Yaroslav achieved the establishment of a metropolia in Kyiv. Thus, Byzantium recognized the certain independence of the Russian Church, although a Greek metropolitan remained at its head.

In addition, Yaroslav sought the canonization of Olga, Vladimir and his brothers Boris and Gleb, who were killed by Svyatopolk in 1015. In the end, in Byzantium they were forced to recognize Boris and Gleb as Russian saints, which was the triumph of Yaroslav's national policy. The veneration of these first Russian saints acquired the character of a national cult, it was associated with the condemnation of fratricidal strife, with the idea of ​​preserving the unity of the Russian land. The political struggle between Rus' and Byzantium turns into an open armed clash: in 1050, Yaroslav sends troops to Constantinople, led by his son Vladimir. Although the campaign of Vladimir Yaroslavich ended in defeat, in 1051 Yaroslav elevated the Russian priest Hilarion to the metropolitan throne. During this period, the struggle for independence covered all areas of the culture of Kievan Rus, including literature. D.S. Likhachev points out that the chronicle developed gradually, as a result of the interest that arose in the historical past of the native land and the desire to preserve significant events of their time for future descendants. The researcher suggests that in the 30s - 40s of the XI century. by order of Yaroslav the Wise, oral folk historical traditions were recorded, which D.S. Likhachev conditionally calls "Tales of the initial spread of Christianity in Rus'." The "Tale" included legends about Olga's baptism in Constantinople, about the death of two Varangian martyrs, about the testing of faith by Vladimir and his baptism. These legends were anti-Byzantine in nature. So, in the legend of Olga's baptism, the superiority of the Russian princess over the Greek emperor was emphasized. Olga rejected the emperor's claims to her hand, deftly "switching" (outwitting) him. The legend claimed that the Russian princess did not see much honor in the proposed marriage to her. In her relations with the Greek emperor, Olga shows purely Russian ingenuity, intelligence and resourcefulness. She maintains her self-esteem, defending the honor of her native land.

The legend about the testing of faith by Vladimir emphasizes that Christianity was accepted by Russia as a result of free choice, and not received as a gracious gift from the Greeks. In Kyiv, according to this legend, are messengers of various faiths: Mohammedan, Jewish and Christian. Each of the ambassadors extols the virtues of his religion. However, Vladimir wittily rejects both the Muslim and Jewish faiths, since they do not correspond to the national traditions of the Russian land. Having opted for Christianity, Vladimir, before accepting this religion, sends his envoys to test which faith is better. Those sent are convinced of the beauty, splendor and magnificence of the Christian church service, they prove to the prince the advantages of the Orthodox faith over other religions, and Vladimir finally opts for Christianity.

D.S. Likhachev suggests that "Tales of the initial spread of Christianity in Rus'" were written down by the scribes of the Kyiv Metropolis at the St. Sophia Cathedral. However, Constantinople did not agree with the appointment of the Russian Hilarion to the metropolitan see (in 1055 we see the Greek Ephraim in his place), and the Tales, which were anti-Byzantine in nature, did not receive further development here. The center of Russian education, opposed to the Greek metropolitan, since the middle of the 11th century. becomes the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery. Here in the 1970s. the formation of the Russian chronicle takes place. The compiler of the chronicle is Nikon the Great. He used the Tales of the Spread of Christianity, supplemented them with a number of oral historical legends, eyewitness accounts, in particular the voivode Vyshata, historical information about the events of modern times and recent days. Obviously, under the influence of Paschal chronological tables - paschals compiled in the monastery, Nikon gave his narrative the formula of weather records - according to "summers".

In the "First Kiev-Pechersk Code" created around 1073, he included a large number of legends about the first Russian princes, their campaigns against Constantinople. Apparently, he also used the Korsun legend about the campaign of Vladimir Svyatoslavich in 933 against the Greek city of Korsun (Tauric Chersonesos), after the capture of which Vladimir demanded Anna, the sister of the Greek emperors, as his wife. Thanks to this, the code of 1073 acquired a pronounced anti-Byzantine orientation. Nikon gave the chronicle a tremendous political poignancy, historical breadth and unprecedented patriotic pathos, which made this work an outstanding monument of ancient Russian culture. The code condemned princely strife, emphasizing the leading role of the people in protecting the Russian land from external enemies.

Thus, the "First Kiev-Pechersk Code" was the spokesman for the ideas and sentiments of the middle and even lower strata of feudal society. From now on, publicism, adherence to principles, the breadth of the historical approach, patriotic pathos become the hallmarks of the Russian chronicle. After Nikon's death, work on the chronicle continued in the Kiev Caves Monastery. Weather records were kept here about current events, which were then processed and combined by an unknown author into the "Second Kiev-Pechersk Code" of 1095. The "Second Kiev-Caves Code" continued the propaganda of the ideas of the unity of the Russian land, begun by Nikon. In this code, princely seditions are also sharply condemned, and the princes are called for unity for a joint struggle against the steppe nomads-Polovtsy. The compiler of the code sets clear journalistic tasks: to educate patriotism, to correct the current ones by the example of the former princes.

The author of the "Second Kiev-Pechersk code" widely draws on the stories of eyewitnesses of the events, in particular the stories of Vyshata's son Yan. The compiler of the compilation also uses Greek historical chronicles, in particular the chronicle of George Amartol, the data of which allow him to include the history of Rus' in the general chain of events in world history.

"The Tale of Bygone Years" is created at a time when Kievan Rus is experiencing the most severe blows from the steppe nomads-Polovtsians, when the question of rallying all forces to fight the steppe, with the "field" for the Russian land, which "later and fathers and grandfathers acquired with blood. In 1098, the Grand Prince of Kiev Svyatopolk Izyaslavich reconciled with the Kiev Caves Monastery: he began to support the anti-Byzantine direction of the monastery's activities and, understanding the political significance of the annals, sought to take control of the annals.

In the interests of Svyatopolk, on the basis of the "Second Kiev-Pechersk code" and created by the monk Nestor in 1113, the first edition of the "Tale of Bygone Years". Having retained the ideological orientation of the previous set, Nestor strives throughout the course of the historical narrative to convince the Russian princes to put an end to fratricidal wars and brings to the fore the idea of ​​princely brotherly love. Under the pen of Nestor, the chronicle acquires a state official character.

Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, placed by Nestor at the center of the narrative of the events of 1093-1111, was not very popular in the society of that time. After his death, in 1113, Vladimir Monomakh, "a good sufferer for the Russian land," became the Grand Prince of Kyiv. Understanding the political and legal significance of the chronicle, he transferred its maintenance to the Vydubitsky monastery, whose abbot Sylvester, on behalf of the Grand Duke, in 1116 compiled the second edition of the Tale of Bygone Years. In it, the figure of Monomakh is brought to the fore, his merits in the fight against the Polovtsy and in establishing peace between the princes are emphasized.

In 1118, in the same Vydubitsky monastery, an unknown author created the third edition of The Tale of Bygone Years. This edition includes "Instruction" by Vladimir Monomakh, the presentation was brought up to 1117.

Hypothesis B.A. Rybakova

A different concept of the development of the initial stage of Russian chronicle writing is developed by B.A. Rybakov 1. Analyzing the text of the initial Russian chronicle, the researcher suggests that short weather records began to be kept in Kyiv with the advent of the Christian clergy (since 867) during the reign of Askold. At the end of the 10th century, in 996 - 997, the "First Kiev Chronicle Code" was created, summarizing the heterogeneous material of brief weather records and oral stories. This code was created at the Church of the Tithes, Anastas Korsunyanin, the rector of the cathedral, Bishop of Belgorod and Vladimir's uncle, Dobrynya, took part in its compilation. The code gave the first historical generalization of the century and a half life of Kievan Rus and ended with the glorification of Vladimir. At the same time, B. A. Rybakov suggests, Vladimirov’s cycle of epics was also taking shape, in which a folk assessment of events and persons was given, while the chronicle introduced court assessments, book culture, squad epic, as well as folk tales.

Sharing the point of view of A.A. Shakhmatov about the existence of the Novgorod vault of 1050, B. A. Rybakov believes that the chronicle was created with the active participation of the Novgorod mayor Ostromir and this "Ostromir chronicle" should be dated 1054 - 1060. It was directed against Yaroslav the Wise and the Varangians-mercenaries. It emphasized the heroic history of Novgorod and glorified the activities of Vladimir Svyatoslavich and Vladimir Yaroslavich, Prince of Novgorod. The chronicle was purely secular in nature and expressed the interests of the Novgorod boyars.

B. A. Rybakov offers an interesting reconstruction of the text of Nestor's The Tale of Bygone Years. He puts forward a hypothesis about the active personal participation of Vladimir Monomakh in the creation of the second, Sylvester, edition. The researcher connects the third edition of The Tale of Bygone Years with the activities of Monomakh's son Mstislav Vladimirovich, who tried to oppose Kyiv to Novgorod.

In a further study of the stages of formation of the ancient Russian chronicle, B. A. Rybakov shares the points of view of A. A. Shakhmatov and modern Soviet researchers. Thus, the question of the initial stage of Russian chronicle writing, the composition, and sources of The Tale of Bygone Years is very complex and far from being resolved.

There is no doubt, however, that The Tale of Bygone Years is the result of a large summative editorial work, summarizing the work of several generations of chroniclers.