A. A. SHAKHMATOV A TALE OF TIME YEARS

Introduction

Chapter I. Three ancient editions of the Tale of Bygone Years

1. General concept about the chronicle, called the Tale of Bygone Years. It is customary to call the Tale of Bygone Years that annalistic code, which is entitled appropriately, "compiled in Kiev, embraces events up to the second decade of the XII century and is contained at the beginning of most of the chronicle codes of the XIV-XVII centuries. later it undergoes either reduction and accidental insertions (for example, in Per.), or connection with another Kiev annalistic code and ancient Novgorod news (for example, in Sof., Novg. 4th, etc.).

2. Sylvester edition of the Tale of Bygone Years. In the Lavrentievsky, Trinity, Radzivilov and Moscow Academic lists, the Tale of Bygone Years was brought to the news of a miraculous vision in the Kiev Caves Monastery that happened on February 11, 6619 (January 1111, March 1110), when here, over a stone refectory, a fiery the pillar, which then rattled on the church, where it stood over the coffin of Theodosius ... this news is followed by unfinished pious reflections ... and then the record of the hegumen of the Kiev Vydubytsky St. (1116) year...

The record of Abbot Sylvester serves as indisputable evidence in favor of the fact that the Tale of BP. years was compiled in the second decade of the XII century. and brought exactly to 6618 (1111) years. This entry could be

1 This title is found in several forms: 1) “Behold the tales of temporary years, where did the Russian land come from”, etc. (Lavr., Troitsk.); 2) “The Tale of the Bygone Years of the Black Nativity Fedosiev Monastery of Pechersk, where did the Russian land come from”, etc. (Ipat., Radziv., Moscow Acad.); 3) “The Tale of the Bygone Years of Nester Chernorizet Feodosiev Monastery of Pechersk, where did the Russian land come from”, etc. (Khlebn.) ...

forge as it was understood by some scholarly researchers who concluded from it that Sylvester was the compiler of the Tale BP. years; however, such a conclusion meets with solid objections, which I will dwell on below. Of course, hegumen Sylvester was not a simple copyist of someone else's work; but his entry may indicate that Sylvester edited a copy from the Tale by BP. years, prepared by him for the Vydubitsky Monastery.

3. Another ancient edition of the Tale by BP. years. In the lists of Ipatiev and Khlebnikov (undoubtedly ascending to one common original, which can be defined as the South Russian chronicle collection of the 14th century), we find, within the limits of PN, a text that is generally identical with the text of the Lavrentiev, Trinity, Radzivilov and Moscow Academic lists; only in places (and, moreover, starting from 1076), the text of I. X. is supplemented with news that is closely related to Vladimir Monomakh. But under 6618 "(And 11) the year I.X. contain not only the beginning of pious reasoning, read in Lavr., Sec., Acad., but also their ending. This circumstance inevitably leads to the establishment of the following two provisions: 1) the beginning of pious reasoning about the miraculous sign was not read in the Sylvester edition of the Tale of Ages, but inserted into L. R. A. (presumably also in T., i.e., in the lost Trinity list), therefore, in their common protograph or in their common primary sources, from another edition, from a code similar or identical to that represented by the lists of I. Kh.; 2) The Tale of the Ages according to Sylvester's or according to another more ancient edition found a direct continuation in the mentioned pious reasoning. aim to prove that the miraculous appearance of a pillar of fire over the Kiev Pechersk Monastery foreshadowed the glorious campaign of the Russian princes against the Polovtsy in March 6619 (January and March 1111); the campaign is described in great detail, obviously the closest contemporary; therefore, the Tale BP. years found a continuation in the tenth years of the XII century. Thus, we get a reason to talk about another ancient edition of the Tale by BP. years: it differed from the Sylvester one in the part before 1111 by some news inserted into it, and after the "" message about the miraculous phenomenon of the pillar, a continuation where modern events were described. This edition is represented by lists I. X.

4. The first evidence in favor of the existence of the edition of the Tale by BP. years of 1118. We have seen that the above-mentioned ancient edition of the Tale by BP. years differed from Sylvestrovskaya, among other things, by inserting news related to Vladimir Monomakh; the story about the campaign of 1111 was also undoubtedly compiled by a person close to Monomakh, to whom the very beginning of this campaign is attributed; the previous pious arguments about the pillar of fire find their natural conclusion in the article of 1111: in the form of a pillar, an angel descended to earth, “Behold, an angel put Volodimer with his heart to send his brethren to foreigners, Russian princes. Behold, as if rekoch, I saw a vision in the Caves of the monasteries ... And then, lo, angel put Volodimer in the heart, and begin to force the brethren to filthy, as if rekoch "... Of course, this was already written during the great reign of Vladimir in Kyiv ( from April 1113); before us is a contemporary chronicler of Monomakh, a chronicler of his reign. Therefore, with full confidence we attribute to him the further story following the description of the campaign of 1111. Some parts of this story are denounced as the narrator of "the very same summer man" who compiled arguments about the appearance of angels in articles 6618 and 6619; cf. a reference to the chronographic news of signs in Jerusalem under the year 6621 (1113) regarding the eclipse that was on March 19 ... and also in particular an extensive commentary under 6622 (1114) to reports of stone rain and animals falling from clouds, in northern countries; this commentary contains extensive extracts from the chronograph... The chronicler is not at all stingy in his descriptions; he gives long articles and under 6623, 6624 and 6625. But, starting from the next year 6626, we see in the lists of I. X. other methods of chronicle writing, the presentation becomes dry and brief; under the years 6626-6630 we find articles of insignificant volume, compiled from compressed and fragmentary news. This, in connection with the fact that article 6625 ends with news relating to the following year, namely, the news of the death of Emperor Alexius (d. August 15, 1118), gives me the first reason to assert that the continuation of the Tale under consideration b. years, brought to article 6625 inclusive, as well as that special edition of the Tale BP. years, which contained this continuation, were compiled in 1118.

5. The second evidence in favor of the existence of the edition of the Tale by BP. years of 1118. This assertion can be supported by other considerations. In I. X., under the year 6622 (1114), it is reported about the laying of a stone wall in Ladoga ... the chronicler happened at that time in Ladoga; the Ladoga posadnik Pavel and other Ladoga residents interested the chronicler with stories about stone rain falling near Ladoga, as well as about the northern countries lying beyond Yugra and Samoyed (“I will come to Ladoga, tell me the Ladoga residents ... To this we have a rumor of Pavel Ladoga and see Ladoga residents ... "); the chronicler believed the miraculous stories, but considered it necessary to confirm their probability by referring to the chronograph (“Is it possible that someone does not have faith in this, but honor the chronograph ...”), from which long extracts are then cited. Under the year 6604 (1096) in I. X. we read a message that the chronicler four a year before that, I heard a story from Novgorod Gyurata Rogovich about the northern countries where Ugra and Samoyeds live, and Gyurata, according to his youth, conveyed the story of Ugra about a mysterious people imprisoned in the mountains, entering the bow of the sea, and conducting barter trade with Ugra ... chronicler he believed the story, and considered it necessary to refute the doubts of his interlocutor, Gyuryata Rogovich, by referring to Methodius of Patara, who tells about the peoples imprisoned in the mountains by Alexander the Great ... The internal connection between the two considered articles of the chronicle is obvious; in view of this, I accept that both articles were drawn up by one person; this person, according to the previous one, is the compiler of the later edition of the Tale BP. years, for it is to him that the articles of 6618-6625, which are read in I. X. belong. temp. years (and that in the chronicler, speaking about himself under 1096, one should see Sylvester or Sylvester's predecessor). We already know that the lists of L. R. A., which generally reproduce the Sylvester edition, included something from a later edition: the beginning of pious reasoning in article 6618 was borrowed, as indicated above, from the later edition of the Tale of BP. years. Therefore, we can assume that the chronicler's report in question about his conversation with Gyuryata Rogovich was borrowed from there in L. R. A.. From article 6622 (PN) we learn that the chronicler visited the north (where he visited Ladoga) precisely in 1114; and from the article of 1096 it can be seen that the chronicler was in the north (where he talked with Gyuryata Rogovich, a Novgorodian) four years before compiling his work. Consequently, the chronicler worked on the alteration and continuation of the Tale by BP. years in 1118. So here is the second reason for recognizing the year 1118 as the time for compiling the later edition of the Tale of Bygone Years.

6. The inclusion in the edition of 1118 of the local Ladoga legend proves that its compiler is identical with the author of the article of 1114. The legend about the calling of the Varangians is in the ancient lists of the Tale of BP. years in two forms: one of them is read in L. T .: the called prince-brothers come from across the sea and sit down - Rurik in Novgorod (however, as we will see, the words “gray Novgorod” are omitted in L. and later inscribed in T .). Seaneus on Beleozero, Truvor in Izborsk; after the death of Sineus and Truvor, all power passes to Rurik, who distributes individual cities to the management of his husbands. Another view is read in R. A. I. X. and Trans.: the called prince-brothers first come to the Slovenes and set up the city of Ladoga: the elder Rurik sits down in Ladoga, Sineus on Beleozero, Truvor in Izborsk; after the death of Sineus and Truvor, all power passes to Rurik: he goes to Ilmen and builds a town here above the Volkhov, which he calls Novgorod; from here, Rurik distributes individual cities to the management of his husbands ... It can hardly be doubted that the first of the two types must be recognized as the original form of the Legend: the fact is that the Legend is contained precisely in this first form in the Novgorod Chronicle of the younger version (lists of the Commission, Akademichesky, Tolstovsky), which, as we shall see, included in its composition the Kiev chronicle, older than the Tale of the time. years. The second type could come from the first under the influence of local legends, namely the Ladoga legends, which put the seniority of Ladoga before Novgorod. As we already know, the chronicler, who compiled the latest edition of the Tale, v. years old, was familiar with Ladoga residents; he could hear from them not only tales of distant northern lands, but also their local historical traditions. From this we conclude that in the Sylvester edition the first type of the Tale of the Calling of the Varangians was read, and in the later edition (edition of 1118) - the second type of the Tale. The lists of I. X. generally represent the readings of the Tale by the time. years of this later edition: that is why they read the second type of the Tale. The lists of R. A., as noted above, were strongly influenced by a list close to the protographer I. X. or identical with it; that is why here we find the second type of the Legend. On the contrary, L. T. represent in general the readings of the Sylvester edition: that is why we find in them the first form of the Tale.

7. The third evidence in favor of the existence of the edition of the Tale by BP. years of 1118. The Teaching of Vladimir Monomakh mentioned above was introduced, as we have seen, into L. from the same primary source as the message about the conversation with Gyuryata Rogovich: in any case, it fell into the wrong place, breaking the message of the annals about the invasion of the Polovtsy and its reasoning about their origin. The Teaching of Monomakh includes a chronicle compiled by Monomakh, where he tells about his campaigns in chronological order, starting from the time when he was 13 years old (hence, from 1066); this chronicle was brought to the campaign of Vladimir Monomakh against Yaroslav Svyatopolchich: “And then we went to Volodimer against Yaroslavtsya, not tolerating his malice.” This campaign dates back to 1117, as can be seen from I. X., where we read “in the same summer Volodimer went to Yaroslav to Volodimer”, etc. ... According to the previous Teaching of Monomakh came to L. from the same source, that the message is about a conversation with Gyuryata Rogovich; but this message, as we have seen, goes back to the later edition of the Tale by BP. years; consequently, the Teaching can be raised to the same edition. The fact that the chronicle of Monomakh, which is read as part of the Teaching, reaches the year 1117, can be put in connection with the fact that the later edition of the Tale by BP. years was compiled around the same year. So, we get the third evidence in favor of compiling a later edition of the Tale by BP. years in 1118.

8. The fourth proof in favor of the existence of the edition of the Tale by BP. years of 1118. There are several indications that in the lists of I. X., although containing the latest edition of the Tale by BP. years, however, there are also readings corrected according to the older Sylvester edition. In some, however, not extant, chronicle compilations, the edition of 1118 could be preserved in a more original form. One of these vaults was used by the monument 2 from which two later vaults of the 15th century originated: Sof. 1st and, Novg. 4th Chronicle. The use by this monument (probably, among other sources) of the later edition of the Tale by BP. years is found, for example, in the fact that under the year 1111 it contained detailed story about the campaign of Russian princes against the Polovtsy (this story, as we have seen, was not read in the Sylvester edition and appeared only in the edition of 1118); cf. the corresponding story in Soph. 1st and Novg. 4th. Among the differences of that edition of the Tale BP. years, which was used by the indicated monument, which differs from the Sylvester edition, there is a replacement in the indicated later edition of a large chronological article under the year 6360 (852) ... two smaller articles: one of them (containing the chronology of world events) is read under the year 6360, and the other (containing the chronology of Russian events) was moved to 6395 (887). This last article has not come down to us in its original form and is complicated by several later inserts (concerning the events of the 11th-13th centuries); but its ending, as one might think, is ancient; and it ends on Novg. 4th chronicle with the following words: “Volodimer Yaroslavich of summer 4” (in Sof. 1st: “From Volodimer Yaroslavich of summer 4”). In view of the fact that after this it reads “And Volodimer Yaroslavich’s sons”, but in fact the names of the sons of Vladimir Monomakh are given, we conclude that “Volodimer Yaroslavich” is a later faulty (appearing, perhaps, in Novgorod) reading and that the originally considered chronological the article ended with the words: "Volodimer of summer 4"; under Volo-dimer, as can be seen from the further list of his sons, of course, Vladimir Monomakh. Therefore, we have before us a chronological article dating back to the Tale of BP. years and testifying that it, and therefore the edition of the Tale containing it, was compiled in the fifth year of the great reign of Vladimir,

2 Most likely, this monument was the all-Russian chronicle compiled in 1423 at the court of Metropolitan Photius.

therefore, in 1117-1118, for Vladimir sat in Kyiv on April 20, 1113. From here we conclude about the existence of the edition of the Tale BP. years, compiled in 1118. In I. X., representing in general the text of the edition of 1118, we see a digression in relation to the chronological table: it is given under the year 6360 in the Sylvester edition.

9. Sylvester's edition of the Tale VR. years cannot be the main edition of this monument. Recognition of hegumen Sylvester as the compiler of the Tale of BP. years meets very significant objections put forward by many of our scientific researchers; among the less weighty objections is that Sylvester, who worked in 6624 (1116), would have brought the code compiled by him to this year, meanwhile, the Tale of the time. years ends in 6618 (1111). Decisive reasoning in favor of the fact that the Tale BP. years was not compiled in the Vydubitsky monastery, not by Abbot Sylvester, is the following. Story vr. for years he has been paying special, exclusive attention to events related to the Kiev-Petersburg monastery; we find in it articles and news of clearly Kievo-Pechersk origin not only in the oldest part (dedicated to the events of the second half of the 11th century), but also in the later part (embracing the last five years of the 11th century and two five years of the 12th century): thus under 6604 (1096) an attack is reported Polovtsy to the Pechersky Monastery (“we who are in cells, resting in the morning”) ... under 6614 (1106) it is reported about the death of Yan, “from worthless (says the chronicler) and I heard many words, even there are seven entries in the annals”; Yan was buried in the Pechersk Monastery ... under the same year we read about the tonsure of the Saint in the Caves Monastery;<...>under 6615 (1107) tells about a visit by Svyatopolk to the Caves Monastery on August 15 after a glorious victory over the Polovtsians; “so the customs of having Svyatoplk; if you go to a warrior, or otherwise bow down at the tomb of Theodosius and take a prayer from the abbot, that one who exists, you also go on your way ”; under 6617 (1109) about the death of Princess Evpraksia Vsevolodovna, who was buried in the Caves Monastery ... finally, under 6618 (1111) about the appearance of a pillar of fire over the Pechersky Monastery on February 11 ... From this it is clear that the Tale of BP. years, by its very content, it should be recognized as a monument of the Kiev Pechersk Monastery, and this makes it undoubted that the Tale was compiled in this monastery, by a monk of this monastery. Consequently, the Sylvester edition of the Tale BP. years cannot be recognized as its main edition. The main edition is lost, it has not reached us.

10. The data available for restoring the main edition of the Tale BP. years. As we will see below, hegumen Sylvester subjected the main edition of the Tale to BP. years of significant rework, while being guided by clearly defined goals; nevertheless, a significant part of the Tale remained unchanged, and we can restore its content primarily from the Sylvester edition. The editor of 1118, as we will see, belonged to the Kiev Pechersk Monastery and probably worked on behalf of the monastery; nevertheless, for reasons explained below, he based his work not on the main, but on the Sylvester edition. (...)

There is another non-chronicle monument that can be involved in the restoration of the main edition of the Tale by BP. years. This is the Epistle of Polycarp to Bishop Simon, which has come down to us as part of the Kyiv Pechersk Patericon. This epistle was written in 1232. Being a magnificent monument of Russian spiritual culture, both epistles, Simonov and Polikarpov, serve at the same time as primary historical sources for characterizing Kievan Rus in the 11th and 12th centuries. Especially a lot of historical in the message of Polycarp. He arranged his entire story about the Caves saints in a well-known chronological sequence. He began it from the left about Nikita the hermit, whose first exploits date back to the time of hegumen Nikon (1078-1088); the oldest chronological date leads us to May 30, 1078: this is the day of the murder of Gleb Svyatoslavich in Zavolochia 3; Nikita then sent to Izyaslav Yaroslavich with the words: "today Gleb Svyatoslavich was killed in Zavolochia, soon they ate their son Svyatopolk on the table of Novgorod." The next story about Agapit, a gratuitous doctor, takes us to the time of John's abbess, when Vladimir Vsevolodich was still in Chernigov (until 1094). Death

the next ascetic, Grigoryan the miracle worker, dates back to May 1093 4 . The story of John the Recluse, apparently, already refers to beginning of XII century, for John sat for 30 years in the cave where the relics of Anthony (who died in 1073) lay. (The word about John the Recluse gave Polycarp a reason to deviate from the chronological sequence he had planned: the miracle performed by John with a bone from the relics of Moses Ugrin prompted Polycarp to tell about this latter). This is followed by the Word about Prokhor the Swan, who died on August 7, 1107. Regarding the next ascetic, Mark the Pechernik, we learn that “with this, our holy father Theodosius was worn out from the stove into the holy great church"(1091). This is followed by a story about Theodore and Vasily, who died in 1099 (cf. “not for many days, Mstislav himself was shot dead in Vladimir on his visors, according to Vasiliyev’s prophecy, fighting with David Igorevich”). Rev. Alympius was tonsured under Abbot Nikon, during the latter his main miracles took place, but his death could have followed later. (Spyridon the marshmallow, who lived much later, during the time of hegumen Pimen the faster, therefore, in the forties of the XII century, is connected with Alympius in one Word). Finally, the long-suffering Pimen, about whom the last Word of the Polikarpov Epistle reports, having spent 20 years in the monastery, died on February 11, 1110. Thus, all the stories of Polycarp fit into a chronological framework that embraces the last quarter of the 11th century and the first decade of the 12th. The researcher raises the question of whether the chronological coincidence between the framework of the Polikarpov message and the framework of the chronicle story of the Tale by BP can be accidental. years, can it be accidental that Polycarp brought his story to the very event that it reached when telling about Kievopech. monastery, Tale of BP. years, i.e. before the appearance of the pillar of fire on February 11, 1111? It seems to me undoubted that the work of Polycarp was in close dependence on the Tale of BP. years; this dependence

4 Gregory the Wonderworker was drowned on the orders of Rostislav Vsevolodich, when he went to the Caves Monastery for prayer and blessing before the campaign against the Polovtsians (Paterik), according to the Tale of BP. years of Vsevolodichi, Vladimir and Rostislav, having arrived in Kyiv, stopped at the Vydubitsky monastery, where they had a meeting co Svyatopolkom...

discovers Polycarp himself, who mentions the "Chronicle" he used three times, and his references lead precisely to the Tale of BP. years 5 . It is unlikely, however, that Polycarp used the Sylvester edition of the Tale of BP. years or edition of 1118; using them would not explain to us the availability of some factual data in his stories. Of course, it can be assumed that Polycarp surrendered to the power of his rich imagination and, thanks to this, was able to develop a picture full of life and colors, using only meager chronicle data; of course, such an assumption is partly necessary; nevertheless, I think that in order to create the stories of Polycarp, there were not enough materials that the editions of the Tale of BP that have come down to us represent. years. In addition, the chronicle used by Polycarp turns out to be, in any case, not identical with these editions; under the year 6618 we read in the Tale of BP. years about the appearance of one pillar over the Caves Monastery, and in the Chronicler used by Polycarp, it was said about three pillars. In view of all this, I assume that

5 In the Word about Moses Ugrin we read: “In one night, Boleslav died in vain, and there was a great rebellion in all the Lyatskaya land. And when the people got up, they beat their bishops and their boyars, as they say in the Chronicler. Wed in Pov. temp. years under the year 6538 (1030) ... At the end of the Sermon about Agapit, Polycarp, comparing his work with the previous descriptions of the lives of the bakers, says: “Like the blessed Nester wrote in the Chronicle about the blessed fathers, about Damian and Jeremiah and Matthew and Isakiah.” See Pov. temp. years under the year 6582 (1074) ... Finally, in the Word about Pimen the long-suffering it is said: “At the time of his repose, three pillars appeared over the refectory, and from there the churches came up, about them it was said to be in the Chronicle.” Wed Pov. temp. years under the year 6618 (1111) ...

6 So from the editions of the Tale that have come down to us. years it would be impossible to extract indications that Fr. Nikita had one or another participation in the events after the death of Gleb Svyatoslavich; or - that St. Gregory was drowned on the orders of Rostislav Vsevolodich, who was setting off on a campaign against the Polovtsians; or else - indications of the violence committed by Svyatopolk in the first years of his great reign, the frequent attacks of the Polovtsy, the famine that befell the Kiev land, the imprisonment of Svyatopolk hegumen John in Turov, and, however, John, due to Svyatopolk's fear of Vladimir Monomakh, was soon he was released to his monastery to stop the supply of salt from Galich during the war between Svyatopolk and Volodar and Vasilko because Vasilko was blinded (performed at the instigation of Davyd Igorevich); further - indications that St. Fedor and Vasily were killed on the orders of Mstislav Svyato-polchich, who ruled Kiev, during his father's absence in Turov: “because then Svyatopolk was in Turov> and others.

at the disposal of Polycarp was the main edition of the Tale of BP. years; when restoring the latter, it is therefore necessary to keep in mind the data provided by the Epistle of Polycarp.

11. The reasons that caused the appearance of two new editions of the Tale BP. years. According to the previous main or first edition of the Tale vr. years compiled in 1111; in 1116, the second, or Sylvester, edition arose as a result of its revision; the year 1118 includes a new revision of the Tale and the formation of the third edition. On what did this rapid change depend? And at the same time, why did only the later editions, the second and third, turn out to be vital, while the first was forgotten and seemed to be withdrawn from circulation?

The main edition of the Tale BP. years, as can be seen from the previous one, was primarily a monument of monastic chronicle writing; but next to the articles and news relating to the Pechersk monastery, she undoubtedly paid a lot of attention to the events of general political life. Compiled in the first decade of the 12th century, the Tale of BP. years had to speak with particular detail about the events of Svyatopolkov's reign. Svyatopolk was close to the Caves Monastery: a quarrel with Abbot John, who denounced the injustice and greed of the Grand Duke, was soon settled. From article 6615 D1107) we know about the diligence that Svyatopolk had for the holy monastery; from article 6616 (1108) we learn about the participation that Svyatopolk took in the glorification of St. Theodosius and inscribed him in the Synod. I conclude from this that during the time of Abbot Theoktist, only such a chronicle could have appeared in the Pechersk Monastery, which was entirely compiled in a favorable for v. book. Svyatopolk spirit; she was supposed to put forward his warlike exploits and portray his piety. From the later annals of the XII and XIII centuries. we can get an idea of ​​how biasedly they covered contemporary events: in most cases, the chronicler’s hand was controlled not by the high ideal of a pious hermit, far from life and worldly bustle, who knows how to give a truthful assessment of the events unfolding around him, and the persons who direct these events, - the assessment of a religious thinker who longs for the establishment of the kingdom of God in the land vale - the chronicler's hand was controlled by political passions and worldly interests; if the chronicler was a monk, then the more freedom he gave to his biased assessment, when it coincided with the interests of his native monastery and the black-herd herd that inhabited it. Separate monasteries, due to various political and economic conditions, stood in close relations with one or another prince; many of the monasteries were associated with a famous prince already at their very foundation (cf. Izyaslav Monastery of St. Demetrius, Vsevolodov Monastery of St. Michael); such monasteries became both patrimonial archives and political offices of the prince. The Caves Monastery did not escape the common fate either. "True, the lofty ascetic ideals that lived here in the 11th century did not so easily put up with servility and servility before the mighty of the world. Both the Life of Theodosius and the Tale of BP. years ..., as well as the Paterik preserved the memory of the struggle of Anthony and Nikon with c. book. Izyaslav, Theodosius with Svyatoslav, Nikon's successor John with Svyatopolk, but in the end, as we have already seen, the stubbornness of the monastery bowed before the power of the prince. The union of Svyatopolk with Abbot Feoktist, of course, left an indelible imprint on the entire chronicle presentation of the events that had elapsed by the time the Tale was compiled. fifteen years old. The moral significance of the chronicle was well recognized by the princes, and one can think that Svyatopolk and people close to him tried to ensure that the new Kyiv Pechersk code did not resemble the last edition of the monastery chronicle, in the preface to which hegumen John denounced Svyatopolk and his squad. Svyatopolk knew many sins; in the past, not only local turmoil and bad government were crying out against him, but also participation in the atrocity that shook the Russian land - the blinding of Vasilko. Svyatopolk had to justify himself before his contemporaries and before posterity. Through the efforts of the wise and events and years of the prince, a new edition of the Kiev Pechersk Chronicle is being created - the Tale of the Ver. years.

Svyatopolk's successor Vladimir Monomakh could not but pay the most serious attention to this monument of the previous reign. It was necessary to restore the events of the last two decades in a different light; political interest demanded the withdrawal from circulation of many parts of the Kiev-Pechersk Chronicler; it is possible that Monomakh had an idea about the complete elimination of the Tale of BP. years. To do this, he turned to the abbot of the monastery, which was closely associated with the name of his father and remained devoted to the house of Vsevolod, and during the reign of Svyatopolk, Sylvester took up the work entrusted to him and completed it in 1116. Perhaps, I will repeat once again that the main edition of the Tale by BP. years, when it was remade by Sylvester, it disappeared completely.

The transfer of the princely annals to another monastery could not but excite the Pechersk monastery: with the annals, its influence on the policy of the Grand Duke, as well as its moral significance in the eyes of the entire Russian Orthodox world, was gone. The monastery willingly directed its sympathies in a new direction: Svyatopolk was forgotten, there was no need to think about his son Yaroslav; all thoughts and hopes were transferred to Vladimir Monomakh. The ardent supporters of the former Prince of Pereyaslav turned out to be in the Caves Monastery. One of them (I will dwell on his personality below) was entrusted with compiling a new annalistic code to replace the lost or hidden one. This chronicler had to turn to the Sylvester code (since the main edition of the Tale of the Ages was no longer found in the monastery): but he managed to connect his work with the work of his predecessor on the monastery chronicle, restoring the name the Chernoritz had to be omitted: the reason was, perhaps, political considerations, for this name was associated with the idea of ​​a vault hostile to Monomakh.

12. The personality of the compiler of the main edition of the Tale v. years. I have no doubt that we know the name of the author who, around 1111, compiled the Tale of BP in the Kiev Pechersk Monastery. years. It was Nestor. Nestor, as we know, took care of his literary glory: and in the Reading on the destruction of St. Boris and Gleb, and in the Life of Theodosius, he, partly contrary to the methods prevailing in antiquity, deliberately declared his authorship. Undoubtedly, he put his name in the title of the Tale of BP. years: "Nester of the Chrnorizets of Theodosius Monastery of Pechersk" - this is so consistent with the author's ambition of Nestor. But on the last glorious work Nestor failed. The chronicle compiled by him was subjected to processing in another princely monastery; The Caves Monastery managed to restore, although in a modified form, the annals that had left it, but the name of Nestor remained ordered. And only later, through the efforts of enlightened people, this name was saved for posterity. When the passions aroused by the Nestor Chronicle had passed, the grateful memory turned again to the forgotten author; he was entered in the monastic commemoration book with the addition of "chronicler"; his name was connected mentally, and perhaps actually (inserted into the title) with the beginning of the chronicle writing that continued in the monastery. The glory of Nestor was also protected by those lists that, as indicated, could have been made from the Tale of BP. years before its transfer to the Vydubitsky Monastery. One of the lists ended up in Galicia (which I will discuss below); it is possible that the lists used by V. N. Tatishchev, Raskolnichiy and Golitsynsky went back to such a list; both of them are titled in South Russian (XVI-XVII centuries) or in Galician: “The Tale of temporary dey Nestor Chernoris Feodosiev Caves Monastery", cf. Polish dzieje. I think that it was the Galician list that gave reason to the compiler of the Khlebnikov list (probably appeared in Galicia) to correct the title by inscribing Nestor's name in it. The Epistle of Polycarp is rightly recognized as the main evidence in favor of the authorship of Nestor. Indeed, the insistent reference to Nestor the chronicler in the Epistle of Polycarp 7 receives especially evidentiary force if our assertion is true that Polycarp had at his disposal the main edition of the Tale of BP. years (for example, in a copy brought from Galicia).

I am aware that the recognition of Nestor as the compiler of the Tale of BP. years may meet, as it has long ago met, a number of objections. These objections are based mainly on the contradictions between the articles of the Tale BP. years, relating to the Kievopechersk monastery, and between Nesterov's Life of Theodosius. I do not in the least think of denying these contradictions, but in judging them, it seems to me that one should have in

7 Namely, in the Word about Nikita the Recluse, among other venerable fathers who came to Nikita in his cave and freed him from demonic obsession, “Nestor, like Japis the Chronicler,” is named. At the end of the Word about Agapit, as we have already seen, it reads: “like the blessed Nester wrote in the Chronicle about the blessed fathers, about Damian and Jeremiah and Matthew and Isakiah.”

mind that the Life of Theodosius was compiled by Nestor in the eighties of the XI century, before the death of hegumen "Nikon, and the chronicle was compiled by him in 1111, therefore, 25 years after that; in addition, Nestor, compiling the Tale of the Ages, included in it the older Kyiv-Pechersk collection, which I will speak about below: it was in this collection that there were articles that contradicted Kitius Theodosius. Hegumen Sylvester did not eliminate either the personal element introduced by his predecessors, or the contradictions caused by the gradual layering of chronicle news in the Tale of the age of flight, hegumen Sylvester in his processing of the Tale 8; did not take care to eliminate such contradictions and the compiler of the edition of 1118 9. We therefore have the right to think that and ^Nestor did not care about eliminating those contradictions to his own views and knowledge, which he found in the senior monastic vault that he was copying . It should also not be overlooked that literary work, and such was the work of the chronicler-compiler of the code, does not always strive to establish a correspondence between legends clothed in literary form and real reality.

8 So we see in several places of the Tale of the b. the years of the chronicler, speaking of himself in the first person; under 6559 (1051) we read: “I also came to him, a thin and unworthy slave, and welcome me, I exist 17 years from my birth” ... under 6599 (1091): “at his command, I would have been a sinful and first self-seeing” ... and below: “But your sinful servant and disciple, I’m perplexed, chim to praise your good life and upliftment” ... under 6605 (1097): “and to me that being, Volodimeri, in one night the prince sent for me Davyd "... under 6614 (1106):" from worthless and I hear many words, even in writing in the annals seven "... Sylvester did not destroy this personal element, but meanwhile it was clear to every reader that under the speaking chronicler it was impossible to understand the Vydubitsky abbot: of course, this very circumstance was main reason the fact that Sylvester kept the passages given. Sylvester did not eliminate the contradictions either: so under 6485 (977) it is said about the grave of Oleg Svyatoslavich: “and there is his grave to this day at Vruchago” ... and under 6552 (1044) we read about the extraction of Oleg’s remains and transferring them to the church of St. . Mother of God... Under the same 6652 (1044) year, it is told that at birth Vseslav was put on a head ulcer with a bandage: “Vseslav still wears it to this day on himself: for this reason, there is no mercy for bloodshed” ... and under 6609 (1101) the death of Vseslav was reported ...

9 In the edition of 1118, according to Sylvestrovskaya, at first it was reported that Novgorod was built by the Slavs, and under 6370 (862) the foundation of Novgorod was attributed to Rurik ...

with certainty: Nestor could consciously repeat what he himself did not believe, if only this story was walking, if they had time to get used to it, if in particular it was consecrated by the authority of the time and the name of the venerable predecessor.

Nestor in 1111 was already in years: he arrived in the Caves Monastery during the time of Stefan's abbess (1074-1078); he was then 25 years old; therefore, by 1111 he was 60 years old) Old age, illness or death could be the reason that Nestor brought the Tale to the bp. years only until 6618. But it is possible that the ending of the Nester Chronicle was different, that it continued a little further: Sylvester, for one reason or another, could omit this ending. Perhaps the Nesterov chronicle ceased due to the change of the abbot: at the beginning of 1113 (January) Feoktist was transferred to the bishopric in Chernigov, and Prokhor popin was elected hegumen in his place. In view, however, of the conjecture of such assumptions, I confine myself for the time being to the assertion that the Nesterov chronicle was brought up to 1111 and was compiled around the same year; Below I will present an argument in favor of the fact that it was compiled after 25 Jan. 1112 and that, consequently, the termination of Nesterov's work was in one way or another connected with the change of the Caves abbot.

13. Lead time years was preceded by another Kiev-Pechersk vault.(...) As part of the Novgorod 1st chronicle of the junior edition (lists of the Commission, Academic, Tolstovsky, etc.), instead of the articles of the Tale BP. years, articles are first read that go back to another annalistic code: this includes the Preface, annalistic news of 6362-6523 and 6560-6582; the last chronicle article of 6582 (1074) breaks off at an unfinished phrase relating to the story of the death of St. Theodosius: “and Abie Prince Svyatoslav and with his son Gleb kissed the holy elder and promised to bake at the monastery.” The same articles, in conjunction with the articles of the Tale of BP. years are read in a well-known group of chronicles XV century, which includes the Sofia 1st and 2nd chronicles, as well as the Novgorod 4th: in this group of chronicles, the above-mentioned “Foreword” is placed before the chronological table of the Tale of the time. years ... under the year 1074, the Sofia ones present the same unfinished article of 6582, as well as the Novgorod 1st; yo part 6524-6559 and the text following the article of 6582 were supplemented by a part systematically, and after 6582 abbreviated according to the Tale of BP. years, from where the beginning of the chronicle is borrowed. A comparison of this group of annalistic collections with the Novgorod 1st chronicle of the younger version shows that both used the Novgorod year code, called the Sofia Time and compiled around 1432. The main source of the Sophia time was the Novgorod vladyka vault, but in it a consistent story begins only from the 12th century; therefore, at the beginning of the Sophia time book, the Kyiv chronicle had to be placed; , but in the Sophia sovereign's house, for one reason or another, there was no list-Tale of BP. years; I had to resort to a defective copy of another ancient chronicle; the above articles are taken from it. Comparison of them with the corresponding articles of the Tale BP. years proves that in them we have fragments of an older and more original collection than the Tale of BP. years, and this code lay at the basis of the Tale of BP. years. It seems superfluous to enter here into a closer examination of this provision: I will refer, however, to further research, which indicates on the basis of what sources this code was revised by the compiler of the Tale BP. years; the systematic absence of borrowings from them in the code under consideration can serve as proof of both its independence and its originality. It is difficult to determine the volume of this code, which we will call the Initial Code, it is difficult in view of the defectiveness of the copy that was used by the compiler of the Sof. temporary. But from the Preface to it it turns out that it was meant to bring the code to the reign of the Greek emperors Alexius and Isaac; under Alexy, as one might think, of course, Alexy Komnenos (1081-1118), and under Isakiy - the elder brother and co-ruler, sebastocrator Isaac Komnenos. Such an explanation was proposed by me in the article “Foreword to the Sophia Times and the Nesterov Chronicle” (Izvestia Otd. R. Language and Words, 1908, XIII, 1). But it is possible that the name Isakiah was inserted later by the compiler of Soph. temporary on the basis of an article placed by him under the year 6712 (1204) (read in an older version than it, Novg. 1st chronicle) about the capture of Constantinople by the Latins. This article ends with the words: “And so the kingdom of the God-protected Kostyantinyagrad and the land of Grchsk in the wedding of the kings, which the Fryazi possess, will perish.” It speaks of the last kings of the genus of angels: about Alexy, about Alexy deposed and then restored to the kingdom of Isakia, about the accession of Isakiev's son Alexy and overthrowing him by the boyars, who put (Alexy) Myurchufla on the kingdom. Seeing no reason to attribute the code to which the Preface refers to XIII century, I think that in the Preface it was originally read “from Michael Caesar to Oleksy” or “to this Oleksy” ... From the same Preface it is clear that the compiler of the code had reason to be dissatisfied with the local prince and his squad, he denounces their injustice and greed ; I think that this is exactly what Ioan of Dechersky would say about Prince Svyatopolk and his husbands in the mid-nineties of the 11th century, when relations between the holy monastery and the new Kiev Grand Duke had not yet improved. In view of this, I assume that the Initial Code was compiled around 1095 and brought to pious arguments about the two defeats inflicted by the Polovtsy on the Russian princes near Trepol and on Zhelan in May and July 1093 ... Behind them in some lists known to V.N. Tatishchev, the word “amen” followed, from which Tatishchev concluded that it was here that “the end of Nestorovo” was ... but I think it is more likely that here was the end of the Primary Code and at the same time the beginning of an independent part of Nesterov’s chronicle. So, here are my main reasons for the assumption that the Tale of BP. years was preceded by the older Kiev-Pechersk vault and that this vault was brought up to 1093.

14. Sources of the Tale v. years. The main and main source for Nestor was the specified Kiev-Pechersk Code or, as we will call it, the Initial Code. But he completely revised and supplemented it on the basis of numerous materials. (...) Among the translated sources, we point to the Chronicle of Amdrtol and his successor ... Further - to the chronograph, probably similar in type to the Hellenic and "" Roman chronicler ... Therefore - to Nikiforov the chronicler soon - Further - to the Life Basil the New... Finally, on the Revelation of Methodius of Patara... As a non-Slavonic source, one can define the Legend of the acquisition of Slovenian letters... Let's name it from Russian sources. The legend of the Apostle Andrew... and treaties with the Greeks... In addition, Nestor added to the Tale of BP. several folk legends for years ... The news of 1094-1111 was told by Nestor partly according to direct personal impressions, partly according to oral reports (by the way, the Kiev thousand Yan Vyshatich). The fact that Nestor got access to treaties with the Greeks may indicate the interest of the prince (Svyatopolk) in the chronicle work compiled in the Caves Monastery.

It is remarkable that the lists of the Tale BP. years have all a pass in the will of Yaroslav Vladimirovich: it is not mentioned that Volodimer was bequeathed to Igor... ". It is unlikely that this omission arose by accident. Most likely it was made to please the policy of Svyatopolk holding. "Volodimer for himself, who planted" you son Yaroslav, who was afraid of the claims of Volodimer from Davyd Igorevich; the latter was based, of course, on Yaroslav's will. Later, during the great reign of Vladimir Monomakh, such a change in Yaroslav's will would no longer be necessary, since Davyd Igorevich died in 1113, his son Vsevolodko was Monomakh's son-in-law (husband of Euphemia Vladimirovna), and his own nephew Mstislav died in 1116 (Volodimer until 1118 was in the possession of Yaroslav Svyatopolchich). If my guess is correct, then in the absence of the words “and Igor Volodimer” in Yaroslav’s will, we would have extra evidence in favor of Svyatopolk’s immediate participation in compiling the Nestor’s Tale of the b. years.

It is possible, however, that in the part before 1094 something was written down by Nestor on the basis of personal and direct impressions. Such is the story of the transfer of the relics of Theodosius. Undoubtedly, the Primary Code should have spoken of this important event in monastic life. But the story that has come down to us, especially in the first part, is so subjective that one involuntarily begs the thought of its later origin, when personal reminiscences could receive general interest, when there were not so many witnesses of the event left. The word "az" at the beginning of the named story is used four times; everything in general, the beginning of the story is in the 1st person, which is quite unusual in the Tale of BP. years (except for individual episodic inserts). In this approach, one can see feature by Nestor. It is possible that Nestor, according to his custom, called himself, but Sylvester omitted his name, while omitting by mistake the words “commended to his saints and his power” ... thanks to which an awkward phrase was obtained: “at his command, I would have been sinful and first self-seeing.” (...)

15. Sylvester's edition of the Tale VR. years. So, according to the previous one, Vladimir Monomakh entrusted Vydubitsky hegumen Sylvester with the revision of the Kiev-Pechersk Tale of BP. years; this commission was carried out last in 1116. Sylvester was a person close to Monomakh: this can be seen from the fact that in 1118 he was made a bishop in Pereyaslavl, Monomakh's patrimony. In view of the specific assignment given to him by Monomakh, Sylvester, one might think, limited his work to editorial corrections: he eliminated.

Nesterov's chronicle all that could be unpleasant for the new prince, and inserted into his code several articles favorable to Monomakh. I think that over time it will be possible to trace this editorial work of Sylvester and restore, to one degree or another, the Nestor Code. Here I must confine myself to a few cursory remarks.

In the title of the Tale BP. years, Sylvester, as we have seen, omitted the words "Nester of the Chrnoriz of Theodosius Monastery of Pechersk." In the chronological article of 6360 (852) of the year, one or another Nestor's indication, which was read at the end of the article, he altered to "and from the death of Yaroslavl to the death of Svyatoplcha about 60 years" ... Svyatopolk died on April 17, 6621 (1НЗ) years ... therefore, Sylvester began his work in the great reign of Monomakh. The greatest number of editorial changes should be attributed to the part relating to the time of Svyatopolkov's reign. I think, for example, that the message about the laying of the church of St. Michael ... shortened and, perhaps, distorted; at least the solemn determination of the date: “indict (1), the circle of the moon is 4 summer, and the circle of the sun is 8 summer” was erroneously transferred by Sylvester from article 6616 to article 6615. It is possible that some articles read in the lists of the Tale that have come down to us. years and relating to Monomakh are inserted by Sylvester. Such, as it were, is Article 6603 (1095) of the year ... which describes in great detail the murder of Itlar and his squad in Pereyaslavl, although an indication that this happened during the stay of Slavyata sent from Kiev by Svyatopolk ... gives reason to think that the story was recorded in Kiev from the words of Slavyata. It is also possible that Sylvester owns the insertion of Volodimer's name under the name of Svyatopolk in a number of articles recorded under 6603 and slgodazh. With more certainty, one can see the hand of Abbot Sylvester at the beginning of article 6613 (1103).<...>16. In Among the sources of the Sylvester edition was the Galician chronicle of priest Vasily. The position of the chronicler of the time of Svyatopolk was especially ticklish when he had to talk about the events of 1097, about the blinding of Vasilko and the treacherous role of Svyatopolk, who could not be accused of connivance alone. Probably, Nestor escaped with silence about the participation of Svyatopolk in this evil deed, having charged the entire vivun of Davyd Igorevich. Sylvester could not keep Nesterov's story: on the one hand, it was necessary to give a more truthful account of the event, and on the other, it was desirable to recall the noble impulse of Monomakh, who moved in defense of Vasilko and, with his intervention, alleviated his fate. In this case, Nestor's authority was countered by another authoritative evidence: the story of the priest Vasily, full of life and at the same time true. The existence of Vasily, the author of the story about the blinding of Vasilko, is proved by his personal reference to himself: Davyd Igorevich turned to the chronicler, who happened in Vladimir Volynsky during the stay of Vasilko Rostislavich, imprisoned there, with the words: Vasilkov, tzu to your own, from the sim of the lad, and give him tacos, ”etc. ... Who was this Vasily? His presence in Vladimir could hardly have been an accident; of course, it is caused by the very circumstances that brought the blinded prince here; indeed, if Vasily turned out to be an accidental guest in Vladimir and, moreover, a stranger to Vasilko, the local prince would not turn to him with a very responsible assignment; the quoted words of Davyd Igorevich directly allude to the closeness of Vasily to Vasilko (“go to Vasilkovi, your own”); True, it turns out that the closeness between them is accidental, established only by the name, but it is very likely that the “tz” is a later reading, replacing the original “son”. Expressing such an assumption, I am approaching the assertion that Vasily was the spirit of Vasilko Rostislavich: he accompanied him to the Lyubyach Congress, "he was sent along with the convoy from Kyiv before the misfortune that befell Vasilko ("I already ordered the goods to go ahead," says Vasilko Svyatopolk); in Vladimir, he waited and met his prince. That Vasily was a companion of Vasilko Rostislavich and after his conversation with him in the courtyard of Vakeevo, is evident from that detailed description (which we have, of course, thanks to Vasily) of the events played out in 1098 and 1099 in Volhynia and near Przemysl; these events are described by a person familiar with the area near Przemysl. .. as well as with Volhynia; in the description we see a close witness of the events ... That Vasily was the confessor of Vasilko Rostislavich can be concluded from the condemnation that Vasilko’s actions, which disagree with the Christian feeling, meet in him (“and do it, mooing on innocent people, and shed innocent blood” .. . "do this second murmur, it would not be foolish to do it" ...); but next to this, Vasily’s complete sympathy for the Terebovel prince is also revealed: he conveys in detail his conversation with him in order to prove his innocence, the absence of evil thoughts in him against the brethren; describing the battle of Volodar and Vasilko with Svyatopolk, who violated the kiss of the cross, Vasily reports that Prince Vasilko, having raised the cross, reproached Svyatopolk with it (and at the same time called him the culprit of his blindness), after which velmy "...

So, I admit that the description that has come down to us of the blinding of Vasilko Rostislavich and the subsequent events of 1098 and 1099 was compiled by the priest Vasily, the confessor of the named prince. We have reason to assume that Vasily was familiar with the Tale of b. years. The point is the following. Vasily's story ends with a brief message about princely congress, which was in 1100 and resolved the Volyn issue; that this message was not compiled for the Tale of BP. years, it is clear, firstly, from the fact that there is no indication of the year in front of him, and secondly, from the fact that in the Tale of BP. years, this message in a more complete form is read in its place under the year 6608 (1100). The edition of the named message in the story of Vasily ... clearly indicates its dependence on the message of the Tale of the BP. years ... hence it follows that Vasily was familiar with the Tale of Bygone Years. An essential question is with which edition of the Tale BP. years could meet Vasily. From the reference to the death of Davyd Igorevich ... it is clear that Vasily worked after -25 - May "1P2_" (the day of Davyd's death); therefore, he could also have at his disposal the main edition of the Tale by BP. years and the second, or Sylvester, edition; it is unbelievable that Vasily wrote after 1118, i.e., after compiling the third edition, for the presence of his story in all lists of the Tale of BP. years indicates that it was read either in the second or in the third edition. I used to think that Vasily used the Sylvester edition, based on the fact that in his message it reads: “N give him Dorogobuzh, in a little and die”, i.e., just as it is read in the Sylvester edition under the year 6608 ( for the Sylvester edition, this is understandable in view of the fact that it was compiled in 1116). But now I find it possible to explain the words of the Sylvester edition: “in the future and die” either by transferring the same words from the end of Article 6605, or by borrowing them from the main edition. This last explanation is simpler and clearer; but having accepted it, we must inevitably conclude that the main edition of the Tale of BP. years compiled after May 25, 1112; I have already pointed out the possibility of such a conclusion. Consequently, Vasily, having received at his disposal the main edition of the Tale of BP. years old, began compiling his narrative; and it was caused by the appearance in Przemysl or Terebovlya of a copy from the Tale of BP. years; it is possible that Vasily copied for himself or for his prince the Tale compiled in Kyiv and included in it not only a story about the events of 1097-1099, but also other news related to the Galician land. (...)

17. How Sylvester did with the end of the main edition of the Tale by BP. years? Previous research has made it likely that in the main edition of the Tale, pp. years under 6609 (1100) it was read: “and by seven to go Svyatoplk Davydov Dorogobuzh, in a little and die”; from here we concluded that the main edition of the Tale by BP. years was compiled after May 25, 1112; "" this - makes "probable that the said edition ended not with the news of the sign over the Caves Monastery, but with a story about the events of 1111 and 1112; the recording of modern events was interrupted due to a change in the monastery management that occurred in at the beginning of 1113 (the election of hegumen Prokhor instead of Feoktist, who had gone to Chernigov). Sylvester had to omit Nestor's story about the princes' campaign against the Polovtsians in 1111 for the very reason that he replaced Nestor's story about the meeting of the princes before the campaign of 1103 with another, compiled, one might say, out of his head. Obviously, Nestor attributed to Svyatopolk both the initiation of this campaign of 1111 and all its glory. Sylvester did not bother to compile his description (as he did in the article of 6611), but taking advantage of the close end of the code being redone, he simply omitted everything that was read in it after Article 6618. This opened up the possibility for the compiler of the third edition of the tell about the glorious campaign and connect it with a miraculous sign over the Caves Monastery. The message about this sign was included in the Sylvester edition in a slightly modified form: instead of the three pillars of the main edition, he had one pillar.

18. Edition of 1118 of the Tale of Bygone Years. Above, the reasons that prompted the Pechersk Monastery to take care of returning to it the chronicle, transferred to another monastery by the will of Vladimir Monomakh, were clarified. It turned out to be possible to achieve this thanks to the fact, firstly, that the code compiled by hegumen Sylvester was laid at the basis of the new Kyiv Pechersk vault, and secondly, that the work on the correspondence of the vault and its continuation was entrusted to a person devoted to Vladimir Monomakh. Unfortunately, we cannot guess the name of this person. But from his work, a few specific data are extracted that are sufficient to characterize him. It was a monk of the Kyiv-Pechersk monastery: restoration in the title of the Tale by BP. years of the words of the “Chrnorizian Theodosius Monastery of the Caves” ... linking the glorious campaign of 1111 with the phenomenon that preceded it over the Caves Monastery, a detailed article of 1112 regarding the change of the Caves abbot - all this serves as sufficient proof of our assertion. The author was a well-read and learned man: this is confirmed by the extracts he made from Methodius of Patara... the chronograph... Interpretations of Hippolytus... He was close to Vladimir Monomakh: this is evidenced by both his respectful and love relationship to Monomakh, which is found in many articles of the last part of his work, embracing the events of 6618-6625, and those materials that he had to use; this includes, firstly, the Teaching of Vladimir Monomakh, whose close connection with the edition of 1118 is established, as we have seen, by the presence in this Teaching of the annals brought up to 1117 ... secondly, a number of other news concerning Monomakh and his family received, perhaps in part, through oral communication. The compiler of the third edition of the Tale BP. years was also a seasoned man: in 1114 he was in the north of Novgorod, visited Ladoga here, wrote down both Ladoga and Novgorod stories about the northern countries ... as well as the Ladoga legend about the founding of Ladoga by Rurik ... In connection with this, they stand, of course, the Novgorod news, which ended up in the third edition: under 6621 (1113) about the laying of the stone church of St. Nikola at the prince's court near the merchant in Novgorod ... under 6622 (1114) about the expansion of the Novgorod wall by Mstislav ... and under 6624 (1116) about Mstislav's campaign against the Chud with the Novgorodians and Pskovians ... Comparing the data in favor of the closeness of the compiler of the editorial board to Vladimir Monomakh with data indicating his connection with Mstislav Vladimirovich of Novgorod, I think that this Kiev Pechersk tonsurer was either a confessor or, in general, a clergyman close to Mstislav; in favor of my assumption I can give two considerations; Firstly, from 1095 to 1108, Nikita, a monk of the Pechersk Monastery, sat on the episcopal chair in Novgorod, enjoying great authority due to his holy life and care for the church of St. Sofia; Nikita could attract the Chernorizians of the Caves known to him to his sovereign court and bring one of them closer to Prince Mstislav; secondly, the following chronological coincidence is remarkable: Mstislav was transferred from Novgorod to the south (where he sat in Belgorod) in 1117, and in 1118 the third edition of the Tale was compiled. years; this suggests that the arrival in Kyiv of a monk of the Pechersk monastery close to Mstislav prompted the latter to entrust him with compiling a chronicle code and restoring the monastery chronicle. The inclusion of the Teachings of Monomakh in the code of 1118 is especially natural under the assumption that this code was compiled by a person close to Mstislav; the latter, as the eldest son of Monomakhov, could have kept the Instruction for Children, compiled by Vladimir, apparently in 1100-1101; Mstislav also kept a letter from Vladimir to Oleg Svyatoslavich, written at the end of 1096 after the battle of Murom on September 6 of this year (when Izyaslav Vladimirovich was killed); Mstislav got this letter after his victory over Oleg at Kolaksha, when the latter fled to Mur, and from there to Ryazan and further from Ryazan, under the pressure of the winner, his godson. Mstislav handed over all these materials to the compiler of the Kiev Pechersk code, bringing the list of his father's campaigns up to 1117.

If our guess is correct, if indeed the third edition of the Tale BP. years was compiled by a person close primarily to Mstislav Vladimirovich, then it is to this person that the entry into the Tale of the bp. years, in an article of 6604, a story about the campaign of Oleg Svyatolovich against Murom and the events that followed this in Suzdal and Rostov lands ... these events could hardly have been of particular interest to the Kiev chronicler of the time of Svyatopolk; Sylvester, in turn, was not inclined, as we have seen, to recreate the past from the recollections and interrogations of older contemporaries; on the contrary, the compiler of the third edition, as a person close to Mstislav Vladimirovich, should have been especially interested in these events: the Novgorod prince had to play the main role here; he moved against Oleg with the Novgorod army and, with the help of the Novgorodians, defeated the enemy in the battle of Kolaksha. To see in the author of the Kyiv-Pechersk shepherd prompts me the mention that after the burning of Suzdal by Oleg, there “there remained the courtyard of the monastery of the Pechersk monastery and the circus, even there there is St. Pecheryans and is closest to them known. But this Pechersk tonsurer lived in Novgorod, as can be concluded from his report that the body of Izyaslav, who was killed in the battle of Murom, was (later?) transferred to Novgorod, “and it was also at St. Sophia’s, in the left country” ... Proximity is the author to Bishop Nikita of Novgorod (which I mentioned presumably above) is found from the end of the story about Mstislav's campaign: “Mstislav, having returned back to Suzhdal, from there came Novgorod, to their city, with the prayers of the Reverend Bishop Nikita"...

19. The main conclusions reached by the previous study. So, our conclusions are as follows: 1) The main, or first, edition of the Tale by BP. years was compiled in the Kiev Pechersk Monastery by St. Nestor in 1112; benevolent to Svyatopolk, it was not widely used and after the death of Svyatopolk it was reworked. 2) However, the main edition became known in Przemysl or Terebovl, where the confessor of Vasilko Rostislavich, rewriting and shortening it in 1113-1116, introduced his story about the events of 1097-1099 into it. 3) In 1116, the revision of the main edition was made by the hegumen of the Mikhailovsky Vydubytsky monastery Sylvester; in this Sylvester, or second, edition of the Tale BP. For years, the personality of Svyatopolk has been relegated to the shadows; on the contrary, the personality and activities of Vladimir Monomakh are given an outstanding place; to tell about the events of 1097-1100, Sylvester used the chronicle of the priest Basil. 4) Alarmed by the transfer of the annals to the Vydubytsky monastery, the Kievopechersky monastery entrusted the compilation of a new annalistic code to its tonsure, the confessor of Mstislav Vladimirovich, who had just moved from Novgorod to the Kiev region; due to the loss of the main edition, the compiler of the third edition, who worked in 1118, had to use the Sylvester edition; he Supplemented it mainly with news that had one or another relation to Vladimir Monomakh, and continued to article 6625 (1117), adding Monomakh's Instruction to Children at the end of the code).

Shakhmatov A. A. The Tale of Bygone Years. Pg., 1916. Vol. 1: Introduction. Text. Notes. C. I-XLI.

"The Tale of Bygone Years" is one of the most ancient monuments of Russian literature, the creation of which dates back to 1113.

The life of Nestor the Chronicler, creator of The Tale of Bygone Years

Nestor the Chronicler was born in Kyiv in 1056. At the age of seventeen, he went as a novice to the Kiev Caves Monastery. There he became a chronicler.

In 1114 Nestor died and was buried in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. On November 9 and October 11 he is commemorated by the Orthodox Church.

Nestor the Chronicler is known as the first writer who was able to tell about the history of Christianity. His first known work was The Life of Saints Boris and Gleb, and soon after it was followed by The Life of St. Theodosius of the Caves. But the main work of Nestor, which brought him worldwide fame, is, of course, The Tale of Bygone Years, a literary monument of ancient Russia.

The authorship of this story does not belong only to Nestor the Chronicler. Rather, Nestor skillfully collected information from a variety of sources and created a chronicle from them. For work, Nestor needed chronicles and old legends, he also used the stories of merchants, travelers and soldiers. In his time, many witnesses of the wars and raids of the Polovtsy were still alive, so he could listen to their stories.

Lists of "The Tale of Bygone Years"

It is known that The Tale of Bygone Years was subject to changes. Vladimir Monomakh handed over the manuscript in 1116. Its last chapters were redone by abbot Sylvester. Hegumen Sylvester went against the will of the rector of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, giving the manuscript to the Vydubitsky Monastery.

Significant parts of The Tale of Bygone Years later became part of such annals as Lavrentievskaya, Ipatievskaya, First Novgorodskaya.

Usually, any ancient Russian chronicle consists of several texts, some of which refer to sources of an earlier time. The Tale of Bygone Years, a list of which was made in the 14th century, became part of the Laurentian Chronicle, created by the monk Lavrenty. Rather, the monk Lavrenty used the work of the monk Nestor as the main source for his chronicle. The name of the lists "The Tale of Bygone Years" was usually created by the name of the monk who made the list, or by the place where the list was made. In the middle of the 15th century, another oldest list"The Tale of Bygone Years" titled

The Tale of Bygone Years begins with biblical stories. Noah, after the flood, settled his sons - Ham, Shem and Japheth - throughout the Earth. The name of the lists "The Tale of Bygone Years" also indicates the biblical beginning of these chronicles. It was believed that the Russian people descended from Japheth.

Then the chronicler tells about the life of the East Slavic tribes and the establishment of the state in Russia. The chronicler points out the legend according to which Kyi, Shchek, Khoriv and their sister Lybid came to rule the East Slavic lands. There they founded the city of Kyiv. The tribes of the Slavs living in the northern part of Russia called on the Varangian brothers to rule them. The brothers' names were Rurik, Sineus and Truvor. The name of the lists "The Tale of Bygone Years" also has the purpose of exalting the ruling power in Russia, and for this purpose it is indicated that its foreign origin. From the Varangians who came to Russia, began royal family in Russia.

Basically, the chronicle describes wars, and also talks about how temples and monasteries were created. The chronicle sees the events of Russian history in the context of world history and directly connects these events with the Bible. The traitorous prince Svyatopolk killed the brothers Boris and Gleb, and the chronicler draws a comparison with the murder of Abel by Cain. Prince Vladimir, who baptized Russia, is compared with the Roman emperor Constantine, who introduced Christianity as the official religion in Russia. Before baptism, Prince Vladimir was a sinful person, but baptism radically changed his life, he became a saint.

Traditions in the "Tale of Bygone Years"

The Tale of Bygone Years includes not only historical facts, but also legends. Traditions served as important sources of information for the chronicler, since he no longer had the opportunity to learn about what happened several centuries or decades before him.

The legend about the founding of the city of Kyiv tells about the origin of the city and about who it was named after. The legend about the Prophetic Oleg, placed in the text of the chronicle, tells about the life and death of Prince Oleg. The legend about Princess Olga, telling how she strongly and cruelly avenged her death, was also included in the chronicle. "The Tale of Bygone Years" tells a legend about Prince Vladimir. Messengers came to him different peoples and each offered their faith. But each faith had its shortcomings. The Jews did not have their own land, Muslims were forbidden to have fun and drink intoxicating drinks, German Christians wanted to capture Russia.

And Prince Vladimir eventually settled on the Greek branch of Christianity.

The role of signs in the "Tale of Bygone Years"

If you carefully read the text of the chronicle, it becomes obvious that the chronicler pays great attention to various natural phenomena, linking them with divine forces. He considers earthquakes, floods and droughts to be God's punishment, and solar and lunar eclipses, in his opinion, are a warning from heavenly powers. Solar eclipses played a special role in the life of princes. Researchers note that the symbols of dates and the title of The Tale of Bygone Years are also influenced by natural phenomena and the chronology of time.

The prince sees a solar eclipse in 1185 before starting his campaign against the Polovtsians. His warriors warn him, saying it's not good. But the prince disobeyed them and went to the enemy. As a result, his army was defeated. Also, a solar eclipse usually foreshadowed the death of a prince. During the period from 1076 to 1176 there were 12 solar eclipses, and after each of them there was the death of one of the princes. The chronicle was tuned to the fact that the end of the world, or the Last Judgment, would come in 1492, and prepared its readers for this. Droughts and eclipses foreshadowed wars and the imminent end of the world.

Style features of "The Tale of Bygone Years"

The name of the lists of The Tale of Bygone Years is determined by the genre features of these chronicles. First of all, chronicles are typical works of ancient Russian literature. That is, they contain features of different genres. These are not works of art and not just historical works, but they combine the features of both. The Tale of Bygone Years, a copy of which was found in Novgorod, also has these features.

The chronicle itself was obviously legal document. Scientist N.I. Danilevsky believes that the annals were not intended for people, but for God, who was supposed to read them at the Last Judgment. Therefore, the chronicles described in detail the deeds of the princes and their subordinates.

The task of the chronicler is not the interpretation of events, not the search for their causes, but simply a description. The present is conceived in the context of the past. The Tale of Bygone Years, whose lists are legendary, has an "open genre" in which features of different genres are mixed. As is known, in ancient Russian literature there was still no clear division of genres, only chronicles existed from written works, therefore they combined the features of a novel, poem, story and legal documents.

What does the title "The Tale of Bygone Years" mean?

The name of the vault was given by the first line of the chronicle "Behold the tale of bygone years ...". "The Tale of Bygone Years" means "The Tale of the Past Years", since the word "summer" in Old Russian meant "year". Many are trying to find out what the title "The Tale of Bygone Years" means. In the broadest sense, this is a story about the existence of this world, which sooner or later awaits the Judgment of God. "The Tale of Bygone Years", a copy of which was found in the monastery, is considered the earliest work.

Previous vaults

The Tale of Bygone Years was subjected to a thorough textual analysis. And it turned out that it was compiled on the basis of earlier chronicle writings.

The Tale of Bygone Years and the previous collections form a single whole, that is, the Tale largely repeats what was written before it. Modern history adheres to the opinion of Academician A.A. Shakhmatov, who studied all the ancient chronicles using the comparative method. He discovered that the very first chronicle was the Ancient Kyiv Chronicle, created in 1037. It talked about when the history of mankind began and when Russia was baptized.

In 1073, the Kiev-Pechersk chronicle was created. In 1095, the second edition of the Kiev-Pechersk Code appeared, it is also called the Initial Code.

Symbolism of dates

The calendar dates in The Tale of Bygone Years were seen as having special significance. If for modern man calendar dates do not matter, then for the chronicler, each date or day of the week on which events took place was filled with special historical significance. And the chronicler tried to mention more often those days or dates that had more meaning and carried more value. Since Saturday and Sunday were considered special, or sacred, days at that time, these days are mentioned in the Tale of Bygone Years 9 and 17 times, respectively, and weekdays are mentioned less frequently. Wednesday is mentioned only 2 times, Thursday three times, Friday five times. Monday and Tuesday are mentioned only once each. It can be argued that the symbolism of dates and the title of The Tale of Bygone Years are closely related to the religious context.

The Tale of Bygone Years was closely associated with the religious worldview, so all its features were based on this. The chronicler sees all events only in the context of the coming Last Judgment, so he looks at what is happening from the point of view of divine powers. They warn people of coming wars, droughts and crop failures. They punish the villains who committed murders and robberies, and the innocent are elevated to the divine throne. The relics of saints take on unusual qualities. This is evidenced by the legends about the lives of Saints Boris and Gleb. Also, temples are sacred places where the wicked and pagans cannot penetrate.

(No ratings yet)

In a previous article called "" we found out that the most profitable strategy for a novice author is to publish stories in magazines. Today I will tell you more about how to publish in a magazine and how to convey your stories to the editors.

So, we will assume that there are already enough stories in your piggy bank, and you have correctly selected and distributed them for submission to magazines. Now the question arises: how best to contact the editors? You can send manuscripts to the specified address by regular mail, you can send texts by e-mail, or you can call and ask how best to proceed. But perfect option, as practice shows, to come personally.

Visiting the editorial office of a magazine has many advantages over email. You will personally hand over the texts to the responsible person, you will know his last name and first name, you will be sure that your stories are not stuck on the way and have reached the addressee. In addition, in live communication it will be very difficult to refuse you under some far-fetched pretext, and if a refusal is inevitable, then there is a chance that you will (at least) briefly explain its reason, and you can continue to work on yourself.

Most major publications work in big cities, and it is not always possible to drive directly to them. In particular, because of the magnitude of the cost of travel, which will not pay off with any fees. If you are far from the capital and are not ready to incur such expenses, I recommend doing the following: contact the publications that are located in your regional or district center- these must exist. These magazines will be less prestigious, but after you get published in them, your chances of getting into the "fashionable" pages of the capital will increase dramatically. Your attitude will be different.

If you still can’t get to the desired publications, call them. A telephone conversation in this case also has many advantages. You can also communicate with a specific person responsible for parsing texts, find out his work schedule and whether your correspondence has reached e-mail. In large journals, each author is often assigned a personal number, which will then make it easier for you to collaborate in the future.

Another option for contacting the editors is mail, regular and electronic. Unfortunately, at the moment regular mail is one of the most expensive and unreliable means of communication. All your handwritten (or not so) work can easily be delayed for several months on the way, or it can disappear altogether, and it is not possible to track the path of its movements. In addition, now magazines rarely keep a special person as a clerk, which means that one of the employees can deal with mail in their free time from other work. Now you can imagine the chances of getting your texts on desired table In a similar way. However, some "old school" publications still use regular mail instead of email, which they do not seem to trust.

And in a way they are really right. Email at the time of its inception, it was very popular in any organization, but now, in addition to useful materials, an endless amount of advertising, offers for cooperation, letters from talented and not so talented authors, and mountains of other spam come to the editorial office. It is unlikely that even a person specially assigned to check the “box” is able to cope well with hundreds of messages a day. And how do you like spam filters and anti-virus traps that immediately destroy not only advertising messages, but also dozens of the most suspicious emails along with them? In a word, your letter will have plenty of difficulties on the way, and you should not get depressed if there is no answer from the editors. There are too many chances that your work did not reach the addressee at all.

If you nevertheless decide to try this means of communication, fortunately, it is the most economical and convenient, then I recommend sending your texts again after two weeks of waiting, apologizing for the repetition. Then, after waiting a couple more weeks, call or send a request - “did the letter come?”. In no case should you be indignant and escalate the situation - it is very easy to ruin a reputation. Often the editors enter into correspondence only with those authors whose texts suit them. It is physically impossible to explain to everyone personally the reason for the refusal, so if you still have not waited for an answer, review the emails sent again and evaluate them on the subject: do they belong to the direction (format) of this publication?

Sometimes the editors may contact you and offer several change your texts. This means that in general, they like it, but your work either does not quite fit the format, or falls short in some way. Some magazine communication guides advise you to explain your point of view (for example, why your story ended the way it did), but the literary editor has undeniable experience in this matter and literally intuitively feels the flaws. Whether to make changes is up to you. Personally, I don't find it offensive.

A well-written representative letter has a significant impact on a good attitude towards the author. But about him - another time. Good luck!