The study of the text of the chronicles presents many peculiarities related to the fact that the chronicles were compiled differently from other literary and historical works of Ancient Russia. The chronicles are large in volume, they developed one from another, continuously, through processing and compilation of codes of previous material. Close to chronicles (but not in all respects) in the nature of their text are chronographs, power books, various kinds of paleas, the Greek and Roman chroniclers. Therefore, certain principles of the textual study of chronicles can be applied to these works that are similar in nature to chronicles.
The textual study of chronicles is very complex, and at the same time there are major achievements in it. The science of Russian chronicles has been around for 200 years. The study of the text of the chronicles was carried out by N. I. Kostomarov, I. I. Sreznevsky, K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, A. A. Shakhmatov, A. E. Presnyakov, M. D. Priselkov, N. F. Lavrov, M. N. Tikhomirov, A. N. Nasonov. B. A. Rybakov, Ya. S. Lurie, G. M. Prokhorov, B. M. Kloss and other prominent specialists continue to study it.
By studying the text of the chronicles, many advanced principles of textual research were honed, which then began to be successfully applied to other material 697.
This book has already given many examples from the study of the text of chronicles, since the textual criticism of chronicles has developed the basic principles of modern textual criticism in general. In this chapter we will focus primarily on the specific features of studying the text of the chronicles.
Chronicler's work
The methodology of textual research, as we have already seen, largely depends on how the ancient Russian scribe worked. The features of the textual study of chronicles also depend to a certain extent on how the Old Russian chronicler worked.
In the literature on ancient Russian chronicles, there was a lot of controversy about how the chronicles were kept. Some researchers saw the compilers of the chronicles as simple, unsophisticated and objective presenters of facts. Others, like A. A. Shakhmatov and M. D. Priselkov, assumed on the basis of textual data that the chroniclers were very knowledgeable source scholars who combined various material from previous chronicles from the point of view of certain political and historical concepts. Of course, the latter are right. It was their ideas that made it possible to unravel the complex composition of the chronicle codes and construct a general scheme for the history of Russian chronicles. The application of these views to the textual criticism of chronicles turned out to be practically fruitful.
Let us turn to the statements and statements of the chroniclers themselves and take a detailed look at their work.
First of all, we note that the nature of the text of the chronicles was largely determined by their acute political orientation.
The chronicle was most closely connected with the class and intra-class struggle of its time, with the struggle between individual feudal centers. In 1241, the Galician prince Daniil ordered his printer Cyril to “cover up the robbery of the wicked boyars,” and this report of Cyril formed the bulk of Daniil’s princely chronicle. In another case (1289), Prince Mstislav Danilovich ordered the sedition of the inhabitants of Berestye to be recorded in the chronicle.
The way the chronicler himself looked at his work is shown by the following characteristic entry in the burnt Trinity Chronicle. Under 1392, it read bitter reproaches to the Novgorodians for their disobedience to the great princes: “Besha, people are harsh, unruly, stubborn, insubordinate<...>Who did the prince not anger, or who did the prince please them? Even if the great Alexander Yaroslavich [Nevsky] did not let them down!” As evidence, the chronicler refers to the Moscow chronicle: “And if you want to search, open the book of the Great Russian Chronicler - and read from the Great Yaroslav to this current prince” 698. Indeed, the Moscow chronicle is full of political attacks against the Novgorod, Tver, Suzdal, and Ryazan residents, just as the Ryazan, Tver, Novgorod, and Nizhny Novgorod chronicles are against the Muscovites. In the chronicle we will meet angry denunciations of the boyars (in Galician, Vladimir, Moscow), the democratic lower classes (in Novgorod), a sharp defense of “black people” from living people and the boyars (in some Pskov chronicles), anti-princely attacks of the boyars themselves (in the Novgorod chronicle XII century), defense of the foundations of the grand ducal “single power” (in the Tver chronicle of the mid-15th century and in the Moscow chronicle of the late 15th–16th centuries), etc.
The prefaces to the chronicles also speak about the purely “worldly” - political tasks that the chroniclers set for themselves. Few of these prefaces have survived, since in all cases of later alterations of the chronicles they were destroyed as not corresponding to the new tasks of the chronicle compilations that included them. But even those prefaces that have survived speak quite clearly about the specific political goals that the chroniclers set for themselves.
The compiler of the “Chronicle of the reign of the Tfer faithful and great princes of Tfer” (the code of the Tver prince Boris Alexandrovich) writes in the preface to his work that he fulfilled it at the command of the “piety-loving” Prince Boris Alexandrovich, that he devotes his work to the glorification of “the honor of the wise Michael, the God-loving prince,” i.e. Mikhail Alexandrovich Tverskoy. He outlines the boundaries of his chronicle writing - “I will begin from Kiev even to this God-protected city of Tefers,” speaks about the sources of his compilation (“Vladimir polychron”, “Russian granograph according to the great exposition”) and precisely indicates his tasks: to show how “ Lord God raise up and glorify the horn of the Tver land,” to prove that both Mikhail and his father Alexander Tverskoy were “autocrats,” “the ruler of the Russian land,” having borrowed their power in a direct hereditary line from the great Vladimir, “who enlightened the Russian land with holy baptism » 699.
The preface of the Sofia Temporary has a completely different, anti-princely character. Its compiler does not set himself the goals of praising anyone. On the contrary, the chronicler is going to teach his contemporaries by the example of the ancient princes; he makes harsh remarks about the princes of his contemporaries, ironizes the behavior of them and their squad. “I pray to you, flock of Christ: incline your ears wisely with love! How were the ancient princes and their men. And how I took the Russian land and other countries under it: because the princes did not collect much of their property, neither from their creations, nor from selling it to people in warehouses. But once again, you are right-wing, and then you give the squad money for weapons. And his squad is feeding, fighting other countries, fighting: “Brotherhood! Let’s move along our princes and across the Russian land.” Not to jadahu: “200 hryvnia is not enough for me, prince!” I do not put gold hoops on my wives, but I put silver on their wives. And the Russian land became fruitful; For our gluttony, God brought upon us filth and our cattle, and our villages and our estates belong to them. But we will not leave our evil ones behind...” 700 .
The politically biased nature of the chronicle can be demonstrated by the following example: under 6840 (1332) in the Synodal list of the Novgorod first chronicle it reads: “Ivan [Kalita] came from the Horde and unleashed anger on Novgorod, asking them for the silver of Zakamsky, and in that he took Torzhek and Bezhichi leaders for Novgorod treason.” However, as already mentioned (see above), the words “for the Novgorod treason” turn out to be written in a scraped copy, and initially, as can be seen from reading other copies of the First Novgorod Chronicle, it contained the words: “through the kiss of the cross” 701. This means that the Novgorodian chronicler accused Ivan Kalita of violating the kiss of the cross; The Muscovite is a chronicler, in whose hands in the 15th century. The Synodal list visited, accused the Novgorodians themselves of treason, scraping out Kalita’s accusations. The creator of the chronicle - whether it was a monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, a representative of the white clergy (as in Novgorod - German Voyata), a posadnik (as in Pskov), a Moscow clerk or, finally, the prince himself - was not a person detached from life. The idea that chronicles were compiled on private initiative in the quiet of monastery cells has long been abandoned.
A careful reading of the chronicle, especially a parallel reading of several chronicles, clearly shows how strongly the chronicler was immersed in purely worldly interests, how closely his work was connected with the political struggle of his time. The same event evoked in different chroniclers either exclamations of joy, or manifestations of grief (cf., for example, the description of the death of Yuri Dolgoruky in the Kiev chronicle and in the Vladimir chronicle), anger or satisfaction, irony or sympathy. The chronicler sought to put his chronicle at the service of the interests of this or that prince, bishop, monastery, this or that feudal group, and defended his historical concept.
Modern study of the text of chronicles is based on the idea of them as “codes” - huge compilations of previous chronicles. The chronicler was not the creator of the entire text of his chronicles.
Usually the chronicles began with a story about the beginning of Rus' or the beginning of world history. This story was compiled by the chronicler based on the written materials he already had. He could have a lot of materials or a little at his disposal. It could even be just one chronicle, which he, having rewritten, supplemented it with information over recent years. If the chronicler was a simple copyist, then this did not at all negate the consolidated nature of his chronicle, for the text he copied was still a compilation of previous material: almost every chronicle text, when created, compiled previous material. The sources of chronicle news are very often indicated by the chroniclers themselves. Thus, in the Pskov Chronicle in the Rumyantsev list (GBL, Musical collection, No. 249) and in the Vakhrameevsky (State Historical Historical Museum, collection of Vakhrameev, No. 499) under 6360, after the words “the nickname Russian will begin (in the Typographical Chronicle: Russian. - D.L.) land,” the following was added: “...and the Slavs went from Novagorod, prince Bravlin, to fight against the Greeks and conquer the Greek land: from Kherson to Korchev and to Surozh near Ts[a]ryagrad.” In the margins opposite this text, in cinnabar, it is written: “This is written about in the miracles of Stephen of Sourozh,” that is, in the Life of Stephen of Sourozh, from where information about this campaign was taken 702. In the Synodal list of the Pskov Chronicle (handwritten collection of the Synodal Assembly No. 154, State Historical Museum) there are references to the “Russian Chronicler”. Here is what A.N. Nasonov writes about this: “Talking about Ivan Vasilyevich’s campaign against Novgorod (near 6979), the chronicler (Synodal list) says: “If you wanted to know about this, the Russian chronicler passed through everything and found it out.” We started talking about him, and we will say something small and great” (PSRL. T. V). We read about this “chronicler” in the news of 6860: “There was a furious pestilence in Pskov, both in the village and throughout the entire volost; about this vast discovery is written in the Russian Chronicle” (ibid.); We read a detailed story about the sea in the Fourth Novgorod Chronicle and a similar one in the Stroevsky, Archive 2 and Archive 1 lists. From what the author said, it is clear that he abbreviated his source - “Russian Chronicler” 703.
In the Tver collection for 1276, the chronicler writes: “for the same summer, the prince’s chronicler” 705. The chronicler also refers to his source in the preface to the codex of Boris Aleksandrovich Tverskoy: “I am writing with the instructions of the first chronicler, imaginatively, just as the Volodymyr polychron of degrees is clearly indicated, and this most honorable prince reveals...” 706.
In the Fifth Novgorod Chronicle, under the article of 1405, it is written in the margin: “And this is from another old one,” i.e., “and this was copied from another, old chronicler” 707 .
In the First Sofia Chronicle, from 1077 to 1090, marks are read in the margins: “And it was written in Kiev”; “Look in Kievsky”, etc. 708
The sources of the chronicle could be not only written, but also oral. Interesting example identification of oral sources of the chronicle text is revealed by A. N. Nasonov’s study of the Synodal list of the Pskov Chronicle: “Talking in 6994 about the clash between the Moscow prince and the Tver prince, the compiler of the Synodal list notes: “Only I heard something little from the elder husband,” etc. ( compare the expression in the Synodal list under 6988: “Then the blessed Prince Domont will appear to my husband” - PSRL. T. V). The compiler thus points to oral testimony as one of his sources. What exactly the compiler of the Synodal list says in this case can be assumed on the following basis: the phrase (after the words that Ivan Vasilyevich was angry with the Tver prince) reads like this: “if we don’t know about anything, then God knows and they are in themselves: just...”, etc.; the expression “and we don’t know about what” is very characteristic of the text of the Synodal list of recent years: thus, in the text of the previous year (6993), after the news of the campaign against the Turks, we read: “and we don’t know what will happen to this day”; after the news of the Turkish attack: “and we don’t know what to hide for us to this day”; under 6992 in the story of the Novgorodians finding an icon on the Volkhov: “from where we are not known”; under 6991 in the news that the ambassadors of the Grand Duke went to Kes: “we have no idea about anything”; under 6990 in the news that ambassadors from the master (master of the Livonian Order) had arrived in Pskov. D.L.) and went to the Grand Duke: “we don’t know what to do” (in addition, under 6993 we read: “Be aware that this summer in the Pskov land many Christians were grieving for bread”; cf. under 6937 .: “Be aware that this Prince Alexander has already come to Pskov for the third time as a prince”). So, we have reason to believe that the compiler of the Synodal list himself is talking about his special source: oral testimony. It is precisely by the fact that the author used such a source that we explain the vividness of the story in the Synodal list, for example, under 6987 in the story about the campaign against Pskov, or under 6989 in the story about princes Boris and Andrei (about their refusal to go against the Germans, about their atrocities in the Pskov region, etc.) and about the campaign against the Germans itself, conveying the mood of a contemporary Pskovite (cf. last words: “as if there was a rekosha and Pskov became like nothing else”)” 709.
The concept of a chronicle was developed in science back in the 19th century. - in the works of P.M. Stroev and K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin. However, P. M. Stroev and K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin imagined chronicle vaults as a mechanical combination of various materials. A. A. Shakhmatov discovered in the Russian chronicles the conscious will of their compilers, who sought to put into the codes they compiled a certain historical and political concept - the concept of one or another feudal center.
At the same time, A. A. Shakhmatov pointed out the careful attitude of the chroniclers to the texts of their predecessors. A. A. Shakhmatov believed that the processing of previous chronicle material could be allowed by the compiler of the chronicle only for very compelling reasons; it preserved the previous text as much as possible and had strictly defined forms, limited to the developed methods of abbreviations, additions from other sources or some rare updates language and style. By combining information from previous collections, the chronicler sought to preserve their archaic appearance, as if guessing their documentary nature. No arbitrary distortion of the text, no fantastic additions and unsubstantiated statements by the chroniclers who worked before the 16th century. 710, as a rule, was not allowed. Hence, comparatively later chronicles abundantly preserve, unchanged, news from the 11th–13th centuries. However, at the same time, they processed the previous material in such a way as to give it a character that confirmed their political concept: by selecting the necessary material, combining sources, drawing on the necessary sources themselves, and sometimes only by carefully changing the text.
The very compilation of the chronicle was timed to coincide with some significant official events in the life of the feudal centers: the accession of a new prince, the founding of a cathedral, the establishment of an episcopal see, etc. Thus, the work of the chroniclers to a certain extent had a natural, uniform character. The chronicles were internally integral, politically focused works.
This idea of the chronicle as a careful, politically thoughtful compilation of previous chronicle material opened up wide possibilities for the researcher to restore the underlying chronicle lists of the most ancient codes, and their confinement to significant events in political life facilitated their dating. The continuity of the chronicle tradition and its “regularity” allowed chronicle researchers to analyze the work of the chronicler, reveal in it the work of his predecessors, and remove layer by layer from the chronicle vaults, just as archaeologists do in their research. Patiently unraveling the lists of the 15th–16th centuries. using the combinations of previous codes as their basis and analyzing their relationships, A. A. Shakhmatov, and then M. D. Priselkov, A. N. Nasonov and others managed, step by step, to restore the entire vast, centuries-old history of Russian chronicles - right down to the oldest texts of the first half of the 11th century Thus, philological science suddenly opened up the possibility of restoring lost literary monuments. The discovery of these possibilities was of exceptional importance. Experiments in restoring ancient chronicle monuments were among the highest achievements of Russian philological science. At the same time, the best and clearest confirmation of the correctness of A.A. Shakhmatov’s research methods for studying the composition of disappeared monuments was his discovery of new lists of chronicles, which fully justified many of his provisions by their composition 711.
Not only Russian chronicles have the character of vaults, although in the chronicles this feature is expressed most clearly and should be taken into account most of all by textual critics.
Russian chronographs (Hellenic chroniclers of all types, Russian chronographs of all editions), patericons, historical stories about the Time of Troubles, etc. have the character of “vaults.”
Replenishment of the main text with local materials occurred constantly, if only this was possible due to the very nature of the monument, due to the peculiarities of its genre. Among genres of this kind, we note, for example, Prologue. Prologue is a collection composed of various articles about saints arranged by day of the year. This arrangement of the material easily made it possible to replenish it with new materials without destroying the entire structure of the monument. When reading about foreign saints, the thought naturally arose to supplement it with information about our own saints - local ones, sometimes only locally revered. Readers made additions in the margins, and these additions were incorporated into the text in subsequent correspondence. Separately existing works about local saints were also included in the text. Thus, the Pskov copies of the Prologue usually include the life of the Pskov saint - Prince Dovmont-Timothy. Such replenishment of news is a very typical phenomenon, as we saw above, for the chronicle.
Many Russian stories are grouped into “vaults” (for example, the tales of the icon of Nikola Zarazsky, the literary history of which is in many ways reminiscent of the history of chronicle vaults).
The difference, however, between chronicle collections and all others lies in the fact that, firstly, the consolidated nature in chronicles is expressed much more sharply than in other literary genres of Ancient Rus', and secondly, in the fact that chronicle collections do not simply connect different works , but are combined under each annual article separately. The text of the chronicle is included in the text of another chronicle as a “comb”: each annual article is a small independent compilation and is very often similar in structure to other adjacent annual articles.
The discovery of the consolidated, compilative nature of Russian chronicles made by P.M. Stroev (preface to the Sophia Vremennik, 1820) became one of the unshakable foundations of the science of chronicle writing. Without taking into account this feature of Russian chronicles, their scientific study is impossible.
The question of who the chroniclers were according to their position in society is very significant for textual studies. First of all, we note that the church and church leaders in Ancient Rus' stood at the very center of politics. Therefore, the chronicler’s mere affiliation with church ministers (in those cases where it took place) does not yet indicate that this is a person detached from life. At the same time, the widespread idea that the chroniclers were exclusively monks is fundamentally incorrect and leads to a misconception about chronicle writing. At present, there can be no doubt about the very heterogeneous social composition of the chroniclers, among whom were ordinary monks, abbots and bishops, representatives of the white clergy and princes, clerks of the Grand Dukes of Moscow and Pskov mayors, ambassadors, boyars and monastery librarians.
Let's try to quickly list the chroniclers known to us by name.
The chronicler was a major political figure, abbot Nikon of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, who was expelled by Prince Izyaslav to Tmutorokan.
Under 1097, in the Tale of Bygone Years, we know Vasily, who described the dramatic blindness of Vasilko Terebovolsky. For some reason he is considered a “priest,” but there is no evidence for this. It is only known that he carried out diplomatic assignments.
Prince Vladimir Monomakh, who left us brief chronicle information about his campaigns (“paths”) and hunts (“fishing”), can be considered to a certain extent as a chronicler. His son, the Novgorod prince Mstislav Vladimirovich 712, was involved in the chronicle writing.
Under 1116, the chronicler - Abbot of the Vydubetsky Monastery Sylvester - made an entry about himself in the Laurentian list of the Tale of Bygone Years.
Under 1144, in the Synodal list of the Novgorod Chronicle, the chronicler Herman Voyata noted his appointment as priest of the Church of Jacob. He was not a monk, but a white priest. It is known about this German Voyat that he carried out diplomatic assignments for the Novgorod bishop Nifont. The sexton of the same church, Timofey, continued the chronicle of German Vojata.
In the middle of the 12th century. was related to the Novgorod chronicle Kirik-domestik (i.e., the “statutor” - the regent of the church choir and librarian) of the Anthony Monastery, the author of a scientific work on chronology - “The teaching of the same to know the numbers of all years” 713.
The Ipatiev Chronicle reflected the chronicle of the Kyiv boyar Peter Borislavich 714.
In the first half of the 13th century. The chronicle of Prince Daniil Romanovich Galitsky was compiled by his “printer” (custodian of the seal - “chancellor”) Kirill. Daniil of Galitsky instructed this Cyril to “write down the robberies of the boyars,” and this report, as we have already indicated, is placed in the chronicle of Daniil 715.
The Rostov princess Maria Mikhailovna, the widow of Prince Vasilko Konstantinovich 716, was related to the chronicle. It is possible that she not only ordered the chronicle collection, but also wrote many lines into it herself.
The ordinary monk was, apparently, Lavrentiy, after whom the Laurentian Chronicle is named. He writes about himself that he is young. The chronicler Abraham also writes about his youth 717.
In the 15th century In Novgorod, the charterer Matvey Mikhailov took part in compiling the chronicle, and made a number of entries about himself and his family in the chronicle 718.
The participation of mayors 719 in the Pskov chronicle has been proven.
At the end of the 15th century. Moscow clerks are known as chroniclers - people are also quite secular and major politicians. On his campaign against Novgorod, Ivan III took with him the chronicler - clerk Stefan the Bearded 720. After the death of Afanasy Nikitin, his fellow merchants rushed to deliver the manuscript of his “Walking across the Three Seas” to Moscow clerk Vasily Mamyrev for inclusion in the chronicle.
Among the chroniclers we can assume Metropolitan Daniel 721, Rostov Bishop Vassian Rylo 722 and many others. etc.
Thus, the social composition of the chroniclers is very diverse, but despite all its diversity, it is dominated by persons who occupied a high social position and took an active part in the political life of the country. It is especially important to note big number persons carrying out diplomatic missions. This is obviously not accidental, if we take into account that the chronicles were used during diplomatic negotiations 723. Subsequently, in the 16th–17th centuries, chronicle writing was even officially transferred to the Ambassadorial Prikaz 724.
Basic concepts: chronicle, chronicle, chronicler, editors of the chronicle
The terminology for studying the history of chronicling is extremely unstable. None of the concepts - code, chronicle, chronicler, edition of the chronicle - has a strict definition and is sometimes understood differently by different scientists. Meanwhile, the need for precise scientific terminology in the science of chronicle writing is very great.
The inaccuracy of terminology largely depends on the very nature of the phenomena. First of all, let's pay attention to the following. Chronicles, as we have already seen, are connections and additions to previous material. Each Russian chronicle monument grows out of the combination and processing of previous monuments. As a result, the boundaries of individual monuments in the history of chronicling lack clarity. We can talk about a monument as part of a larger monument, but with this kind of connection the monuments are reworked by the chroniclers. In this regard, the question arises: what is the degree of processing of the previous monument at which we no longer have the right to talk about the monument as such. Let's take a simple example. In the Ipatiev Chronicle, in the Laurentian and Radzivilov Chronicles, the “Tale of Bygone Years” is read. In all three monuments, despite the revisions, “The Tale of Bygone Years” does not lose its specificity as an independent monument. However, in some other chronicles, the “Tale of Bygone Years” was reflected with such abbreviations and alterations that it is no longer possible to talk about the presence of the “Tale of Bygone Years” in them (cf., for example, in the Rogozhsky Chronicler, in the Chronicle of Abraham, in the Chronicler of Bishop Paul, etc. .). At what degree of processing does a monument cease to be a monument? Even if we had resolved this issue for The Tale of Bygone Years by introducing some conditional rules for determining a monument, we could not easily resolve this issue for other, more complex cases.
Let us give an example of such a more complex case. Before us is a chronicle of a strictly defined composition. This chronicle is presented, however, in several lists, where it has various continuations. Should we consider the texts of these lists new if the code itself has not undergone revisions, but only additions? Can we consider the text transferred from the previous monument separately from the additions? If the very previous code was subject to revision in the new text, then what is the degree of this processing, combined with the addition, which should make us believe that we have a new monument? It is clear that in this case it is hardly possible to introduce any specific rules.
In practice, it is extremely difficult to determine the difference between the concepts of a new chronicle monument and the edition of a chronicle monument. In fact, if a new chronicle arose on the basis of one previous text, it can to a certain extent be considered a new edition of this previous text. In this case, there will be no fundamental difference between the new edition of the chronicle monument and the new chronicle monument that arose on the basis of the old one: there will be only a hard-to-understand quantitative difference. If a new text arose on the basis of not one, but several previous ones, then we will certainly have a new monument. It turns out that in the history of chronicle writing, in order to determine that we have before us a new monument, and not a new edition of a previously known one, it is necessary to take into account two phenomena in the history of the text: a new chronicle monument must either to a very strong extent (stronger than other literary genres) rework the text of the previous monument, or it must be a combination and reworking of several previous chronicle works.
What is a chronicle - in contrast to the chronicle code and the editorship of the chronicle code?
We have already seen that it is practically very difficult to establish the difference between a new chronicle monument and an edition. The concept of “chronicle” comes to the rescue. A chronicle is usually called a chronicle text that has actually reached us - in one list or in several similar ones. This text that has actually come down to us may be based on a chronicle corpus or an edition of a chronicle corpus. In relation to the chronicle, the vault is a more or less hypothetical monument, that is, a supposed monument underlying its lists or other supposed vaults. Since in editions of texts it is customary to publish only actually extant texts, and in editions of chronicle texts until recently it was customary to publish precisely the chronicles, and not the codes underlying them.
Along with the concept of the editorship of the chronicle, there is also the concept of the editorship of the chronicle; it's not the same thing. The actual text that has come down to us in chronicles is divided into texts of separate lists. If these differences have a fundamental basis (see above, in Chapter III, on the concept of editorial), then we can, of course, talk about the editing of the chronicle. This concept of editing a chronicle differs from the concept of editing a chronicle in that the latter itself can be a chronicle. Thus, the possibility of the existence of an editorial board arises. This possibility is quite real, and it is explained by the extreme instability and “fluidity” of chronicle texts, allowing gradual transitions from text to text without visible gradations of monuments and editions. Therefore, we have to take into account not only the inaccuracy of terminology and its conventions, but also the real absence of clear boundaries and the complexity of the history of chronicle texts.
Sometimes the term “chronicle” is used to express the concept of chronicling a particular area as a whole. Thus, A. A. Shakhmatov and M. D. Priselkov constantly talk about the Rostov chronicle, the Vladimir chronicle, the Galician-Volyn, Chernigov, Moscow, Ryazan, etc. in the same sense as the chronicle of Pereyaslavl South or Pereyaslavl Suzdal, chronicles of Moscow or chronicles of Pskov. The concept of “chronicle” in this regard is broader than the concept of a chronicle code; it covers all codes and all chronicles of a particular chronicle center. Thus, in the Rostov chronicle the codes of the Rostov archbishops Ephraim, Tryphon, Tikhon, Vassian and others are different. In the Vladimir chronicle the codes of 1185, 1192, 1212 are different.
The distinction between the concepts of “chronicle” and “chronicler” is also quite arbitrary. True, this difference is less fundamental for the history of chronicle writing, but it would still be worthwhile to dwell on it.
For the most part (but by no means always), a chronicler refers to a monument that is small in volume. However, the idea of the size of the monument is very vague and subjective. Therefore, there are chronicle monuments that are called either a chronicler or a chronicle: the Rogozhsky chronicler (Rogozhskaya letopis) and the Chronicler of Bishop Paul (Chronicle of Bishop Paul). Both of these “chroniclers” to one degree or another cover the entire Russian history and do not have a narrow local, generic or chronologically limited topic. Their relatively modest size in itself does not give reason to call them “chroniclers.” More serious is another feature, which partially forms the basis for the distinction between “chroniclers” and “chronicles”: the chronicle covers in its presentation more or less all of Russian history from its beginning to some limits approaching the time of its compilation; the chronicler is usually dedicated to some part of Russian history: the history of the principality, monastery, city, one or another princely family: Kitezh Chronicler 725, Chronicler of Rurik Rostislavich 726, Chronicler of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania 727, etc.
Other concepts of the history of chronicle writing - list (or text of the list), excerpt, protograph - do not represent significant differences from the same concepts used in other areas of textual criticism (see above, Chapter III). Let me just remind you that the concept of “archetype” is practically not applicable to the history of chronicle writing, since, as we have already indicated, in the history of chronicle writing, new texts are constantly created from the combination of several previous ones.
So, in the study of chronicles, the use of terms is extremely vague. This uncertainty is not only not subsiding, but growing. It will need to be carefully studied in classical works on the history of chronicle writing (primarily in the works of A. A. Shakhmatov on late chronicle writing) in order to stabilize the terminology to a certain extent on the basis of this study.
In view of such uncertainty and ambiguity of terminology, largely explained by the complexity of the phenomena themselves with which the chronicler has to deal, the latter must not only name the monument, but to a certain extent also define it. Without clarifying the composition and history of the creation of a monument, it is impossible to establish what it is as a monument.
This provision is especially important when publishing chronicles. If it is not a traditionally well-known monument (Lavrentievskaya, Ipatievskaya, Simeonovskaya, Ermolinskaya chronicles, etc.) that is being published, but a monument being introduced into scientific use for the first time, we are obliged to accurately determine its place in the history of chronicle writing and its relationship to other chronicle monuments.
Finding out the relationship of a chronicle monument newly introduced into scientific circulation to other chronicle monuments does not mean formally determining in what ways it is similar and in what ways it differs from them. This is extremely insufficient. It is necessary to find out the position of the monument in the history of chronicling: the connection and development of which monuments it is. The fact is that the similarities and differences in the composition of monuments can be explained by various reasons (the common origin and direct dependence may be different) and in themselves do not give an accurate idea of the monument - especially about its historical and political trends, without which it is impossible to determine what for the monument in front of us and how independent it is.
Beginning textual critics often, from the very beginning, refuse to study the history of the text and generalizations where they are absolutely necessary, or in the process of studying they capitulate to difficulties. So, for example, very often textual critics are afraid to announce a new work created on the basis of previous ones, and prefer to talk about a new edition or refuse to see an edition where all its signs are present, and declare only a group of lists. In the study of the history of chronicles, this fear of conclusions and study sometimes takes the opposite form: instead of examining in detail the relationship of a new copy of the chronicle to the previous ones and establishing in which cases we have a simple continuation of an already known chronicle, in which - its new edition, etc. etc., textual critics, noticing that in some parts of them there is a new text, directly and without much thought call this list a new chronicle or even a new set. This happens because it is sometimes easier for a researcher to declare the list of chronicles he is studying, partly containing a new text, a new chronicle or a new set, thus freeing himself from further study, than to determine its relationship to already known texts.
Excessive “caution” is sometimes manifested in the name of this newly discovered chronicle: it is called, based on the last dates found in it, “the compendium of such and such a year.” As a result, the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries. “Clogged” in the history of chronicles with a huge number of codes with dates, and these dates are already beginning to be repeated, creating confusion (for example, in scientific use for Lately two different codes were introduced - both called the code of 1518 and two different codes of 1484).
The difficulties arising from the extreme instability of the chronicle texts can be avoided or greatly mitigated if we agree on the following.
First. None of the chronicle monuments that have reached us have complete independence. Every published chronicle is a collection of already known materials with the addition of new and processing of old material based on some historical and political point of view. Therefore, it is impossible to publish chronicle monuments without determining the history of their text within the limits that the available material allows. Conclusions on the history of the text of the published monument will allow one to judge to what extent the published monument is independent and, most importantly, in what way it is independent. The history of the text of a monument, clarified within accessible limits, to a certain extent serves as a definition of what is actually published, and compensates for the inconveniences created by the extreme instability of chronicle texts. If the history of the text of a chronicle monument is not clear, we cannot judge what it is: a code, a code with a continuation, an edition of a code, a chronicle, the text of one of the lists, etc. In these cases, the principles for summarizing discrepancies (selection lists for summing up discrepancies and selecting the discrepancies themselves).
Second. In view of the difficulty of studying the history of the text of a published chronicle monument and the difficulties of its publication as a monument, it is more careful to publish not this monument in itself, not a collection, but only its text that has come down to us in real copies. We saw above that the chronicle code is that mostly hypothetically determined chronicle work that has come to us in more or less strongly modified and continued copies, which are most conveniently called chronicles or, if the lists are close to each other, a chronicle.
Neither the editors of the first edition of the “Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles”, nor A.A. Shakhmatov himself, who clarified and developed the concept of the chronicle corpus, published “codes”. They published chronicles - actual chronicle texts that have reached us.
These chronicle texts were named purely conventionally (by the name of one of the owners of the main list, by the name of a repository or collection, by the name of their first researcher, etc.), allowing traditional names to be retained even if conclusions regarding the history of their text changed.
At one time, M.D. Priselkov proposed renaming all Russian chronicles during their new edition, linking their new names with the history of Russian chronicles 729. However, such a renaming could be considered relatively expedient only if the study of the history of chronicles could be considered completely completed and the discovery of new chronicles excluded. But even under these unthinkable conditions, a break from traditional names would be inconvenient when using research literature on chronicles dating back to the time before the renaming of the chronicles. One way or another, the chronicles should have retained the old name with their new name. I will point out that renaming chronicles in the past led to disastrous results. Who, for example, of the researchers does not know the misunderstandings that were created because N. M. Karamzin was familiar with the Laurentian Chronicle under the name Pushkin. The unfortunate name “Suzdal Chronicle” was given by linguists (in particular E.F. Karsky, who published the Laurentian Chronicle in PSRL), although the Laurentian list of 1377 reproduces the text of the Tver Code of 1305 and was only rewritten for the Suzdal and Nizhny Novgorod Grand Duke Dmitry Konstantinovich , and the Radzivilov Chronicle and the Moscow Academic List, according to which discrepancies are brought to the Laurentian Chronicle (which is textologically completely unfounded!), also cannot be attributed to the Suzdal chronicle.
One of the most important tasks in studying the history of chronicle writing is the stabilization of terminology. Another task is to develop principles for naming new chronicles. The third task is the creation of a “systematics” of chronicle texts, similar to those that exist in zoology and botany, and the creation of a “Key to chronicle texts.”
We are not talking about the actual plan for publishing chronicle texts in this book. This is a question not so much of the theory of textual criticism as of its practice; moreover, it is very complex and requires joint decisions of all specialists in the history of chronicle writing.
Features of comparison of chronicle texts
The basis of textual work on chronicles, as well as on other types of monuments, is the comparison of texts. However, in the very nature of the work of a textual critic in comparing chronicle texts, there is a difference from work in comparing texts of monuments of another kind.
When comparing chronicle texts, the main importance is not the discrepancies in the narrow sense of the word (discrepancies in individual words, their forms, etc.), but the very composition of the text of the chronicle articles.
When comparing chronicle texts, the researcher monitors, first of all, the content of the chronicles, their political trends, which articles are in the chronicle texts, which are not, and how the chronicle material is located in them, how the chronicle material is located throughout the chronicle as a whole. Only secondarily, after the compositional comparison has been made, does the researcher identify and analyze individual discrepancies. For the most part (but by no means always), individual discrepancies in words are revealed after the monument and its edition have been erected. Identification of discrepancies is carried out primarily between lists of the same edition or more widely, if comparison of articles by content did not lead the researcher to certain results. Finally, the identification of dictionary discrepancies is carried out to verify the conclusions reached by comparing texts by composition.
This method of working on chronicle texts is explained mainly by two reasons.
The first reason is that the chronicle texts are very large in volume and there are many lists of chronicles. Establishing all dictionary discrepancies from the very beginning would take a lot of work, and analyzing the results would be extremely difficult.
The second reason is more complex. Analysis of individual discrepancies in chronicle texts cannot always immediately lead the researcher to any definite conclusions about the relationship of texts for the reason that identical individual readings could result in completely different chronicles as a result of the complex interconnectedness of chronicle texts. A general reading could have been created, in particular, through a very distant genealogical relationship and did not at all indicate that we have a single work or a single edition in different lists.
Even a simple determination of the chronicle presents great difficulties for the researcher. What is the chronicle before the researcher? Is this an independent chronicle collection or one of the editions, or perhaps a mechanical connection of several chronicles, made without a special plan from chronicle materials that happened to be at hand? It is very difficult, especially for a novice researcher who has had little to do with chronicles before, to identify even a well-known chronicle text in a new list, since many chronicles are close in text in some of their parts due to the fact that they used the same sources . In addition, the same code can sometimes begin differently in different lists and end just as differently. Sometimes a chronicle can be mechanically attached to another, sometimes a beginning - especially a chronographic one - can be discarded. The chronicle may also end differently in different lists - depending on whether it is continued in this list or not.
That is why, only by comparing the various texts of the chronicle in terms of composition and their general composition and making certain conclusions on this basis, can we proceed to verifying and clarifying these conclusions based on a comparison of individual readings.
We can find such comparisons of texts in terms of content and composition of chronicles as a whole and individual chronicle articles in any serious work on chronicle writing. In some cases, the materials of these comparisons are not given (as, for example, in “The History of Russian Chronicles of the 11th–15th centuries” by M.D. Priselkov), but only conclusions are given. In others, they are presented mainly (cf. the studies of A. A. Shakhmatov, dedicated to the Simeonovskaya Chronicle 730, Ermolinskaya 731 and others, books by A. N. Nasonov 732 and Ya. S. Lurie) 733.
I will give an example from the book of A.N. Nasonov.
To establish the source of the pre-Mongol South Russian news of the 1479 code, A. N. Nasonov compared the text of the 1479 code according to the Hermitage and Uvarovsky lists with the Ipatiev Chronicle, which is close to them in composition of South Russian news (in all its main lists) and with those chronicles where South Russian the news is also read close to the Ipatiev and the arch of 1479, - the Resurrection, Sophia first, reconstructed Trinity, Novgorod fourth and some other chronicles less similar in text. The comparison was made by A. N. Nasonov based on the composition of the news. A. N. Nasonov paid attention to what news is available and what is missing, and to real information (names, titles, etc.), as well as to the edition of the news. As a result, A. N. Nasonov comes to the following conclusion: “... the history of the “Russian land” of the 12th century. in the Moscow code of 1479 or, more precisely, in its all-Russian source, it was told partly according to the Trinity Chronicle or close to it, partly according to a special Kyiv chronicle source. The text of the Kyiv source represented an edition that in some places differed from the Ipatiev Chronicle that has come down to us” 734. At the same time, A.N. Nasonov identified all the southern Russian news of the 1479 code, which were absent in other chronicles. Another important textual conclusion can be noted in this work of A. N. Nasonov: he managed to prove that the Kiev chronicle code supposed by the researchers, brought up to 1199, indeed existed in a separate form and was even in the hands of a Moscow chronicler of the 15th century. without connection with the subsequent Galician-Volyn chronicle. South Russian news in the 1479 code does not go beyond the 12th century. The only question that remains unclear is: were those pieces from the beginning of the Galician-Volyn chronicle already in this Kyiv chronicle, which the researchers of the Ipatiev Chronicle define as later additions to the Kiev vault of the late 12th century? 735 A. N. Nasonov did not attach much importance to this issue.
The method of determining the relationship of lists on the basis of establishing common readings or common errors, as has been repeatedly indicated above, can currently be considered completely incorrect, contradicting our modern ideas about the history of the text of works and, in particular, chronicles. However, among other signs, the sign of general readings and general typos not only can, but should be taken into account. In particular, A. A. Shakhmatov extracts abundant data from the analysis of typos common to several lists. So, for example, in the Moscow code of 1480 A. A. Shakhmatov sees an almost complete reflection of the burned Trinity Chronicle (code of 1408). This is established by him, in particular, on the basis of the fact that in the chronicles associated with the code of 1480 (Rostov and Voskresenskaya), there are the same errors that were in Troitskaya: for example, in the description of the Novgorod fire of 1369 in Rostovskaya and in Voskresenskaya, according to Troitskaya (IGR, V, pr. 137), we read “along Golovin Street” instead of “half the street” 736.
Comprehensiveness of the study of chronicle texts
In the study of chronicles, the principle of a comprehensive study of the text of the chronicle has most clearly emerged. This principle was first formulated by A. A. Shakhmatov. He opposed the isolated study of individual passages (annual articles, stories) taken from the chronicle outside the entire chronicle as a whole and for the need to study each chronicle in close connection with the entire history of Russian chronicle writing.
A. A. Shakhmatov constantly objected to limiting the study to a review of the composition of the chronicle codes and demanded their comparative study using all the necessary material. He wrote that “by confining himself to one particular monument, a researcher will never have the opportunity to determine its composition and origin, and that the only reliable path should be the comparative historical path. Just as the study of a language cannot remain on the basis of one language and be content with a random and unsystematic comparison of the facts of this language with the facts of other languages; just as this research becomes scientific only after engaging in a systematic comparison of data from several related languages, and this comparison first of all leads to the restoration of the most ancient eras in the life of the languages under study, and then to the restoration of the common language from which they originated, so too Indeed, the researcher of a literary monument must first of all subject this monument to a comparative study with the closest, most similar ones, in order to determine the consistent course in the development of the monument under study and restore the original form to which it goes back” 737.
“The main task of the researcher of chronicle codes, as in general of any literary monuments,” wrote A. A. Shakhmatov, “should be to establish a mutual connection between homogeneous, similar monuments, and this connection can partly be explained by a common origin from other, ancient monuments, but partly it may depend on the mutual influence of these monuments on each other” 738. Later, A. A. Shakhmatov wrote again: “In the history of literature, different monuments and evolutionary chains of various literary works are intertwined in a wide variety of combinations. If you follow only one of these chains, without taking into account either the parallel or intersecting movements, then the result may be complete misunderstandings instead of a correct understanding of actual phenomena” 739.
A. A. Shakhmatov widely applied this principle of complexity to the study of chronicle texts. He studied each text in connection with other texts, in connection with the history of chronicle writing as a whole.
Chronicles and chronographs may include entire works that existed separately before being included in them. Such works, of course, to a certain extent can be studied in isolation, but if these works are unknown outside the chronicle and before its compilation, then it is by no means impossible to define them as special works only according to the researcher’s feeling. It is necessary to carry out a textual examination of all the lists of the chronicle or chronograph where this work is available, and establish that it was indeed compiled separately and only then included in the compilation. For example, until recently, in some works on ancient Russian literature, the chronicle story about the capture of Moscow by Tokhtamysh was considered without any reason as a separate work. Only now, after textual research by M. A. Salmina, it became clear that the story is found only as part of the chronicle 740.
There may also be cases of this kind when extracts from one or another major work were turned into special stories and rewritten separately. For example, manuscripts from the 17th century. are full of separate stories with the marks “extracted from Graduation” or “extracted from Chronograph”. This kind of “existence” gives some right to consider such texts as separate works (separate ones only during the last stage of their existence), but this does not give the right to study them as a whole separately, regardless of power or chronograph. If these marks (“copied from the Power” or “copied from the Chronograph”) correspond to reality (such marks could also be made “to raise the authority” of the work), then the study of these works should be connected with those large historical monuments in the depths of which they were born.
Analysis of individual chronicle articles is allowed only with strict adherence to a comparative study of the entire composition of the chronicle. So, for example, A. A. Shakhmatov, who identified the special interest of the Ermolin Chronicle discovered by him (the name given to this chronicle by A. A. Shakhmatov) to the famous architect and contractor V. D. Ermolin, decided to come to his conclusion only as a result of comparing the Ermolin chronicles with all those related to her 741 . It was determined that V.D. Ermolin is mentioned in other chronicles, but only as the renovator of the Church of the Ascension in 1467 (Nikonovskaya, Voskresenskaya, Russian vremennik, list of the Tsarskogo Sophia first chronicle, Lvovskaya), while in Ermolinskaya for eleven years about it is said nine times. The entire subsequent analysis of the ideological content of the Ermolin Chronicle is also built by A. A. Shakhmatov on the basis of materials obtained by comparing it with other chronicles.
A. A. Shakhmatov attached great importance to this principle of complexity in the study of the handwritten heritage of Ancient Russia. He usually began his research by clarifying the position of a particular work in general history related texts and only after that moved on to more narrow research. He acted using the “big brackets” method, as his follower and successor M.D. Priselkov called this method. M. D. Priselkov wrote: “Involving in the study all the surviving chronicle texts, identifying in them the interweaving in most cases of the chronicle codes that have not survived to us, A. A. Shakhmatov had to resort, so to speak, to the method of large brackets, which is used when solving a complex algebraic expression in order to then, later, begin to open these brackets, i.e., to refine the analysis of the text. This technique introduced some visible instability into the conclusions, which were replaced by new, more balanced ones, which aroused the disapproval of those researchers who were accustomed and knew how to operate only on simple and easy readable text» 742 .
This method of “large brackets” was absolutely necessary at the beginning of textual work on chronicle writing. It was necessary to at least approximately distribute the lists of chronicles, to attribute them to one or another stage of chronicle writing, so that their comparative study could then begin. This was a necessary preliminary stage of work, and this method of “large brackets” was, of course, associated with the large role that hypothetical constructions always occupied in Chess’s system of chronicle history.
Shakhmatov's hypotheses always meant only working value. He quite easily abandoned them - as soon as private studies of chronicle texts refuted them. He needed them as a preliminary stage of work on specific texts. With the help of hypotheses, which he always sought to make most probable by a series of private observations, A. A. Shakhmatov created for himself a general idea of the entire course of development of Russian chronicles, of the relationship between individual lists, and then verified them with additional observations and specific textual studies. A. A. Shakhmatov needed hypotheses for the initial, rough distribution of lists, without which it was impossible to compare them. They not only were “working”, had a working meaning, but were also necessary purely technically. At present, when the works of A.A. Shakhmatov, M.D. Priselkov and A.N. Nasonov have already done this preliminary distribution of lists known in their time, there is no longer that urgent need to resort to the “large brackets” method. The general scheme of the history of chronicling has already been created: it requires amendments, clarification and development, but not a radical revision. Therefore, we can assume that textual scholars studying chronicle lists, after determining the identity of the lists they are studying, can proceed directly to the second stage of study - to clarify the analysis of the text.
This, of course, is the enormous significance of the works of A. A. Shakhmatov and his immediate successors for modern chronicle researchers. The latter are obliged to appreciate the significance that the “large brackets” method has in the works of A.A. Shakhmatov and his early followers, but there is no longer any need to continue to use this method. The study of the history of chronicles has now largely passed this stage.
Thus, the principle of complexity, which is extremely important in textual work and especially in work on the texts of chronicles, can now be based on previous works on the history of chronicles and use the “large brackets” method to a lesser extent than it was in the time of A.A. Shakhmatov, but the importance of the principle of complexity itself has not only not decreased, but, on the contrary, tends to increase. This principle goes beyond the study of chronicle texts and currently extends to many other areas of the handwritten heritage of Ancient Russia - to the study of hagiographic, narrative and teaching literature, and even to the study of official material 743.
Quite unexpectedly, the principle of a comprehensive study of the text of chronicle monuments was attacked in the early 1940s by S. A. Bugoslavsky. The latter, in his study “The Tale of Bygone Years (lists, editions, original text)” wrote: “We have the right to isolate and analyze only the text of the “Tale of Bygone Years” from the various collections, without touching on the history of these chronicle collections as a whole, since the “Tale of Bygone Years” temporary years” had its own independent history before it was continued by new similar records” 744. The results of such neglect of the history of Russian chronicles could not but affect the conclusions of S. A. Bugoslavsky’s research. extremely simplified the history of the text of “The Tale of Bygone Years” and separated this history of the text from the general history.
Shakhmatov’s method was developed mainly in the works of his follower M.D. Priselkov. M.D. Priselkov developed and continued Shakhmatov’s tendency towards a historical approach to chronicle writing. This is especially true of his “History of Russian chronicles of the 11th–15th centuries,” where the creation of each code is explained in close connection with the historical situation of its time. The historical and literary side of Shakhmatov’s method was also strengthened in the works of M.D. Priselkov, which largely neutralized the fragmentation of observations on the text, which inevitably stems from the methods of approaching the chronicle not as an organic whole, but as a “corpus.” In the work of M.D. Priselkov “History of Russian chronicles of the 11th-15th centuries.” Scattered throughout are numerous, mostly brief, but very weighty comments regarding the style and sometimes the language of certain codes.
M.D. Priselkov, in his works on chronicle writing, retreated, however, from some very important principles of Shakhmatov’s method. M.D. Priselkov usually builds his conclusions not on a continuous study of the text of all lists, but always on a few individual observations. From this comes even the difference in the volume of work, extensive in Shakhmatov and concise, energetically saturated with conclusions in M.D. Priselkov. However, what could be called the large volume of Shakhmatov’s consciousness, his constant use of all the lists, all the text, all the facts to draw conclusions, was also not forgotten. This side of Shakhmatov’s method was picked up in the research of A.N. Nasonov, whose conclusions (at least in relation to the Pskov chronicle) are based on the involvement of all lists and whose genealogical constructions are again brought to all lists.
The primacy of conscious text changes over unintentional - mechanical ones
Another principle applied by A. A. Shakhmatov and his followers to the study of the history of chronicle texts is the principle of the primacy of conscious changes in the text over mechanical ones. In all cases, a text researcher must first of all look for conscious reasons for changes in the text and only if it is impossible to more or less reliably explain the changes in the text by the intentions of copyists and redoers, settle on explanations that allow simple damage to it. At first glance, such a preference for the conscious over the unconscious may seem arbitrary, but in fact this principle is strictly natural in all cases when we are dealing with written creativity in general and with the work of the chronicler in particular.
Art critics, studying works of art, strive to find out in them, first of all, the conscious intentions of their creators, a reflection of the artistic method, artistic style, etc. Literary critics also pay attention, first of all, to the author’s intention, find out the reasons that prompted the author to create the work exactly as it is poured out from his pen.
Any written work needs, first of all, to be read, to understand its meaning. The same can be said not only about the work itself, but also about its variants, about the changes that the text underwent as a result of its rewriting. These options also need reading. In other words, they need the meaning, the intentions of their “authors” - in most cases unknown, but sometimes very active - to be discovered in them.
It would seem like this natural requirement- reading not only the text, but also its changes in various lists - does not require any justification, however, in textual practice, the situation was just the opposite: it was believed that changes in the text in subsequent lists were mainly the result of unconscious damage to the text by its copyists. In various versions of the text, researchers sought to highlight only one text - the original one, which was considered at the same time the only meaningful one. All other variants (or discrepancies) of the text were not given any significance.
In relation to chronicle writing, the establishment of the principle of the primacy of conscious changes in the text over unconscious (mechanical) ones was of very serious importance.
A. A. Shakhmatov based his study of chronicles on the idea of them as collections of various materials. Chronicles, as was especially clearly revealed in the works of P. M. Stroev and K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, are a combination of heterogeneous sources: previous chronicle collections, literary works, documents, individual chronicle articles, etc. However, A. A. Shakhmatov refuted the view established by P. M. Stroev and K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin on the chronicle corpus as a mechanical connection of various materials. A. A. Shakhmatov refused to see in the chronicle code only a random selection of material and in the overwhelming majority of cases assumed in the chronicle the presence of a conscious, thoughtful work of the chronicler, who selected his material under the influence of serious political ideas and created codes imbued with internal ideological unity, welded together by acute political thought . A. A. Shakhmatov considered the very political ideas embedded in the chronicle codes to depend not on the personal arbitrariness of the chroniclers, but as closely connected with the political concepts of the individual feudal centers in which these codes were created. Chronicles could be created at the court of one or another prince, metropolitan, bishop, abbot, etc. In all these cases, the chronicle reflected the ideas of one or another branch of the princely family, one or another principality as such, one or another church center. It was created in their interests, carried out their point of view on Russian history.
These observations of A. A. Shakhmatov were significantly expanded in the Soviet science of chronicle writing. Posadnik chronicles were established in Pskov, chronicles of Ulich churches in Novgorod, chronicles that reflected the moods and ideas of certain segments of the population. Cases were uncovered when the chronicler, fulfilling an official order, introduced his own opinions into the chronicle, which diverged from the point of view of the customer. A folk assessment of events, elements of folk works, etc. could penetrate into the chronicle.
All this made it possible to widely study the class side of the chronicle, the participation of the chronicle in the class struggle, in the intra-class political struggle.
The principle of the primacy of conscious changes in the text over mechanical ones requires that, firstly, the textual researcher pay attention primarily to the conscious changes introduced into the text by the ancient scribes, and, secondly, that in all changes to the text he tries to establish this consciousness, recognizing changes are mechanical only when they cannot be explained as conscious. Indeed, the only way to prove that a change occurred mechanically, that is, unconsciously, is to show that there was no consciousness in it. When dividing all changes in the text into conscious and mechanical, the textual critic must direct his efforts to reveal, as far as possible, the conscious will of the scribe in all changes to the text. And only changes in the text that remain unexplained can be attributed to phenomena that arose mechanically and classified as mechanical.
A completely different approach to the text was reflected in the works on the ancient chronicle of V.M. Istrin, published after the death of A.A. Shakhmatov: “Notes on the beginning of Russian chronicle writing” 745 and “The Moravian history of the Slavs and the history of Polyano-Rus, as the supposed sources of the Initial Russian Chronicle" 746.
V. M. Istrin tried to revive ideas about the chronicler at the beginning of the 19th century. and believed that the chronicler “listens to good and evil indifferently” and mechanically records in the chronicle everything that falls within the circle of his casual awareness. All contradictions in the text, omissions, changes for V. M. Istrin, as well as for M. P. Pogodin or I. I. Sreznevsky. - the result of random variations in written or oral tradition. V.M. Istrin writes: “Some could call Oleg a prince, others - governor Igorev; some reported that Oleg died in Ladoga, others in Kyiv” 747. From these variants of the oral tradition, the origin of which is in no way explained by V. M. Istrin, all the differences in the chronicles originated. It is clear that compared with those highly ingenious explanations of these differences that were proposed by A. A. Shakhmatov, explanations supported by many and varied observations, V. M. Istrin’s assumptions were a significant step back. The textual study of the chronicle could not develop along this path.
Recognizing “chance” as the main factor in any development, one must inevitably abandon the study of this development and any attempts to discover patterns in it. Both the history of literature and historical science inevitably come to anti-historicism as soon as they recognize chance as the main factor in the movement of literary forms or in the course of the development of history.
There is no reason to doubt that chance plays a certain role in the history of the text. By chance, copyists may end up with one or another text. By chance, this text may contain certain defects. One or another list may accidentally disappear. And so on... But the task of the scientist is to leave as little space as possible in scientific consideration to chance. We can agree that a phenomenon occurred by chance only when all other possibilities of explanation have been completely exhausted. From the point of view of scientific research methodology, a case is the remainder that remains as a result of all the scientist’s attempts to explain a particular phenomenon. The case lies at the very bottom of scientific construction, scientific explanation. And this sediment cannot but cause the scientist some feeling of annoyance. We know not only from the examples of studying the history of a particular work that the more perfect the research, the less unexplained, that is, random, remains in the phenomenon under study.
One more circumstance must be kept in mind: the very concept of random is relative. Let’s say there is a defect in the manuscript. Of course, this defect is accidental. But was it by chance, for example, that this defect appeared on the last sheet of the manuscript under the cover of the new binding? No! Obviously, the last page of a manuscript, if it has been unbound for some time, suffers the most. Let us assume that in the hands of a Novgorod copyist of the 15th century. By chance, the text of the work turned out to be rewritten in Constantinople in the 14th century. Recognizing that this was a matter of chance, we should not lose sight of the fact that in the 14th century. cultural relations between Novgorod and Constantinople were very intense and that in Constantinople the Russian colony was rewritten whole line Russian works, including those that completely disappeared in Rus' as a result of the Tatar-Mongol invasion (for example, the Greek and Roman chronicler). Let us assume that the original edition of “The Tale of Nikola Zarazsky” accidentally disappeared. But doesn’t this accident still mean that there were few lists from this initial edition and, therefore, they were not of much interest to copyists and readers?
As we see, randomness exists, but it is relative, its share is small. A scientific explanation pushes back against this randomness. By the way, I would like to note the following. The more specific a scientific explanation strives to be, the more easily it eliminates chance. The more we penetrate into the actual situation of correspondence and editing of manuscripts, the more clearly we manage to see living people with all their ideas, tastes, life's worries and even habits, the less is left to chance. Mechanical methods of text analysis should not hide from us the concrete life of manuscripts, and the life of manuscripts is only a special case of the life of people who deal with them. The life of the text of works is unusually complex and absolutely concrete, therefore all kinds of “rules” for choosing a text and determining the “author’s will” are good only when we have no way to approach this life of the text. But they become very harmful when they begin to block our path to restoring the real history of the text. Unfortunately, in textual criticism, often mechanical methods of selecting and establishing a text, based on ideas about the mechanics of changing the text as a result of unconscious, random mistakes of copyists, prevailed over the study of the history of the text.
Let us return to the question of chance in the history of the text. Let us give an example of an explanation by chance and the subsequent explanation of this “chance” by specific reasons.
As is known, of particular importance in our ideas about the oldest Russian chronicles is the collection discovered by A. A. Shakhmatov at the beginning of the first Novgorod chronicle of the younger edition (and hence in other Novgorod chronicles) that is more ancient than the Tale of Bygone Years. A. A. Shakhmatov called this code “Initial” and attributed its compilation to 1095. The assertion that the Novgorod chronicles used a code more ancient than the “Tale of Bygone Years” itself underlies A. A. Shakhmatov’s entire reconstruction of the most ancient Russian chronicles. This was precisely his starting point 748. This discovery of A. A. Shakhmatov is one of the most remarkable in the history of the study of Russian chronicles and has not yet caused detailed, thoughtful objections.
However, A. A. Shakhmatov admitted a number of accidents on the issue of the Initial Kiev arch, which affected the fate of this arch. A. A. Shakhmatov determined that the Initial Code was used in the Novgorod first chronicle of the younger edition by chance and, moreover, with random interruptions, and only until 1074 due to the accidental defect of the copy of the Initial Code “found” in Novgorod. Initially, A. A. Shakhmatov believed that the Initial Kievan code was introduced in Novgorod in the first quarter of the 13th century, when it was compiled from a combination of the Novgorod royal chronicle and the Initial code of the Sophia vremennik 749 (the name “Sofia vremennik”, from the point of view of A. A. Shakhmatov, is a reworking of the name of the Initial Code - “Russian Temporary”). Later, A. A. Shakhmatov reconsidered this issue and came to the conclusion that the Initial Code was involved in the Novgorod chronicle in 1423. 750 Even later, A. A. Shakhmatov believed that the Initial Code was used in 1432. 751 Finally, in his work recent years"Kyiv initial arch of 1095" 752 A.A. Shakhmatov returned to some of his previous conclusions about the time of use of the Initial Code in the Novgorod chronicle.
In contrast to his other conclusions on the history of Russian chronicles, A.A. Shakhmatov does not substantiate his conclusions about the time and reasons for connecting the Initial Code with the Novgorod Chronicle historically. From the point of view of A. A. Shakhmatov, the text of the Beginning Code, which had long gone out of use, was simply “found” in Novgorod in an accidentally defective copy 753. This random text was accidentally (at the beginning of the 13th century or in 1421, or maybe in 1424, 1432 or 1434) used to update the official, extremely important in the political life of the Novgorod lord's chronicle.
Subsequently, as a result of analyzing the history of the text of the Novgorod chronicles in close connection with the history of Novgorod, all these “accidents” turned out to be explained. The results of this analysis can be summarized as follows.
Until 1117, the eldest son of Vladimir Monomakh, Mstislav, reigned in Novgorod. After Mstislav’s departure from Novgorod, in the Kiev-Pechersk monastery (and possibly in the “princely” Vydubetsky) with the participation of some of the scribes who were with Mstislav in Novgorod at the beginning of 1119, as A. A. Shakhmatov suggests, the last one was compiled, third, edition of The Tale of Bygone Years. Mstislav is succeeded in Novgorod by his son Vsevolod Mstislavich (1118–1136). True to tradition At the house of Monomakh, Vsevolod, the grandson of Monomakh, provided special patronage to chronicle writing in Novgorod.
Vsevolod connects the chronicle of his father Mstislav “The Tale of Bygone Years” in the third edition, especially attentive to the events of Novgorod life in the 12th century, with the Novgorod chronicle, the weather records of which began to be compiled as early as the 11th century.
We do not have data for a complete and accurate picture of this code. Vsevolod's code was subjected to a severe revision in Novgorod under Bishop Nifont at the end of the 30s of the 12th century, after which only insignificant remains of it were preserved in subsequent chronicle codes.
Nevertheless, the Novgorod chronicle of subsequent centuries clearly reveals in its composition precisely this third edition of the “Tale of Bygone Years” in some news of 1107–1117. This code of Vsevolod was compiled no earlier than 1119 (the year of compilation of the third edition of the “Tale of Bygone Years”) and no later than 1136 (during the exile of Vsevolod and the year of compilation, as we will see below, of the new Novgorod chronicle code, in which Vsevolod’s code was included as component). It is not possible to date Vsevolod’s code more precisely, but due to the fact that after 1132 Vsevolod’s power in Novgorod was extremely shaken, one can think that this code was compiled before 1132.
Judging by the fact that in Novgorod in the first third of the 12th century. It was quite common to attract the people of Kiev to carry out various kinds of book enterprises, one can think that the third chronicle code of the house of Monomakh - the code of Vsevolod Mstislavich of Novgorod was completed by a Kiev resident who preserved the literary style of the Kiev chronicle and reflected the Novgorod stylistic manner only in news borrowed from the Novgorod chronicles XI V.
Further chronicle work in Novgorod is extremely dependent on the political events of Novgorod life in the mid-12th century. History of Novgorod in the 12th century. fraught with violent social upheavals, which led to the establishment in 1136 of a new republican system, which in general terms lasted until the end of the 15th century. The social movement of smerds, artisans and merchants in Novgorod ultimately culminated in a kind of state organization with an oligarchic merchant-boyar elite at its head. The prince loses his rights, land holdings and was forced to retire first from Detinets, and then from the city limits to the so-called Gorodishche, two “fields” from Novgorod. The bishop of Novgorod becomes the new owner of Detinets, to whom most of the prince's land holdings also pass, turning the bishop into the most powerful feudal lord of the region.
Having become the head of the Novgorod state, which achieved some independence from Prince of Kyiv, the bishop is trying in every possible way to throw off his dependence on the Kyiv Metropolitan, striving for direct (in addition to the Metropolitan) subordination to the Greek Patriarch. As is currently established, Bishop Nifont, who took an active part in the expulsion of Vsevolod and in the establishment of new political orders in Novgorod, is the first Novgorod archbishop (and not Archbishop John, as was previously thought). It was Nifont who established the original system for electing Novgorod archbishops, which actually eliminated the Kiev metropolitan from participation in the affairs of the Novgorod church.
The coup of 1136 and the expulsion of Vsevolod caused the need to revise Vsevolod's chronicle in the same year. In 1136, the domestik of the Anthony Monastery, Kirik, one of Nifont’s close associates, compiled a work on the chronology of a nature auxiliary to chronicle-keeping: “Teaching, they also know the numbers of all years,” and in the same 1136 he took part in the chronicle writing, compiling a chronicle article 1136, which depicts the arrival of the rogue prince Svyatoslav Olgovich in Novgorod as an offensive new era in the political life of Novgorod.
Kirik's participation in the Novgorod chronicle is not limited to this; traces of Kirik's work are visible in the entry of 1137, where definitions of time are given by indicts, as well as in his work “Teaching, they know the numbers of all years” and in some other annual articles, where Kirik reveals interests common to those who were manifested by him in his other work - in the famous, canonical “Questions”.
From the analysis of the text of the Synodal list of the Novgorod first chronicle, as well as the Novgorod first chronicle of the junior edition and the Novgorod fourth, it follows that simultaneously with this initial intervention of Kirik in the Novgorod chronicle, a broadly conceived revision of the entire Novgorod chronicle code of Vsevolod, who was expelled from Novgorod, was carried out according to the Kiev initial code. The political meaning of this revision was to replace Monomasha’s “Tale of Bygone Years” at the beginning of the Novgorod chronicle in the third edition with the chronicle of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, which was in opposition to the princely power - the Initial Code of 1095, which, thus, ended up at the beginning of the Novgorod chronicles is by no means accidental.
The new code was conceived by the tonsured Kiev-Pechersk Monastery and the main participant in the anti-princely coup of 1136, Archbishop Nifont, who knew the political anti-princely nature of the Pechersk Initial Code, who knew that the Initial Code used the Novgorod chronicles of the 11th century in its composition. and that, therefore, this vault to some extent reflected the history of Novgorod in the 11th century.
As is known from the works of A. A. Shakhmatov, the opposition of the Initial Code in relation to the princely power was clearly reflected in the preface to it, which was subsequently discarded when the composition of the Initial Code was revised in the depths of the Tale of Bygone Years. In this preface, sharp reproaches were expressed in relation to the princes for “insatiety”, greed, oppression of people with viruses, “sales”, etc. These reproaches could not have been more timely in Novgorod in the 12th century, when one after another The Novgorod prince's income was taken away, lands were confiscated and rights were curtailed. This reduction of princely rights and income was obviously preceded by corresponding propaganda, for which the preface of the Initial Code provided serious material.
Having called the new lord's code "Sophia's Temporary" in imitation of the name of the Initial code, "The Temporary of the Russian Land" and thus perpetuating in this name the new center of political life of Novgorod - Sophia, which had recently passed from the possessions of the prince to the possession of the Novgorod archbishop, Nifont retained at the beginning of his code and the Kiev preface of the Initial Code. Thus, the Primary Code was brought into the Novgorod chronicle not by chance, but in connection with the political coup of 1136, and not because a copy of this code accidentally ended up in Novgorod, but because the tonsure of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, Archbishop Nifont, the main participant in the anti-princely coup 1136, the Pechersk Initial Code and its political direction were well known.
The Preface of the Initial Code has not reached us in the “Sofia Vremennik” in its entirety; this, again, is far from accidental. As can be seen from a comparison of the text of this preface with the final part of the Initial Code, it should have contained reproaches to the princes for civil strife and insufficiently strong resistance to the steppe nomads. These reproaches are extremely significant for the Initial Code. Textually, the omission of these reproaches is proven by comparing Article 1093 of the Initial Code with the place of the preface of the Initial Code that influenced it. These omissions in the preface were made on Novgorod soil and were by no means accidental. They were made in the process of political adaptation of the preface of the Initial Code to the Sophia Vremennik. The need for these passes was dictated not only by the fact that the fight against the steppe was not of significant importance for Novgorod, but also by the fact that Novgorod was in no way interested in strong princely power, which was exactly what Kiev needed. Opposition attitude to the princely power in Novgorod in the 30s of the 12th century. and in Kyiv in the 11th century. was fundamentally different. To protect itself from the pressure of the steppe, the Principality of Kiev needed strong princely power capable of organizing an active defense. The reproaches to the princes in the Initial Code were reproaches of weakness. Novgorod was interested in just the opposite - in weakening its dependence on Kiev. From here it is clear why the preface of the “Sofia Temporary” retained in its composition only that from the preface of the Initial Code that did not contradict in the 12th century. the immediate interests of the Novgorodians and what was important to them in their political and social struggle.
A small insert at the beginning of the preface - “formerly the Novgorod volost, the descendants of the Kievskaya...” - was intended to soften the too “Kievan” character of the preface, and by the way expressed the favorite thought of the Novgorodians during the times of independence: “and Novgorod the Great will have the eldership of the reign in the entire Russian land” ( Laurentian Chronicle under 1206).
The preface of the Initial Code, revised in this way, opened a new Novgorod chronicle code of Nifont, remaining on the forehead of the chronicles of Novgorod throughout the entire period of its independence.
As established by analysis of the text of the Synodal List of the First Novgorod Chronicle, the revision of Vsevolod’s code according to the Initial Code was completed until 1074. And this was not accidental. The reason for this is not that a defective copy of the Initial Code was accidentally “found” in Novgorod, which was cut off this year (as A. A. Shakhmatov assumed), but that in 1074 Novgorod news in the Initial Code and the last could no longer serve as a basis for the reconstruction of the Novgorod chronicle. Starting from this year, the chronicler Nifont was forced to turn to Vsevolod’s code, which he initially rejected, in which the news of the Novgorod chronicle of the 11th century. were combined with the news of The Tale of Bygone Years in the third edition. Taking advantage of Vsevolod's code, the Novgorod chronicler, however, very thoroughly shortened it. That is why the Novgorod news of this time is distinguished by that excessive, notorious brevity, which perplexed those who studied the Novgorod chronicles.
Thus, not only the later Novgorod chronicles, dating back to the codes of Euthymius II in the second third of the 15th century, had the anti-princely preface of the Initial Code, but also the Synodal list, in its lost part, contained the text of this preface. One might think that the loss of the beginning of the Synodal list of the First Novgorod Chronicle also did not occur by chance: in addition to the anti-princely preface, in this initial part there were the famous Yaroslav’s letters and among them the “Brief Truth” - written evidence of Novgorod independence. With the annexation of Novgorod to Moscow, the Moscow scribes who censored the Novgorod chronicle apparently tore out its seditious beginnings from the Synodal list.
The severe reduction to which the previous chronicle of Novgorod was subjected in the Nifont codex was the reason for the strange and seemingly inexplicable absence in the Novgorod chronicle of many Novgorod information of the 11th century, the existence of which, nevertheless, is clear from the Kiev chronicle codes of the 11th century, where they found themselves partially reflected. Novgorod events of the 11th century. are better and more fully represented in the Kyiv chronicles than in the Novgorod ones. The stated considerations are confirmed by a change in the style of the Novgorod chronicle after 1136. 754 They were later confirmed by a study of the “Brief Pravda” 755.
So, almost everything that until recently appeared as accidental in A. A. Shakhmatov’s concept turned out to be far from accidental. A complete picture of the Novgorod chronicle of the 12th century. was able to be restored not only thanks to the comparison of the texts of the Novgorod chronicles with the ancient Kyiv chronicles, but mainly because they were widely involved in the examination of the texts historical facts, partly already covered in the works of B. D. Grekov 756, and partly first established specifically in connection with textual research. It was also necessary to go beyond the chronicle and involve other works of Kirik, church history, canonical issues, pay close attention to changes in the style of chronicle, etc.
In connection with all that has been said, it is clear why logical-semantic analysis occupies such an important place in the study of the text of chronicles. In this logical-semantic analysis, errors can easily be made due to the excessively high demands on the logic of the content, however, only on the basis that errors may be made in the application of a method, the method itself cannot be declared erroneous. In some cases, logical semantic analysis is the only means of identifying an insertion in the text, a break in the presentation, a connection of different sources, alteration, etc. (see examples of detecting insertions in the chronicle above).
Insertions into the text of “The Tale of Bygone Years” are discovered, however, not only by analyzing the logic of the narrative, but they are actually confirmed by comparing lists and works. Shakhmatov is by no means limited to semantic analysis of the text.
Let's take another example of the complexity of Shakhmatov's observations - his analysis of the story about the baptism of Vladimir, read in The Tale of Bygone Years. Through a logical and semantic analysis of the text, Shakhmatov found out that the chronicle story is based on two stories merged together about the baptism of Vladimir: one spoke of his baptism in Kiev as a result of a “test of faith,” and the other spoke of his baptism in Korsun as a condition of marrying sister of the Byzantine emperor. Shakhmatov came to the same conclusion in another way: Shakhmatov found a separate story about baptism in Korsun in the “Life of Vladimir of the Special Composition” in the Pliginsky collection, and a story about baptism in Kiev in “Memory and Praise to the Russian Prince Volodymer” (in brief extracts from some ancient chronicle). Consequently, Shakhmatov subjects the source to “cross-examination” from different angles, using different methods, and as a result receives observations of great persuasive power.
Thus, Shakhmatov’s observations are very complex, “complex”. He approaches the text from different angles: grammatically, historically, logically, by comparing lists, etc. Shakhmatov’s observations are precisely born as a result of comparing all these points of view. The text of Shakhmatov’s chronicles acquires a kind of “depth,” and this “depth” cannot always be perceived “with one eye.” Only different, complementary points of view give observation the necessary stereoscopicity.
Actually, the logical and semantic analysis of the text rarely appears alone in Shakhmatov. This is only one of the approaches to the observed place of the text, which he, as it were, “spots” at the intersection of different lines of observation: logical-semantic, purely textological, historical, etc.
Involvement of historical data
The use of historical data to analyze the history of a text is a very important feature in the textual study of chronicles. The use of historical data, the ability to correlate data from the history of the text with general historical data and use them to explain changes in the text are necessary in all cases, but for the history of chronicle writing they are of exceptional importance.
A. A. Shakhmatov, and after him - and on an even wider scale - M. D. Priselkov, A. N. Nasonov and others began to involve historical data in the study of the history of the chronicle text especially widely.
Each of the ancient codes identified by A. A. Shakhmatov received a vivid description in the light of the political struggle of his time, and this political struggle always has a fresh and original historical interpretation for him. The composition and trends of the Ancient Code of 1039 were determined, as revealed by A. A. Shakhmatov, political ideas struggle for the national Russian church. The code of 1039, which arose on the initiative of the metropolitan see founded in Kyiv in 1038, propagated the idea of the superiority of Christian Russia over pagan Russia and glorified the activities of Yaroslav.
In the Pechersk vaults of 1073 and 1095. reflected the political direction of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, which was in opposition to the princely authorities.
In the vault of 1073, A. A. Shakhmatov shows a reflection of the political convictions of Nikon the Great, who twice fled to Tmutorokan from the prince’s wrath. A.A. Shakhmatov reveals the central idea of the code of 1073: the idea of unity of the princely family based on the seniority of the Kyiv prince among his brothers - Russian princes.
In the code of 1095, A. A. Shakhmatov reveals sharp criticism of the social policies of the princes; also shows the internal background of this criticism: the enmity of the abbot of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery John with Prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavich.
A. A. Shakhmatov analyzes the political work of the compiler of the Initial Code of 1095, who sought to reconcile the contradictory Novgorod and Kiev news, disagreements in information about the baptism of Vladimir, about the beginning of Christianity in Russia, about the organization of the church hierarchy, etc.
Thus, the history of the text of “The Tale of Bygone Years” is accompanied by A.A. Shakhmatov with a deep historical analysis, revealing the reasons for certain changes in the chronicle, the growth of the political self-awareness of the chroniclers.
In each chapter of “Research on the Ancient Russian Chronicles,” A.A. Shakhmatov shows how, despite the external mechanicalness in his work methods, the chronicler shows a conscious and deliberate choice of facts and their coverage.
From the metropolitan vaults of the 14th century. A. A. Shakhmatov especially highlights two codes, compiled, in his opinion, under Metropolitan Cyprian and earlier under Metropolitan Peter.
The Laurentian Chronicle, brought up to 1305, is, according to A.A. Shakhmatov, a reflection of one of the first metropolitan codes of the early 14th century. The question of this all-Russian metropolitan code was not fully examined by A.A. Shakhmatov, and subsequently the existence of the code was challenged by M.D. Priselkov, who clearly proved a different origin of the news of the Laurentian Chronicle, erected by A. A. Shakhmatov to the first all-Russian metropolitan code from the very beginning XIV century
Not all of Shakhmatov’s studies are the same in method. Starting with purely textual observations 757, Shakhmatov gradually came to the conclusion about the close connection of chronicles with the political life of the Russian people and steadily - from study to study - strengthened the historical argumentation of his conclusions.
At the beginning of his study of The Tale of Bygone Years, Shakhmatov limited himself to the data of the texts and identified two editions of the Tale. Only later did Shakhmatov come to the conclusion that each of these editorial boards reflected in its composition the political ideas of various parties and was inextricably linked with political life Kievan Rus. Analysis of the historical life of Kievan Rus at the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th centuries. clarified and changed a lot in his proposed history of the editions of The Tale of Bygone Years.
Already in his 1897 work “Kievo-Pechersk Patericon and Pechersk Chronicle” 758 Shakhmatov resorted to historical argumentation, characterizing the political activities and religious views of Izyaslav Mstislavich. Over time, A.A. Shakhmatov increasingly strengthened the historical side of his chronicle research. He found out the historical background for the compilation of chronicles, indicated the goals and driving political ideas of their creators.
This one is especially sharp historical approach to the analysis of the history of the text of the chronicles was reflected in the first large generalizing work of Shakhmatov in 1900–1901. “All-Russian chronicles of the 14th and 15th centuries” 759. A subtle analysis of the political ideology of the metropolitan see and the composition of the Moscow chronicle collections allowed Shakhmatov to establish a close connection between the unification of Russia and the emergence of all-Russian chronicle collections in their content 760. In his works of recent years, Shakhmatov not only uses historical facts for his textual conclusions, but gives a new, sometimes destroying the old, idea of many phenomena of the political life of Russia. The historical constructions of A. A. Shakhmatov are based on the conviction of the complexity of the political struggle that took place in Rus' between appanage princes, principalities, bishops and metropolitan sees, monasteries, etc. It was this aspect of Shakhmatov’s work that gave rise to a number of extremely interesting historical studies 761 .
M.D. Priselkov developed and continued the trend towards a historical approach to chronicle writing. This is especially true of his “History of Russian chronicles of the 11th–15th centuries,” where the creation of each code is explained in close connection with the historical situation of its time. However, neither A. A. Shakhmatov nor M. D. Priselkov attached much importance to the struggle of various segments of the population and did not at all see the class struggle, which is constantly reflected in the chronicles. Their historical approach to the history of the text of the chronicles was therefore limited. Only Soviet chroniclers began to take into account social struggle in their research: A. N. Nasonov, N. F. Lavrov, M. N. Tikhomirov, L. V. Cherepnin, Ya. S. Lurie and others 762
Using duplications
As a result of the combination of heterogeneous material relating to the same events, in chronicle codes, due to an oversight of the compilers of these codes, repeated statements of the same thing may result - “duplication”. These repetitions of the same events serve important indicator that in this case we have a connection of two sources. In the chronicles, such repetitions are especially frequent, since the connection of two or more sources occurs not once, but as many times as in the chronicles of annual articles. Let us remember that when two chronicles are combined into one, the material of each chronicle is, as it were, “unstitched” into annual articles and combined within each article separately - “with a comb”. And since the materials of the chronicles are often similar and the selection of events recorded in the chronicles is quite definite, the chronicler often has to combine two stories (and sometimes more) about the same thing into a single story. If the accounts of an event are very different, then it is natural that the chronicler may not identify this event, but take it for two different events. The result is a whole chain of duplications. However, it also happens that the same event appears in the chronicle code twice in the same or very similar presentation: this is when the same source, having passed through a number of chronicle codes, is then again combined in a complex presentation, but the chronicler does not very attentive. Duplications are especially frequent in cases where the same event is told under two different years, as a result of which the duplication is very difficult to notice. Such cases are not uncommon, and mostly they occur when the chronicles of two centers using different calendar systems are combined: March year, Ultra March or September 763. The analysis of duplications itself can provide very different information, but it must be built with the indispensable condition of their full connection with other indicators. The more the evidence of duplications is introduced into a wider circle, the more fruitful will be their use for constructing the history of chronicle writing.
Let's look at some examples. One of the most significant examples of the widespread use of duplication data is the analysis of duplications in the Laurentian Chronicle 764.
Following the Tale of Bygone Years, both the Laurentian Chronicle and the Radzivilov Chronicle read news from southern Russia. South Russian news comes at first continuously, and then is interrupted by northeastern news. Since 1157, a continuous series of these latest - northeastern news - begins. South Russian news ends in 1175. Only in 1185, 1186 and 1188. again we find southern Russian news and again after a break - in 1199 and 1200. This circumstance led A.A. Shakhmatov to the idea that southern Russian chronicle writing was attracted in the north, in the Vladimir-Suzdal land, where the Laurentian Chronicle originates, not once, but with interruptions - three times. Indeed, northeastern news is never repeated (not duplicated), but southern Russian news is duplicated, which makes it clear that southern Russian material was used more than once and covered the presentation of the same events. The same events are noted under 1110 and 1111. (the campaign of the princes against the Polovtsians), under 1115 and 1116. (death of Oleg Svyatoslavich), under 1138 (the reconciliation of Yaropolk and Vsevolod Olgovich was told twice), under 1152 (Vladimirko Galitsky twice escapes from the Hungarians and twice asks for peace), under 1168 and 1169. (reign of Gleb in Kyiv), under 1169 and 1171. (Mikhail Yuryevich’s campaign against the Polovtsians).
Let's take a closer look at the last duplication. Under 1169, the campaign against the Polovtsians by Mikhail Yuryevich (or, as he is also called, Mikhalka, the guardian of the young Pereyaslavl prince Vladimir Glebovich) is described in more detail than under 1171. But the story of 1171 cannot be considered an abbreviated retelling of the first. It contains details that are missing under 1169: the day of victory is indicated (“week”, i.e. Sunday), it is indicated that the Pereyaslavl people “are full of their 400 children and let them go home.” Moreover, in one case, the victory of the Pereyaslavl people is attributed to the help of the “Mother of God” (under 1169), and in the other, Mikhalko and Vsevolod are helped by God and the prayer “day and night”. Thus, both stories do not go back to the same source, they are completely independent. However, both stories belong to Pereyaslavl Yuzhny (Russian). This is evident from the fact that in both stories it is said “ours” about Mikhail Yuryevich’s army, although it consisted of a hundred Pereyaslavl residents and one and a half thousand Berendeys and, therefore, “ours” could not refer to Russians in general. From this we can conclude that the stories about Mikhail Yuryevich’s campaign were compiled in both cases on the basis of materials from Pereyaslavl South. This conclusion is confirmed by other duplications. However, as we have already seen, not one chronicle was used twice, but two different ones, which described the same event under different years. We assume - this assumption is confirmed by the analysis of other duplications of the Laurentian Chronicle - that in the story about the campaign of Mikhail Yuryevich in 1169, the episcopal chronicler of Pereyaslavl South was used (in which the victory is explained by the help of the Mother of God), and in 1171 - the princely chronicler of Pereyaslavl South ( in it, the victory is explained by the prince’s ancestral semi-pagan prayer “of these days and now”) 765. It is characteristic that both chroniclers had different dates and the difference between them sometimes reached two years 766.
It is important to note that the princely chronicle of Pereyaslavl South was also reflected in the Ipatiev Chronicle. The fact that the princely chronicle of Pereyaslavl South was reflected simultaneously in the Laurentian and in the Ipatiev, provides a reliable criterion for separating the Pereyaslav princely news from the Pereyaslav episcopal news as part of the Laurentian.
The news of the episcopal Pereyaslavl chronicle lasts as part of the Laurentian Chronicle only until 1175. The news of the princely Pereyaslavl chronicle goes until the death of Vladimir Glebovich (1187). This allows us to presumably identify the Pereyaslavl princely chronicler as the collection of Vladimir Glebovich. Indeed, the Pereyaslavl princely chronicler is entirely devoted to the glorification of Vladimir Glebovich in his struggle with the Polovtsians.
Based on a number of features, M.D. Priselkov defines two stages of the Vladimir-Suzdal chronicle: the code of 1175 and the code of 1193. In the first of these codes, as is clear from the above, the episcopal Pereyaslav chronicler was used, brought just before this year 1175 ., and in the second - the princely chronicler of Vladimir Glebovich. Then the princely chronicler of Pereyaslavl South was used two more times, but did not cause any duplication of news.
How can we explain that the Vladimir chronicle in all its known collections turned to the chronicle of Pereyaslavl South with such persistence that amazes us now? The answer to this question is complex. M.D. Priselkov devotes several extremely interesting pages to this issue in his study “The Laurentian Chronicle (history of the text)” 767. He draws attention to the very relations of the Vladimir Grand Dukes to Pereyaslavl South, which was the main stronghold of the policy of the Vladimir princes in the south of Rus', to the dynastic ties with the Pereyaslavl princes Monomakhovich, to the traditions of the Monomash Chronicle, which passed to Pereyaslavl South with the third edition of the “Tale of Bygone Years” through the son of Vladimir Monomakh - Mstislav, to the episcopal see of Pereyaslavl South, which at one time was occupied by Sylvester, who had previously been the abbot of the Vydubitsky Monastery and revised the “Tale of Bygone Years” (from Sylvester a well-known entry in the Laurentian Chronicle of 1116 has also been preserved). To this we can add the special awareness of the all-Russian affairs of the scribes of Southern Pereyaslavl, which was the first to take the blows of the steppe nomads and where, therefore, they were especially interested in the unity of Rus' and closely followed the movements of the steppe peoples and the events in the Russian principalities.
We see, therefore, that the explanation of textual features leads us very far into the depths of historical events.
Duplication of stories about the same event is not always easy to recognize - not only for the chronicler, but also for the modern researcher. Events themselves may be similar, told with different details, assessed differently: all this makes their identification extremely difficult. It is sometimes difficult, for example, to decide whether there were two campaigns against the Polovtsians or whether these are two stories about the same campaign; did the prince receive ambassadors twice or only once, etc. There are, however, events that by their very nature cannot be repeated: death, birth, baptism, etc. Therefore, if the death of a person is recorded twice in the chronicle, birth, seating on the table in one’s principality and some others are a sure sign of the connection of different sources. So, for example, if we carefully read in the Laurentian Chronicle the story about the capture of Vladimir by Batu in 1237, we will see that in this story Prince Yuri Vsevolodovich dies twice, and the Vladimir bishop dies twice. Further we will notice that some other events of this capture of Vladimir were not repeated twice, but were recorded twice. It is clear that the annual article of 1237 is combined from two sources. Further analysis shows that these sources are one from Rostov and the other is clearly from Vladimir.
Sometimes duplications occur in the chronicle not because it contains two stories about the same event, but because the text of the chronicle was interrupted by an insertion and the compiler of the chronicle, having made this insertion, resumed the correspondence of his main source, repeating the text he had already rewritten .
So, for example, in the Novorodskaya fourth and Sofia first chronicles under 1382, the news “Mikhailo, father of Matthews passed away” is read twice: first in the chronicle article preceding the extensive story about the capture of Moscow by Tokhtamysh, and then in the article placed after this story . It is clear that the repetition of this chronicle article, and in it the home news of the Novgorod chronicler, was a consequence of the insertion of the story about the capture of Moscow 768. Based on numerous duplications of news in the Novgorod fourth chronicle and observations of their composition, A. A. Shakhmatov concludes that the Novgorod fourth chronicle was compiled on the basis of two Novgorod chronicle collections: the Novgorod first chronicle and that extensive, complex in composition, collection that served as a source for the First Sofia Chronicle 769.
The use of duplications to study the origin of a particular story in the chronicle is found in the works on the chronicle by M.P. Pogodin, I.I. Sreznevsky, D.I. Prozorovsky and others. However, only A.A. Shakhmatov introduced something new into the very principle of studying duplications. Having abandoned episodic observations of the chronicle text of its individual annual articles, regardless of others, A. A. Shakhmatov began to study duplications in their entirety and in the entire chronicle material of the chronicle lists as a whole. Just as A. A. Shakhmatov’s generalizations covered all the chronicle lists known to him, A. A. Shakhmatov’s analysis covered the entire text of each chronicle list separately.
Duplications are very typical for chronicle writing, and the use of duplications is one of the most important features studying it. At the same time, we note: it is not even so difficult to detect duplication as to explain it, and the explanation of the origin of duplications can be very diverse 770.
Under suitable conditions, duplications occur not only in chronicles. So, for example, in “The Life of Prince Fyodor of Yaroslavl,” compiled by the monk of the Spaso-Yaroslavl Monastery Anthony, various sources are combined. In particular, Anthony used the previous anonymous “Life of Fyodor of Yaroslavl” and “The Tale of the Murder of Batu”, attributed to Pachomius the Serb 771. From both of these sources he took information about the conquest of Rus' by Batu’s hordes, but combined them clumsily. As a result, Anthony talks about this twice: first from the “Tale of the Murder of Batu”, and then from an anonymous life 772.
Using lists of church hierarchs, princes, mayors, cities, etc.
The chronicles very often include (especially at the beginning of the chronicles) something like indexes of the names of princes, bishops, cities, mayors, etc. In the middle of the chronicle there may be indications of what kind of children the prince has. By the mention of children, we can judge whether this note was compiled before or after the birth of a particular child to the prince. By indicating the last bishop, last prince or mayor, one can also judge the time of compilation of this list, and if the list is closely related to the chronicle, then also the time of compilation of the latter. In the chapter devoted to establishing the time of creation of a work, we have already dwelled on the indications of such lists for chronological determinations. In this case, we emphasize that these lists are very frequent and characteristic of chronicles and that the information extracted from these lists concerns not only chronology.
Lists of church hierarchs, princes, posadniks, cities, etc. help to establish the identity or difference of texts, as well as the time of completion of work on the text, since these lists were usually, when processing the chronicle text, brought up to their time by chroniclers and were left unchanged only by mechanical copyists .
Thus, A.N. Nasonov, studying the relationship between the lists of the Pskov chronicle - Obolensky (manuscript of the Archaeographic Commission No. 252 in LOII) and Pogodinsky 1st (collection of Pogodin No. 1404 a, GPB) - came to the conclusion that the basis of Obolensky’s list It is not a copy of Pogodinsky 1st, but only a list close to it. The basis for this was the analysis of discrepancies and differences in the list of Novgorod archbishops. In Obolensky's list, Moses is listed last (died in 1363), and in Pogodinsky's list, Davyd (died in 1325) is listed 1st. From this we can assume that the text of the Pogodinsky list 1 is older than the text of the Obolensky list, and this is confirmed by discrepancies.
Establishing the local origin of the chronicles
The center from which this or that chronicle came is usually revealed by the special, and sometimes even petty, attention of the chronicle to events in that center. For example, the editors of the Pskov Chronicle, represented by the Vakhromeyevsky, Rumyantsevsky and Typographical lists, after the news of 1547, showed special interest in the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral. “That same summer,” it is written in the Vakhromeyevsky list under 1548, “in Velikiy Novegrad in the Church of St. John in Prison, Archbishop Theodosius swept away the wooden supports from the church and built the stone vaults over the tomb of the miracle worker, and whitewashed the entire church, with icons and candles and he decorated it with books and set up an unquenchable candle, and from that time on, in the church of St. John the Baptist, in the dungeons, the priest of Sophia began to serve mass every week. Under 1553, it is said about the sea in Novgorod: “And at the cathedral church of Sophia the Wisdom of God there were only 6 priests left, and two deacons, and a complete cathedral at Saint Sophia: archpriest, and 18 priests, protodeacon, and 4 deacons, and archdeacon, and everything became a thing of the past...", etc. Further - about the installation of Pimen as archbishop and that "he began to serve in St. Sophia.. .”, etc. In the same chronicles, to the news of 6528, “Yaroslav’s son Vladimer was born,” it was added: “He created the Church of St. Sophia of the Wisdom of God in Velitsa in Novegrad (in “Velitsy Novgorod” in the Typographic Chronicle).
This kind of attention to the Novgorod Church of Sophia may serve as a sign that the chronicle was compiled or revised here. A. N. Nasonov calls the vault represented by the Pskov chronicles - Rumyantsevskaya 1st, Vakhromeyevskaya, Typografskaya, Balzerovskaya and Goryushkinsky - the Novgorod-Sofia reworking of the Novgorod-Pskov vault 773.
Not always, of course, just attention to a given chronicle or a given temple is enough to determine one or another local origin of a chronicle or chronicle collection. So, for example, in the chronicle of one of the feudal centers an extensive chronicle of another center could be used, and then the abundance of local news of the latter could “color” the second with local flavor so intensely that the entire chronicle may seem to belong to the first chronicle center. This happened, in particular, with the Novgorod Fourth Chronicle. It was considered Novgorod in origin, but M.D. Priselkov, not without reason, assumes that the fourth Novgorod chronicle is Moscow in origin, but used in its composition the extensive chronicle of Novgorod the Great 774.
The most important thing for determining the local origin of the chronicle is the end of the chronicle, since at the beginning and in the middle it mostly reflects not the work of the last chronicler, but the sources he used. The most significant indications for determining the local origin of the chronicle are derived from revisions and changes to the text, in which one can discern local interests, local trends, or the narrowly local knowledge of the chronicler.
A typical example is found in A. A. Shakhmatov’s analysis of the Radzivilov Chronicle 775. We are talking about the continuation of the Vladimir Grand Duke's code of 1212, read in the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl of Suzdal. Judging by the content, this continuation was made in Pereyaslavl-Suzdal, which did not lose sight of the events in Vladimir and Rostov. But this continuation in the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl of Suzdal was also associated with the processing of the previous chronicle material. This processing was also carried out by a Pereyaslavl resident. This is visible in several places in the chronicle. Thus, to the news of 1157 about the construction of the stone Church of the Savior by Andrei Bogolyubsky: “in Pereyaslavli Novem.” However, in Pereyaslavl New, or Suzdal, the Church of the Savior was built not by Andrei Bogolyubsky, but by Yuri Dolgoruky in 1152. In fact, the news of 1157 spoke about the Church of the Savior in Rostov the Great, but this city was not directly named. It is possible that legends connected the construction of the Church of the Savior in Pereyaslavl New with Andrei Bogolyubsky 776, but most likely the chronicler connected the news of 1157 with his church, since he was used to thinking about it. This kind of “psychological” mistake is quite natural for a Pereyaslavl resident.
There is another sign. “In 1175,” writes M.D. Priselkov, “in the chronicler’s prayer address to the memory of the murdered Andrei Bogolyubsky, instead of the words of the Vladimir Code of 1212, “We pray to have mercy on our prince and Mr. Vsevolod, our own brother, and give him victory for nasty and many summers with the princess and with noble children” - in the Pereyaslav adaptation we find: “We pray to have mercy on our prince and Mr. Yaroslav, our own and noble son (i.e. nephew. - D.L.) and give him victory against the enemy and many years with the princess and the adoption of noble children.” During these years, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich was, as is known, the prince of Pereyaslavl of Suzdal. Finally, in the long narratives under 1176 and 1177 about the struggle for the discovered inheritance of Andrei Bogolyubsky, we find the words “and Pereyaslavl” added to numerous mentions of the Vladimir people in the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl of Suzdal.
This kind of alterations, additions, prayers for their prince, naming their people “ours” are typical for the chronicle and together serve as reliable indications of one or another local origin of the chronicle.
I will note, however, something else. Previously, in the old science, in which within any principality different social strata (not to mention different classes) were not noticed, any indication of a hostile attitude towards the local prince, towards the local bishop, etc. was usually considered as a sign of the origin of the chronicle from another area. Now we have numerous indications for Novgorod, and for Pskov, and for Moscow that a hostile attitude towards local authorities sometimes came from local sources and therefore does not at all serve as a sign of the nonresident origin of the chronicle. This position sharply distinguishes Soviet chronicle researchers from their predecessors.
Thus, Soviet chronicle researchers discovered at least three chronicle collections from the late 15th century that came out of Moscow circles, but were hostile to the Moscow authorities.
So, for example, A. A. Shakhmatov assumed that the basis of the Second Sofia and Lvov Chronicles is the Rostov code of the Tikhonov edition 778. A. N. Nasonov proved the connection of this code not with the Rostov Archbishop Tikhon, but with the Moscow Metropolitan Gerontius 779 . This code, as shown by Ya. S. Lurie, was sharply hostile to the grand ducal power 780.
A. A. Shakhmatov assumed that the basis of the Yermolinsk Chronicle, which was opposed to the Moscow authorities, as well as the Chronographic List of the Fourth Novgorod Chronicle, the list of the Tsarsky Sophia First Chronicle and the unpublished chronicle from the Pogodinsky Collection No. 1409 of the State Public Library was the Rostov vault of Archbishop Vassian. Ya. S. Lurie showed that this code, indeed quite oppositional, came out of the Moscow military environment, close to the governor Fyodor Basenko 781.
One of the usual mistakes of the “pre-Shakhmatovo” study of chronicles (however, which still has its recurrences today) was that local news was usually attributed to the existence of the local chronicle. Thus, if a more or less compact group of news related to one or another principality was found in the chronicles, then the explanation for this was sought only in the fact that there was a chronicle of this particular principality. This is how the chronicles of Nizhny Novgorod, Ryazan, Smolensk, etc. were distinguished. Meanwhile, the presence of local news can only serve as “suggestive” material, indicating the possibility of the existence of both a local chronicle and a chronicle associated with one or another prince who sat for some time in this principality, with the bishop of a given area or simply the fact that this principality, the events that took place in it, were in the orbit of attention of the chronicler of a completely different principality. Only the chronicler’s predilection for this or that prince, the presence of interest in events of very narrow local significance, the acquaintance of an eyewitness or awareness local resident may to some extent indicate the existence of a special chronicle. The main method of studying chronicles remains comparison, comparison of lists and conclusions based on this comparison and comparison.
The example of the textual study of chronicles shows especially clearly how research techniques depend on the nature of the material itself. The more carefully a textologist takes into account the features of creating a text, the more successful its research. The principles of studying the text must be realistic, taking into account all aspects of reality reflected in the history of the text. They must be based on the recognition of the fact that only a careful comparison of the texts of the chronicles provides the main material for conclusions.
Recently, there has been a tendency to return to the old, pre-Chess methods in the study of chronicle history. The psychological basis for this return is the difficulty of Shakhmatov's method. “Ideologically” this is “substantiated” by Shakhmatov’s accusations of hypercriticism, but the method of Shakhmatov’s study of chronicles has introduced so many new things into our ideas about chronicles, made it possible to construct the history of Russian chronicles for six centuries of its active existence, revealed to us new chronicles and explained so much that is unclear that the accusations of A A. Shakhmatov’s hypercriticism, and therefore a skeptical attitude towards the chronicle data and the chronicle itself, are simply ridiculous. Russian science has the right to be proud of the methodological techniques of textual research.
Chronicle vault Litseva - vault of the 16th century, the largest chronicle-chronographic work medieval Rus'. L.S. L. has come down to us in 10 volumes, where almost every page is decorated with miniatures (there are more than 16,000 miniatures in total). The first three volumes of L. p. L. dedicated world history: 1) Chronograph of the State Historical Museum (Museum collection, No. 358); 2) Chronograph BAN (17.17.9); 3) GPB Chronograph (F.IV.151). Russian history, set out in seven volumes, begins in 1114 and ends in 1567 (the ending is lost, but apparently was completed before 1568); 4) Golitsyn volume (GPB, F.IV.225); 5) Laptev volume (GPB, F.IV.233); 6, 7) two volumes of the Ancient Chronicler (BAN, 31.7.30, vol. 1, 2); 8) Shumilovsky volume (GPB, F.IV.232); 9) Synodal Chronicle (GIM, Synod. collection, No. 962); 10) Royal Book (State Historical Museum, Synod. Collection, No. 149). The volume containing the initial Russian history has not survived.
L.S. L. was created by order of Ivan IV the Terrible in the period 1568-1576. in the Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, which during the oprichnina became the political center of the Russian state, the permanent residence of the Tsar. Presentation of the historical process in L. p. L. corresponded to the goals of strengthening the autocratic power of the tsar and creating the idea that Rus' was the heir to ancient monarchies and a stronghold of Orthodoxy. However, around 1575, the prepared text and illustrations outlining the history of the reign of Grozny (for 1533-1568) were subjected to a significant revision at the direction of the tsar: numerous notes made by an unknown editor in the margins of the manuscript contained incriminating materials against persons who had been disgraced and executions during the oprichnina terror. Thus, Ivan the Terrible tried to justify the bloody reprisals against the rebellious boyars. Editing L.S. L. was carried out during the period of exacerbation of intraclass political struggle and subsequent new executions. For unknown reasons, work on L. s. The book was not completed: the miniatures of the last part of the vault were made only in ink sketches, but not painted, the edited text was not completely rewritten; the paper of the vault was transferred to the needs of the Printing House in Alexandrovskaya Sloboda and was used in 1576 when printing the Psalter.
Over the compilation of the personal statement. L. worked as a whole staff of royal book writers and artists. At present, several manuscripts have been found that were used in the creation of L. s. L. and clearly reflected the various stages of work on it. Thus, in the chronographic part of the code, the “History of the Jewish War” by Josephus Flavius was used according to the list of BAN, Solov. collection, No. 8 and Greek and Roman Chronicler, 2nd edition according to the GPB list, collection. OLDP, F.33; The Russian part is based on Obolensky's list of the Nikon Chronicle (TsGADA, f. 201, no. 163). In all of the listed manuscripts, traces of wax markings of the text, corresponding to those placed in the L. p., have been preserved. L. miniatures; in addition, in the lists of the Hellenic Chronicler and the Nikon Chronicle there are numerous amendments made with a lead pencil (after marking with wax), which appeared as a result of editing the text from other sources (Russian Chronograph, Chronicle of the Resurrection, etc.) - these changes were also reflected in the L . With. L. In those places where the text of the main source was supplemented differently, a recalculation of the number of miniatures was made in the margins with a pencil. Pencil notes about correcting text and miniatures can also be read on the finished sheets of pages. L. (in the GPB Chronograph and the Royal Book), but for some reason not all of these radar instructions were implemented. The pages of the Royal Book depict the various stages of the design of the Book of Life. L.: first, the text was copied by scribes, and free spaces were left for miniatures (in accordance with the editor’s markings), then a sketch of the composition was made (with a lead pencil or charcoal), and then the drawing was outlined in ink and painted. There was a clear distribution of labor among the miniaturists, which made it possible to complete a colossal amount of work on illustrating a multi-volume set in a short time. Miniatures L. p. L. indicate high level art of Russian book illustration of the 16th century. In addition, miniatures of L. s. L. are a valuable historical source that has brought to our time information about the nature, material production, culture and life of Ancient Rus' and neighboring peoples.
In addition to L. s. L. The work of the royal workshop is also characterized by other works: in the end. 60s XVI century there a set of Makaryev's Great Menaions of the Chetiy was rewritten (from which copies of the GPB, Solov. collection, No. 501/520, 504/523, 505/524, 508/527, 514/533 have been preserved), the service Menaion (GBL, f. 247 , No. 332) and the famous Egorov collection was created (GBL, f. 98, No. 1844); in the 70s XVI century the front Life of Nicholas of Myra (GBL, f. 37, No. 15), a repeated copy of the May Menaion of Chetia (State Historical Museum, Diocesan collection, No. 463), the Apostle was copied (LOI, collection of N.P. Likhachev, No. 203) . In some of the noted manuscripts of the Menaion Chetiih, markings made with a lead pencil have been preserved and indicate that the text of the lives of the saints was being prepared for illustration.
Lit.: Likhachev N. P. Paleographic significance of paper watermarks. St. Petersburg, 1899. Part 1. P. CIV-CXXI; Presnyakov A. E. Moskovskaya historical encyclopedia XVI century // IORYAS. 1900. T. 5, book. 3. P. 824-876; Artsikhovsky A.V. Old Russian miniatures as a historical source. M., 1944; Podobedova O.I. Miniatures of Russian historical manuscripts. M., 1965. P. 102-332; Pokrovskaya V.F. From the history of the creation of the Facial Chronicle Code of the second half of the 16th century. // Materials and messages on the collections of the Department of Manuscript and rare book Libraries of the USSR Academy of Sciences. M.; L., 1966. P. 5-19; Protasyeva T.N. On the issue of miniatures of the Nikon Chronicle // Chronicles and Chronicles. Sat. articles 1973 M., 1974. P. 281-283; Tvorogov O.V. On the composition and sources of chronographic articles of the Litsevoy vault // TODRL. L., 1974. T. 28. P. 353-364; Amosov A. A. 1) On the question of the time of origin of the Facial Arch of Ivan the Terrible // Materials and communications on the funds of the Department of Manuscripts and Rare Books of the Library of the USSR Academy of Sciences. L., 1978. S. 6-36; 2) Dating and codicological structure of the “History of Grozny” in the Facial Chronicle Code: (Notes on the paper of the so-called Royal Book) // Auxiliary historical disciplines. L., 1982. T. 13. P. 155-193; Kloss B. M. Nikonovsky vault and Russian chronicles of the 16th-17th centuries. M., 1980. S. 206-265.
CHRONICLE CODE
one of the forms of Russian Middle-century historical-lit. essays. The events of Russian history were presented in the vaults. history and interpretation of the historical was given. process from the point of view of the feudal ruling classes. society. The appearance of S. l., reproducing the history of the feudal. state, was associated with a definition. stages in the development of Russian statehood. The first S. l. were compiled in the 11th century. in Kyiv and Novgorod. The oldest surviving S. l. - Kyiv, so-called Initial arch con. 11th century, which came down as part of the Novgorod I Chronicle of the younger edition. In the 12th-13th centuries. S. l. were also compiled in other centers of Rus' (Pereyaslavl South, Chernigov, Rostov, Vladimir, Galich, Vladimir Volynsky). In the 14th-15th centuries. work on their creation was also carried out in Tver, Moscow, Pskov, Smolensk, Vologda and certain other cities. As a historical-lit. works of S. l. survive until the 18th century. inclusive.
S. l. - monuments with complex composition. The most ancient S. l. were created on the basis of various local oral traditions, weather records, translated hagiographies and chronographic records. monuments, etc. The older vaults were the sources of the later ones. Hence the continuity in history. presentation, broad chronological coverage of events from the times of Kievan Rus to the 14th-16th centuries, and in the section. cases - until the 17th-18th centuries. When compiling S. l. Various litas were also used as sources. stories and legends, teachings, acts, rank records, genealogical legends, etc. Compilation of S. l. was undertaken in connection with k.-l. major politician or church event (the installation of a new prince, the election of a new metropolitan or bishop, etc.). At the same time, the builders sought to be ideological. means to justify politics. actions and claims of their sovereigns. Having established the complex composition of S. l., scientists for a long time They were seen only as mechanics. connection of dissimilar materials. The prevailing opinion was that every S. l. was compiled independently, and their relationships were not clarified (works by P. M. Stroev, K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, I. A. Tikhomirov, etc.). Only a broad comparative historical. the method used by A. A. Shakhmatov is comparison with each other huge number S. l. - allowed him to give a general scheme of Russian. chronicles of the 11th-16th centuries, identify genetic communication and politics orientation of S. l. Sov. researchers (M. D. Priselkov, M. N. Tikhomirov, A. N. Nasonov, D. S. Likhachev, B. A. Rybakov, L. V. Cherepnin, etc.), improving the technique of A. A. Shakhmatov, revealed the main patterns of the appearance and development of social l., closely linking their history with political. and cultural life of the feud. Rus'.
Lit.: Shakhmatov A. A., Analysis of op. I. A. Tikhomirova “Review of the chronicles of North-Eastern Rus'”, St. Petersburg, 1899; him, Obscherus. chronicles of the 14th and 15th centuries, "ZhMNP", 1900, No. 9, 11, 1901, No. 11; Nasonov A. N., O rus. regional chronicle, "IAN CCCP", series of history and philosophy, 1945, vol. 2, No. 4; his, The initial stages of the Kyiv chronicle in connection with the development of Old Rus. state, in collection: PI, v. 7, M., 1959; Likhachev D.S., Textology, M. - L., 1962.
V. A. Kuchkin. Moscow.
Soviet historical encyclopedia. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ed. E. M. Zhukova. 1973-1982 .
See what the "CHNICAL CODE" is in other dictionaries:
Moscow Grand Ducal Chronicle Code 1479- Chronicle of the Moscow Grand Duke 1479 - chronicle of the last. Thursday XV century, which forms the basis of the entire official chronicle of the end. XV–XVI centuries The existence of L. s. was established by A. A. Shakhmatov, who studied the Archives (the so-called ... ...
Chronicle collection Abridged- – chronicle of the end. XV century, which has come down to us in three forms. Solovetsky species L. s. S. was preserved in the only list of con. XV century (GPB, Solov. collection, No. 922/1032), the text of which ends at 6980 (1472); Pogodinsky view was brought to September 7002 (1493) ... Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'
Chronicle collection Litsevoy- – vault of the 16th century, the largest chronicle-chronographic work of medieval Rus'. L.S. L. has come down to us in 10 volumes, where almost every page is decorated with miniatures (there are more than 16,000 miniatures in total). The first three volumes of L. p. L. are dedicated to the world... ... Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'
Chronicle collection of the Moscow Grand Duke's con. XV century- Chronicle of the Moscow Grand Duke's Con. XV century - grand ducal chronicle in the 1st half edition. 1490s A 16th-century manuscript containing this edition was discovered by M. N. Tikhomirov; in 1949 its text was published. In its main… … Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'
RED, vault, husband. 1. units only Action under Ch. reduce to 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16 and 17 values. reduce2. Taking the cow out of the yard. Proceed with the compilation of received data. 2. Texts, facts, data brought together and arranged in a certain order... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary
CHronicle, chronicle, chronicle (book). adj. to the chronicle. Chronicle story. Chronicle collection. Ushakov's explanatory dictionary. D.N. Ushakov. 1935 1940 … Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary
The vault is dome-shaped. Architecture Vault is a type of ceiling. Anatomy Fornix Part of the brain The fornix is one of the four vaulted parts of the vagina. Literature Code is a collection of any texts, for example: Chronicle Code Code of Laws, or code Code Code Two... ... Wikipedia
Noun, m., used. compare often Morphology: (no) what? vault, why? vault, (see) what? vault, what? vault, about what? about the vault; pl. What? vaults, (no) what? vaults, why? vaults, (I see) what? vaults, what? vaults, about what? about codes, a collection of rules, laws... Dmitriev's Explanatory Dictionary
A; m. 1. to Reduce reduce (7 9, 16 digits). S. forests. S. regiments per division. S. schools in herds. 2. Information, materials, texts, documents brought together and arranged in a certain order. C. laws. International s. marine signals. WITH … encyclopedic Dictionary
CVD, ah, husband. 1. see reduce. 2. Information, materials, texts brought together and arranged in a certain order. C. laws. Letopisny village 3. An arched ceiling connecting walls, supports of which kind. structures, as well as internal... ... Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary
Books
- A chronicle collection called the Patriarchal or Nikon Chronicle. Volume 13, . In volumes IX-XIV of the new series of the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles, the Nikon Chronicle is republished - the largest monument of Russian chronicles of the 16th century, which received its name from one of...
For the first time, the legendary Front Chronicle of Tsar Ivan the Terrible has appeared in open and free access on the website of the OLDP (Society of Lovers of Ancient Writing). The manuscript with hundreds of colorful miniatures can be downloaded from the links below.
The facial chronicle was created in the 16th century by order of the Russian Tsar Ivan the Terrible for the education of the royal children. The work on compiling this Code was headed by the most educated man of his time - St. Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus'. The best scribes and icon painters of the capital worked on compiling the Code. What they performed: a collection of all reliably known sources from Holy Scripture(text of the Septuagint) to the history of Alexander the Great and the writings of Josephus - the entire written history of mankind from the creation of the world to the 16th century inclusive. All times and all peoples who had writing are reflected in dozens of books in this collection. No human civilization has created such a chronicle collection, decorated with a huge number of highly artistic illustrations: neither Europe, nor Asia, nor America or Africa. The fate of the Russian Tsar himself and his children was tragic. The facial chronicle was of no use to the princes. After reading the Facial Vault, part of which is dedicated to the period of Ivan the Terrible, it becomes clear why. Over the next hundreds of years, official historiography appeared, often opportunistic and politically biased, and therefore reliable chronicle sources were doomed to destruction or correction, that is, falsification. The facial chronicle corpus survived these centuries due to the fact that after the death of Ivan the Terrible, during a period of unrest and timelessness, this tome became a coveted object for “enlightened” bibliophiles. Its fragments were stolen from their libraries by the most influential nobles of their time: Osterman, Sheremetev, Golitsyn and others. After all, even then, high-ranking collectors understood that such a tome with sixteen thousand miniatures had no price. So the Code survived until the revolution and was dumped in heaps in several museums and storage facilities.
Already today, through the efforts of enthusiasts, scattered books and sheets have been collected together from various repositories. And the revived Society of Lovers of Ancient Writing has made this masterpiece accessible to everyone. A historical source that has no analogues, many major educational establishments world, national libraries different countries and, of course, our compatriots for raising children on this treasure of experience and wisdom of millennia. So amazingly the work that was done for the royal children five hundred years ago went to our children, dear contemporaries, for which we congratulate you with all our hearts!
First volume
Second volume
Third volume
Volume 4
Library
Source -
Fifth volume (Troy)
Volume six (The earthly life of Jesus Christ)
Volume Seven (Josephus War of the Jews)
Eighth volume (Roman Byzantium)
Part 1 (81-345 AD) -
Part 2 (345-463 AD) -
Ninth volume (Byzantium)
Part 1 (463-586 AD) -
Part 2 (586-805 AD) -
Part 3 (805-875 AD) –
Part 4 (875-928 AD) -
Library
Facsimile editions of Slavic and Byzantine manuscripts of the 11th – 16th centuries. – priority area of activity of the OLDP. The Foundation has begun to form long-term plan publications, based on proposals already received. At the same time, we are ready to cooperate with the archives of Russia and foreign countries in the implementation and financing of facsimile editions of other rare monuments of Slavic and Byzantine literature. The publications will be produced at a high printing level and sold in large quantities. Preference is given to early manuscripts (up to the 16th century inclusive), with illustrations that require facsimiles due to low availability and (or) poor preservation.
Attention to the readers of the Qatar Commissioner's group.-
Ladies and Gentlemen.
You have a unique opportunity to be one of the first to get acquainted with the work of my comrades from the electronic library of the Society of Lovers of Ancient Writing, who have placed the unique heritage of our ancestors on the Internet. What will be revealed to you is truly magnificent, and studying the material will help you understand what the epic of the Russian Land actually looked like. Discoveries and amazing events of the past await you, most of which have never been covered by Torah adherents - historians. Before you is the TRUTH, the same one that many of you have been painfully searching for all your lives. Read and be proud that you belong to the Great Russian People.
A grandiose artistic project: the front chronicle of Ivan the Terrible, the Tsar Book - a chronicle of events in world and especially Russian history, written, probably in 1568-1576, especially for the royal library in a single copy. The word “facial” in the title of the Code means illustrated, with images “in faces”. Consists of 10 volumes containing about 10 thousand sheets of rag paper, decorated with more than 16 thousand miniatures. Covers the period “from the creation of the world” to 1567.
Facial chronicle of Ivan the Terrible October 13th, 2013
Currently, the history of Russia is greatly distorted. Trying to get to the bottom of the truth, you find great amount conflicting information. It is very difficult to understand where the truth is.
Falsifications have been carried out for centuries. Even in the time of Catherine, foreign “historians” distorted our entire history. Therefore, it is necessary to refer to earlier sources. One of these is a little-known Facial chronicle of Ivan the Terrible. It includeschronicle of events in world and especially Russian history.
The facial chronicle was created in the 2nd half of the 16th century by order of Tsar Ivan IV Vasilyevich the Terrible in a single copy for his children. Metropolitan and “sovereign” artisans worked on the books of the Front Vault: about 15 scribes and 10 artists. The arch consists of about 10 thousand sheets and over 17 thousand illustrations, and the visual material occupies about 2/3 of the entire volume of the monument. Miniature drawings (landscape, historical, battle and everyday life genres) not only illustrate the text, but also complement it. Some events are not written, but only drawn. The drawings tell readers what clothing, military armor, church vestments, weapons, tools, household items, etc. looked like in ancient times.
In the history of world medieval writing there is no monument similar to the Front Chronicle, both in breadth of coverage and in volume. It included:
1.(C)(C) Museum collection (GIM). 1031 sheets, 1677 miniatures. An account of sacred, Hebrew and Greek history from the creation of the world to the destruction of Troy in the 13th century. BC e.
2.(C)(C) Chronographic collection (BAN) . 1469 sheets, 2549 miniatures. Exposition of the history of the ancient East, the Hellenistic world and ancient Rome from the 11th century BC e. until the 70s I century n. e.
3.(C)(C) Face Chronograph (RNB) . 1217 sheets, 2191 miniatures. Outline of the history of the ancient Roman Empire from the 70s. I century to 337 and Byzantine history to the 10th century.
4.(C)(C) Golitsyn volume (RNB) . 1035 sheets, 1964 miniatures. Presentation national history for 1114-1247 and 1425-1472.
5.(C)(C) Laptev volume (RNB) . 1005 sheets, 1951 miniature. Outline of Russian history for 1116-1252.
6.(C)(C) Osterman's first volume (BAN) . 802 sheets, 1552 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1254-1378.
7.(C)(C) Osterman's second volume (BAN). 887 sheets, 1581 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1378-1424.
8.(C)(C) Shumilovsky volume (RNL) . 986 sheets, 1893 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1425, 1478-1533.
9.(C)(C) Synodal volume (GIM) . 626 l, 1125 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1533-1542, 1553-1567.
10.(C)(C) Royal Book (GIM) . 687 sheets, 1291 miniatures. Outline of Russian history for 1533-1553.
Knowing what is happening now, it is no longer surprising why history is not studied using these data. You and I should not know about our great glorious past, we should think. That from time immemorial we have been lazy, drunkards and mediocrities. And it doesn’t matter that a huge number of world discoveries and inventions belong to Russians, that we are an invincible, fair people - anything can be inspired.
Currently, the chronicle collection is stored in three places: inState Historical Museum(volumes 1, 9, 10), in library Russian Academy sciences(volumes 2, 6, 7) and in Russian National Library(volumes 3, 4, 5, 8).
You can supposedly download it on the Internet nowadays. But be careful, you can only trust the facsimile edition, because what is on the Internet is already distorted.
A copy of the complete facsimile edition of the Litsevoy Chronicle can be found in the library of the Manuscripts Department State Historical Museum in Moscow and in the Pushkin House in St. Petersburg.
Currently, the Facial Chronicle is published for charitable and educational purposes by the Society of Lovers of Ancient Writing. Distributed free of charge
Loading...
