The first chronicler of the Russian land. Chronicle

Traditionally, chronicles in the broad sense refer to historical works, the presentation of which is strictly year-by-year and is accompanied by chronographic (annual), often calendar, and sometimes chronometric (hourly) dates. In the narrow sense of the word, chronicles are usually called chronicle texts that have actually reached us, preserved in one or more copies that are similar to each other. Sometimes chronicles that are small in volume - most often of a narrow local or chronologically limited nature - are called chroniclers (Rogozhsky Chronicler, Chronicler of the Beginning of Kingdoms, etc.). As a rule, a chronicle in research means a complex of lists combined into one edition (for example, the Laurentian Chronicle, the Ipatiev Chronicle). It is assumed that they are based on a common presumed source.

Chronicle writing was carried out in Rus' from the 11th to the 17th centuries. Late Russian chronicles (XVI-XVII centuries) differ significantly from the chronicles of the previous time. Therefore, working with them has its own specifics. At that time, chronicle writing as a special genre of historical narration was dying out. It was replaced by other types of historical sources: chronographs, Synopsis, etc. The period of coexistence of these types of sources is characterized by a peculiar blurring of specific boundaries. Chronicles are increasingly acquiring the features of a chronographic (more precisely, granographic) presentation: the narration is conducted along “facets” - the periods of the reign of kings and great princes. In turn, later chronographs may include chronicle materials (sometimes entire fragments of chronicles).

Back in the 19th century. it was found that almost all surviving chronicle texts are compilations, codes of previous chronicles.

Reconstructing the texts of the vaults is a complex and time-consuming task (examples include reconstructions of the Ancient Code of 1036/39, the Initial Code of 1096/97, I, II and III editions of the Tale of Bygone Years created by A.A. Shakhmatov; academic publication of text reconstruction Tale of Bygone Years, prepared by D.S. Likhachev). They are resorted to in order to clarify the composition and content of the text of a hypothetical code. Basically, such reconstructions are of illustrative value. At the same time, there is a known case of scientific reconstruction of M.D. Priselkov of the Trinity Chronicle, the list of which was lost during the Moscow fire of 1812. Thanks to this reconstruction, the Trinity list was reintroduced into scientific circulation. Reconstructions of protographs are acceptable, as a rule, at the final stage of source study, since they allow a more specific presentation of the results of work on the texts of the chronicle lists. However, they are not usually used as starting material.

>When working with chronicle materials, one should remember the inaccuracy and conventions of scientific terminology. This is due, in particular, to the “lack of clear boundaries and complexity of the history of chronicle texts”, to the “fluidity” of chronicle texts, allowing “gradual transitions from text to text without visible gradations of monuments and editions.” It is necessary to distinguish whether the study is talking about the chronicle as a conditional edition or about a specific list; do not confuse the reconstructions of chronicle protographs with the texts of lists that have come down to us, etc.

Clarification of chronicle terminology is one of the urgent tasks of chronicle source study. Until now, “in the study of chronicles, the use of terms is extremely vague.

One of the most difficult concepts in chronicle writing is the concept of authorship. After all, as already noted, almost all known chronicles are the result of the work of several generations of chroniclers.

For this reason alone, the very idea of ​​the author (or compiler, or editor) of the chronicle text turns out to be largely conditional. Each of them, before beginning to describe events and processes of which he was an eyewitness or contemporary, first rewrote one or more previous chronicles that were at his disposal.

The situation was different when the chronicler approached the creation of an original, “author’s” text about contemporary events, of which he was a participant or eyewitness or about which he learned from witnesses. Here the individual experience of the author or his informants could conflict with public memory. However, this obvious paradox disappeared when in what was happening it was possible to discern the features of the highest historical experience for Christian consciousness. For the chronicler, Sacred history is a timeless value that is constantly relived in real, “today’s” events. An event is significant for the chronicler insofar as it, figuratively speaking, was an event.

This led to the method of description - through direct or indirect quotation of authoritative (most often sacred) texts. The analogy with already known events gave the chronicler a typology of the essential. That is why the texts of the sources on which the chronicler relied were for him and his contemporaries a semantic fund from which it remained to select ready-made clichés for perception, description and simultaneous assessment of what was happening. Apparently, individual creativity affected mainly the form and, to a much lesser extent, the content of the chronicle message.

The plan should allow a consistent explanation of: 1) the reasons that prompted the creation of new codes and the continuation of the presentation that was once begun; 2) the structure of the chronicle narrative; 3) selection of material to be presented; 4) the form of its submission; 5) selection of sources on which the chronicler relied.

The way to identify the plan is the opposite: by analyzing the content of the texts on which the chronicler relied (and the general ideas of the works that he took as the basis for his presentation), according to the literary forms found in the chronicle, it is necessary to restore the content of the chronicle messages that is relevant for the chronicler and his potential readers , the collection as a whole, and on this basis try to isolate the basic idea that brought this work to life.

7. The Tale of Bygone Years: origin, authorship, editions, internal structure. The beginning of ancient Russian chronicle writing is usually associated with a stable general text, which begins the vast majority of chronicle collections that have survived to our time. The text of “The Tale of Bygone Years” covers a long period - from ancient times to the beginning of the second decade of the 12th century. This is one of the oldest chronicle codes, the text of which was preserved by the chronicle tradition. In different chronicles, the text of the Tale reaches different years: to 1110 (Lavrentievsky and lists close to it) or to 1118 (Ipatievsky and lists close to it). This is usually associated with repeated editing of the Tale. A comparison of both editions led A.A. Shakhmatov came to the conclusion that the Laurentian Chronicle preserved the text of the first edition, carried out by the abbot of the Vydubitsky monastery Sylvester. Text of articles 6618-6626. associated with the second edition of the Tale of Bygone Years, apparently carried out under the eldest son of Vladimir Monomakh, Novgorod prince Mstislav. At the same time, there is an indication that the author of the Tale was some monk of the Kiev Pechersk Monastery, Nestor. According to A.A. Shakhmatov, the chronicle, which is usually called the Tale of Bygone Years, was created in 1112 by Nestor, supposedly the author of two famous hagiographic works - Readings about Boris and Gleb and the Life of Theodosius of Pechersk.

Chronicle collections that preceded the Tale of Bygone Years: the text of the chronicle collection that preceded the Tale of Bygone Years has been preserved as part of the Novgorod First Chronicle. The Tale of Bygone Years was preceded by a codex that A.A. Shakhmatov suggested calling it Initial. Based on the content and nature of the chronicle's presentation, it was proposed to date it to 1096-1099. According to the researcher, it formed the basis of the Novgorod First Chronicle. Further study of the Initial Code, however, showed that it was also based on some work (or works) of a chronicle nature. From this L.A. Shakhmatov concluded that the Primary Code was based on some kind of chronicle compiled between 977 and 1044. The most likely in this interval is L.A. Shakhmatov considered 1037, under which the Tale contains praise for Prince Yaroslav Vladimirovich. The researcher proposed to call this hypothetical chronicle work the Most Ancient Code. The narrative in it was not yet divided into years and was plot-based. The annual dates (chronological network) were added to it by the Kiev-Pechersk monk Nikoi the Great in the 70s of the 11th century.

M.P. Tikhomirov drew attention to the fact that the Tale better reflects the reign of Svyatoslav Igorevich than Vladimir Svyatoslavich and Yaroslav Vladimirovich. Based on a comparative study of the Tale and the Novgorod First Chronicle, the scientist came to the conclusion that the Tale was based on the monothematic Tale of the Beginning of the Russian Land, which told about the founding of Kyiv and the first Kyiv princes.

D.S. Likhachev believes that the Initial Code was preceded by the Legend of the initial spread of Christianity to the Rus. It was a monothematic story compiled in the early 10s. XI century The Legend included: tales of the baptism and death of Princess Olga; about the first Russian martyrs, the Varangian Christians; about the baptism of Rus'; about Boris and Gleb and Praise to Prince Yaroslav Vladimirovich.

L.V. Cherepnin, having compared the text of the Tale with the praise of Prince Vladimir Iakov Mnikh, came to the conclusion that the latter was based on the code of 996. This text was based on brief chronicle notes that were kept at the Tithe Church in Kyiv. It was also suggested that Anastas Korsunyanin was involved in compiling the code of the Tithe Church.

Novgorod vaults of the 11th century: together with the Kiev-Pechersk vault of 1074 (the so-called Nikon vault), it formed the basis of the Initial vault. The basis of the Novgorod vault of the third quarter of the 11th century, as A.A. believed. Shakhmatov, lay the most ancient Kiev code of 1037 and some earlier Novgorod chronicle of 1017, compiled under the Novgorod bishop Joachim.

B.A. Rybakov associated the compilation of such a code with the name of the Novgorod mayor Ostromir (1054-1059). According to the researcher, this was a secular chronicle that substantiated the independence of Novgorod, its independence from Kyiv.

Oral sources as part of the Tale of Bygone Years: under 1096, the chronicler mentions the Novgorodian Gyuryata Rogovich, who told him a Ugra legend about peoples living on the edge of the earth in “midnight countries.”

Foreign sources of the Tale of Bygone Years: A significant part of them are foreign chronicles, primarily Greek. The most numerous borrowings are from the translation of the Chronicle of George Amartol. The Chronicle itself was created around 867 and covered world history from Adam to the death of the Byzantine emperor Theophilus (812). Information related to the history of the Slavs, and above all with the first campaigns of Rus' against Constantinople, was borrowed from the Chronicle.

Another important source of the Tale was the Chronicler of the Patriarch of Constantinople Nikephoros (806-815), which contained a chronological list of the most important events in world history, brought up to the year of the author’s death (829). Another important source of the Tale, according to A.A. Shakhmatov, supported by a number of researchers, became some kind of Chronograph of a special composition that has not survived to our time. It included fragments of the already mentioned Chronicle of George Amartol, as well as the Greek chronicles of John Malala, the Chronicle of George Syncellus and the Easter Chronicle.

The text of the Jewish chronograph Book of Josippon, compiled in southern Italy in the middle of the 10th century, was also used in the Tale. It is based on the Latin translation of “Jewish Antiquities” and a retelling of “The Jewish War” by Josephus. The main source of figurative representations of the first Russian chroniclers were works of a sacred nature, primarily the Holy Scriptures.

Apocryphal literature was also widely used to compile chronicles, which in the 11th-12th centuries. existed along with liturgical books. Used by the compiler of the Tale and Life of Vasily the New - a Greek hagiographical work.

Internal structure: PVL consists of an undated “introduction” and annual articles of varying length, content and origin. These articles may have the character of 1) brief factual notes about a particular event, 2) an independent short story, 3) part of a single narrative, spread over different years when timing the original text, which did not have a weather grid, and 4) “annual” articles of complex composition .

8. Chronicles of the 12th-15th centuries. Main centers, features of the content of chronicles.

Local chronicle of the XII-XIII centuries. South Russian chronicle writing Sources for studying South Russian chronicle writing of the 12th-13th centuries. serve, first of all, Ipatievsky (beginning of the 15th century), those close to him, Khlebnikovsky (16th century), Pogodinsky (17th century), Ermolaevsky (late 17th - early 18th century) and other lists, as well as the Voskresenskaya and main lists editions of the Sophia I Chronicles. In the XII-XIII centuries. in the south of Rus', chronicle writing was systematically carried out only in Kyiv and Pereyaslavl South. In Chernigov, there were only family princely chroniclers.

Kievo's chronicle, on the one hand, seemed to continue the tradition of the Tale of Bygone Years. On the other hand, it lost its national character and turned into a family chronicle of the Kyiv princes. It was carried out continuously throughout the 12th century.

Chronicles of the North-East Sources for studying the chronicles of the Russian North-East for the XII-XIII centuries. include the Radzivilovsky (end of the 15th century) and the Moscow Academic (15th century) lists, going back to the general protograph (Radzivilovsky Chronicle), the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl of Suzdal (list of the 60s of the 15th century) and the Laurentian list of 1377. According to M. D. Priselkov, the central idea of ​​this (Grand Duke Vladimir Code of 1281) code was proof of the priority of Vladimir “among the allied feudal Russian principalities (as opposed to the Galician Code of the end of the 13th century).

The Vladimir-Suzdal chronicle as an independent branch dates back to 1158, when continuous local records began to be written in Vladimir-on-Klyazma at the court of Andrei Bogolyubsky. In 1177, they were combined with individual chronicle notes of Yuri Dolgoruky into a grand-ducal code, which was also based on the episcopal South Russian (Pereyaslavl) Chronicler. Its continuation was the chronicle code of 1193, which also included materials from the princely Chronicler of Pereyaslavl South. In 1212, on its basis, a facial vault was created (that is, decorated with miniatures, copies of which can now be seen in the Radziwill List) of the Grand Duke of Vladimir. Until this point, chronicle writing was probably carried out at the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral. Then the chronicle collection acquired secular features, which is associated with the deterioration of relations between the Vladimir prince Yuri and Bishop Ivan. Most likely, the compilation of the code of 1212 was entrusted to a person close to the Grand Duke. Subsequently, as a result of the Mongol invasion and the ruin of Vladimir, the Vladimir chronicle itself fades away.

The Rostov chronicle continued the traditions of the Vladimir grand ducal vaults. Here already at the beginning of the 13th century. a local princely chronicler was created, in many ways similar to the Vladimir one. In 1239, a continuation of the Grand Duke's Vladimir vault appeared, which also adopted the news of the Rostov vault of 1207.

The northeastern chronicle tradition was based on the idea of ​​crossing the center of the Russian land from Kyiv along Vladimir-on-Klyazma.

Novgorod chronicles Sources for studying the Novgorod chronicles of the 12th-13th centuries. The Synodal list (XIII - first third of the XIV century) of the Novgorod First Chronicle (senior edition), as well as the Commission (XV century), Academic (second half of the XV century) and Trinity (second half of the XV century) lists, combined into her younger version. Their analysis allows us to establish that in Novgorod from the middle of the 11th century. The chronicle tradition was not interrupted until the 16th century.

History of the chronicles of Novgorod the Great. Around 1136, apparently in connection with the expulsion of Prince Vsevolod from Novgorod, on the instructions of Bishop Nifont, the Sophia Vladyka Code was created, which revised the Novgorod princely chronicle, which had been kept since the middle of the 11th century. Another source was also the Kiev Primary Code of 1096, which formed the basis of the Novgorod chronicle. Perhaps the famous cleric of Novgorod Sophia Kirik participated in the creation of the first arch of the lord. At the beginning of the 13th century. a new lordly arch appeared. Its creation was somehow connected with the fall of Constantinople in 1204. v In any case, it ended with a story about the capture of the Byzantine capital by the crusaders.

By the 14th century These are the first chronicles that claim to cover the history of all Russian lands (although in fact they reflected, as a rule, only events that took place in North-Eastern Rus'). The sources for studying the origins of all-Russian chronicles are primarily the Laurentian and Trinity Chronicles.

Due to the fact that in 1305 the Tver prince Mikhail Yaroslavich became the Grand Duke of Vladimir, the center of the grand ducal chronicle moved to Tver, where, probably, at the end of the 13th century. chronicles begin to be kept. The creation of the grand ducal arch here at the beginning of the 14th century coincided with the adoption by Mikhail Yaroslavich of a new title - “Grand Duke of All Rus'”.

As an all-Russian code, it included not only local, but also Novgorod, Ryazan, Smolensk, and South Russian news and had a clear anti-Horde orientation. The code of 1305 became the main source of the Laurentian Chronicle. With the transfer of the label to the great reign into the hands of Ivan Kalita, the tradition of all-Russian chronicle writing that originated in Tver passes to Moscow. Here, around 1389, the Great Russian Chronicle was created. Its analysis shows that under Prince Yuri Danilovich, apparently, no chronicle records were kept in Moscow. Individual fragments of such work (family chronicles) were recorded at the Moscow princely court only in 1317. A little later, in 1327, chronicle writing began at the metropolitan see, which had been moved a year earlier to Moscow. Apparently, since 1327 a single chronicle has been continuously maintained here.

Most likely, chronicle writing at that time was carried out at the metropolitan court. This is indicated by the nature of the annual records: the chronicler is much more attentive to changes on the metropolitan throne, and not on the grand ducal throne. However, this is quite understandable. Let’s not forget that it was the metropolitans, and not the great princes, who at that time traditionally had in their titles a mention of “all Rus',” which was (at least nominally) subordinate to them. Nevertheless, the vault that appeared was not actually metropolitan, but grand-princely-metropolitan. This code (according to the dating of A.A. Shakhmatov - 1390) probably received the name The Great Russian Chronicler. It should be noted, however, that the outlook of the compilers of the new code was unusually narrow. The Moscow chronicler saw much less than the compilers of the Tver grand ducal vaults. However, according to Ya.S. Lurie, the so-called Great Russian Chronicler, could also have been from Tver by origin.

The next stage in the development of all-Russian chronicles in the existing independent lands and principalities was associated with the strengthening of the role and influence of the metropolitan of “All Rus'”. This was the result of the long confrontation between the Moscow Grand Duke and the church during the reign of Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy. The name of Metropolitan Cyprian is associated with the idea of ​​​​creating a new chronicle. It included the history of the Russian lands that were part of the Russian metropolis from ancient times. It should have included, if possible, materials from all local chronicle traditions, including individual chronicle records on the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The first all-Russian metropolitan code was the so-called Trinity Chronicle of 1408, which was reflected mainly in the Simeonovsky list.

After the invasion of Edigei and in connection with the subsequent struggle for the Moscow throne between the heirs of Dmitry Donskoy, the center of all-Russian chronicle writing moved again to Tver. As a result of the strengthening of Tver in the 30s of the 15th century. (according to the latest dating by Ya.S. Lurie - in 1412), a new edition of the code of 1408 appeared here, which was directly reflected in the Rogozhsky chronicler, Nikonovsky and (indirectly) Simeonovsky chronicles. An important stage in the development of all-Russian chronicles was the compilation of a code, which formed the basis of a large group of chronicle lists, combined into the Sofia I and Novgorod IV chronicles. The calculation of years, placed under 6888 (1380), allowed L.L. Shakhmatov determined the date of its creation as 1448. The compiler of the 1448 code reflected the changing outlook of the reader of his time. Under his pen, the idea of ​​the need to unite the Moscow lands with Rostov, Suzdal, Tver and Novgorod the Great for a joint fight against the “filthy” took shape quite clearly. The chronicler “for the first time raised this question not from a narrow Moscow (or Tver), but from an all-Russian point of view (using in this case also the South Russian chronicle).

The code of 1448 has not reached us in its original form. Perhaps this is due to the fact that, due to the time of its creation, it inevitably had a compromise character, sometimes paradoxically combining Moscow, Tver and Suzdal points of view.

Nevertheless, it formed the basis for almost all Russian chronicles of the subsequent period (primarily Sophia I and Novgorod IV), which in one way or another processed it.

Goals: to update students’ personal meaning to study the topic; give an idea of ​​the concepts of “letter”, “chronicle”, “eyewitness”; expand knowledge about the history of the creation of chronicles and the work of chroniclers; promote the development of skills to use scientific methods of cognition; cultivate spiritual and moral culture, patriotic feelings.

Equipment: book exhibition, computer, multimedia, reports.

During the classes

1. Initial stage

1. Organizational moment

Teacher: I would like to start today’s lesson with the words of the ancient Russian chronicler: “Great is the benefit of book learning!” Love for the native word, native language, Russian literature and native history cannot be instilled without knowledge of the history of the creation of native writing, the history of language and the history of books in the native language.

2. Introduction to the topic of the lesson

– As in the life of every person, in the history of states there is birth, youth, maturity and death. Where is the beginning of all the beginnings of Russian history, where is that shoot from which the spreading and mighty “tree of the Russian state” grew?

– This is truly a question of questions and a problem of problems that the best minds of historical science have struggled to solve. Today in class we will try to figure it out. For this purpose, the guys conducted the following research:

1. Find out from the dictionary the meaning of words: chronicle, eyewitness, letter, chronicler
2. Collect information about when the first chronicles and birch bark documents appeared
3. Find out who was their author

In order to answer this series of questions, students in our class worked on the following topics: “Chronicle. What the chronicles tell us”, “Literary monuments of Ancient Rus'”, “Novgorod birch bark letters”.

2. Formation of new knowledge

1. Teacher's explanation

In 1380, Prince Dmitry Ivanovich defeated the hordes of Khan Mamai on the Don, for which he was nicknamed Donskoy.
How did we know this?
So, we give the floor to our historians.

2. Message from student “historians”

From chronicles - historical works in which the narrative was told year by year. You can read about so much on the pages of the chronicles - about the reign of princes, about battles and campaigns, the construction of churches, extraordinary and terrible natural phenomena, terrible epidemics.

For the first time in Rus' they began to record information about events that took place almost a thousand years ago, in the eleventh century. Chroniclers also tried to find out about events that happened long before the start of chronicle writing: they collected folk legends, asked old people, and looked for ancient documents. And all this was reflected in the chronicles.

The following have survived to this day: “The Life of Boris and Gleb”, and other saints, “The Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh”, “Russian Truth”, “The Tale of the Murder of Andrei Bogolyubsky”, “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev”, “Walking across the Three Seas”.

The creation of chronicles was considered a very important matter: it was not for nothing that every prince sought to have his own chronicler. And after the formation of a unified Russian state, at the end of the fifteenth century, keeping chronicles became a state matter.

The chronicle is a purely Russian phenomenon, unique to world culture; it is a record of events by year.

The Slavic word “summer” corresponds to our “year”. They were written by people called chroniclers. From year to year, records were kept in monasteries and at the courts of princes about the most important events in the state and in a separate principality.

Only a few of these treasures of Russian culture have survived to this day. They died in fires, during enemy raids and civil strife. It is known that in 1382, during the invasion of Khan Tokhtamysh to Moscow, many thousands of books were brought to the city from surrounding villages and monasteries - so many that the Kremlin churches were filled with them to the very vaults. They all burned down in a fire.

Novgorod chronicles of the 12th-13th centuries have been preserved. From them, scientists learned about the life of a rich, noisy city, about fires, floods and other events.

1. When compiling his code, each chronicler took care to get into his hands the works of his predecessors, treaties, messages, etc., etc.
2. Having collected all the material, the chronicler combined it.
3. Of particular value is the personal experience of its creators, direct observations, political topicalities - this is why the Russian chronicle is valuable.

The chronicle is the fruit of collective labor, a unique monument to Ancient Rus'.

3. Working with the textbook
What do you think literary monuments are?
Read the text of the textbook on p. 63, answer the questions.

And now we give the floor to our writers

4. Messages from “literary” students

<The most famous Russian chronicler was Nestor. Nestor’s main work is “The Tale of Bygone Years” (“The Tale of Past Times”).

Slide number 9 what it’s about>

There is a deep meaning in this triad. The first question is clear - it is the main one. “Russian land” is a territory, and a people, and of course a state. And the state in the Middle Ages was associated in the minds of people with the personality of its ruler. Hence the second question. The answer to the third question was to show the history of Rus' in development. From The Tale of Bygone Years we also learn how Slavic writing appeared. This happened in 863, when princes Rostislav, Svyatopolk and Kocel sent ambassadors to the Byzantine Tsar Michael with the following words: “Our land is baptized, but we do not have a teacher who would instruct and teach us, and explain the holy books. After all, we do not know either Greek or Latin; Some teach us this way, and others teach us differently, so we don’t know either the shape of the letters or their meaning. And send us teachers who could tell us about book words and their meaning.”

Then Tsar Michael summoned two learned brothers, Constantine and Methodius, and “the king persuaded them and sent them to the Slavic land to Rostislav, Svyatopolk and Kotsel. When these brothers arrived, they began to compile the Slavic alphabet and translated the Apostle and the Gospel.” The grandiose historical canvas created by the chronicler became extremely popular in Ancient Rus'.

It is “The Tale of Bygone Years” that remains the main source telling about the birth of the Old Russian state.

At the beginning of the 12th century. (apparently around 1117) the Kiev prince Vladimir Monomakh writes “Instruction” addressed to his sons, but at the same time to those Russian princes who would like to listen to his advice. The “Instruction” is also surprising in that Monomakh reveals in it not only a political outlook and rich life experience, but also high literary education and unconditional writing talent. Both the “Instruction” and the surviving letter from Monomakh to Oleg Svyatoslavich are not only literary monuments, but also important monuments of social thought: one of the most authoritative Kyiv princes is trying to convince his contemporaries of the harmfulness of feudal strife - Rus', weakened by strife, will not be able to actively resist external enemies. This basic idea of ​​Monomakh’s works echoes “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.”

In the XI - early XII centuries. the first Russian lives were created: two lives of Boris and Gleb, “The Life of Theodosius of Pechersk”, “The Life of Anthony of Pechersk” (not preserved until modern times). Their writing was not only a literary fact, but also an important link in the ideological policy of the Russian state. At this time, the Russian princes persistently sought from the Patriarch of Constantinople the rights to canonize their own Russian saints, which would significantly increase the authority of the Russian Church. The creation of a life was an indispensable condition for the canonization of a saint.

We will look here at one of the lives of Boris and Gleb - “Reading about the life and destruction” of Boris and Gleb and “The Life of Theodosius of Pechersk”.

They tell that the Kiev prince Vladimir, who was about to set out on a campaign against the Pechenegs who attacked Rus', fell ill. He sends his son Boris at the head of his squad. In Boris's absence, the old prince dies. The chronicler gives the traditional obituary praise for the deceased prince and then moves on to the story of the fate of his sons (in the Laurentian Chronicle it is highlighted with a special heading: “About the murder of Borisov”).

“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is the most significant work of literature of Kievan Rus. And at the same time, it is a monument to an exceptionally difficult fate. The only copy of the “Lay” that reached modern times was lost in 1812, and this circumstance led to the fact that more than once doubts arose about the antiquity of the “Lay” or even assertions that this monument was just a brilliant imitation of an antique, a work of the 18th century. , the author of which is either a genius not yet discovered by us, or, on the contrary, a famous person, for example, Joel Bykovsky, archimandrite of the Spaso-Yaroslavl Monastery.

“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is dedicated to a historical event - the campaign of Prince Igor Svyatoslavich Novgorod-Seversky against the Polovtsians in 1185. The events of this campaign are described in detail in the South Russian chronicle (included in the Ipatiev Chronicle, the oldest list of which dates back to the first quarter of the 15th century) and significantly in short (and with a number of factual inaccuracies) in the chronicles of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus', reflected in the Laurentian, Radzivilov and other chronicles.

For us, ancient chronicles are extremely important; they tell about the life of our country for a whole millennium and will always be precious treasures of history.

Physical education minute

We're walking, we're walking,
We raise our hands higher,
We don’t lower our heads,
We breathe evenly, deeply.

(Walking in place with arms raised)

We will spread our arms to the sides
And we'll show you how to swim.

(Imitation of swimming movements)

The boat is sailing on the sea,
Show me who rows how.
Have you rested? Aren't you tired?
We breathed and stood up straight.
Well, let's continue our lesson,
We must complete everything on time.

4. Consolidation of the studied material

1. Working with the textbook

What do you think the names of records from the same year are?
What is the red line for?
Read the text about the discovery in the Ipatiev Monastery on pp. 61-62 of the textbook under the heading “This wonderful world...”.

2. Conversation on issues

What did the book look like?
Why have scientists determined that it was written by several people?
Why were the bright red capital letters made?

3. Vocabulary work

The chronicler opened the beginning of the story with a large, intricately painted, beautiful letter, which was written with a slight indentation from the left edge of the page. You sometimes see such letters in books now. The red letter (and the word red used to mean “beautiful”) gave life to the expression writing from the red line.

What are the records of one year called?
How were they separated?
Why is “The Tale of Bygone Years” called a literary monument?

4. Differentiated work

Card 1
Define the concepts: chronicler, chronicle, red line, eyewitness.

Card 2
Write answers to the following questions:

1. What was the name of the first Russian chronicler?
2. What century do the earliest chronicles date from?
3. What was the name of the chronicle that described the origin and history of the Russian land?

5. Teacher's word

Speaking about the literary monuments of Ancient Rus', one cannot fail to mention birch bark letters. The most mysterious phenomenon in Russian history. They open up almost limitless possibilities for knowledge of the past in those departments of historical science where the search for new types of sources was considered hopeless. Therefore, we give the floor to our archaeologists.

6. Message from “archaeologists”

The first Novgorod birch bark letter was found on July 26, 1951 at archaeological excavations in the block on Dmitrovskaya Street. In the Middle Ages this street was called Kholopya.

The charter was found right on the 14th-century pavement, in the gap between two planks of the flooring.

Birch bark letters are very diverse in content. After all, they were written by people of different social levels and occupations, different inclinations, overwhelmed by different concerns and different moods. Sometimes the hand of the writer was driven by anger, sometimes by fear. Birch bark preserves everything - from the first timid steps in mastering literacy to a spiritual will and notice of death.

There are very few letters related to the long-distance trade of Novgorod and the merchants as a special class.

The main theme to which the vast majority of birch bark texts of the 12th century are devoted is money.

I would like to tell you a lot more about the Novgorod letters.

Each letter is interesting in its own way. How many more letters will be found? What unknown pages of the past will they tell us about?

7. Working with the textbook

It is best to finish the story about the finds of birch bark letters with text from the textbook on p. 65
Read the “Give me your guess” section on p. 61 of the textbook.

Lesson summary

From what sources do we learn about the distant past history of the country in which we live?
Why do we like to read historical books and watch films based on historical subjects?
Why did a person need to learn to read and write?
Can you imagine modern life without education, upbringing and cultural values?

6. Homework

Complete task 10-11 on p. 8, write a letter to a friend and tell about your life in modern Russia.

Reflection

Complete one of the sentences: “Today I learned that...”
“Today I realized that...”

teacher of history, social studies,

"Istokov" Municipal educational institution secondary school No. 23

Kostroma

Origins -5th grade

Section: “Chronicles”

Lesson topic:

"The first chronicles and the first chroniclers"

THE PURPOSE OF THE LESSON: revival of the original context, the category of values ​​of the chronicler’s work.

TASKS:

To give an idea of ​​the first chroniclers, their worldview, as they reflected the history of the Fatherland in the light of Divine providence.

To acquaint students with the features of ancient Russian literature, with various ways of gravitating toward knowledge of history through the traditions of folklore.

AFO: work in pairs, in fours, resource circle.

SOCIO-CULTURAL RANGE: national treasure, historical sources, scribes, chronicle, wisdom, patriotism.

LESSON EQUIPMENT AND INSTRUMENTS:

textbook “Origins” 5th grade, workbook “Origins” part 2, cards with recording of socio-cultural categories of the lesson, musical accompaniment of the lesson - performance of an epic on the gusli (phonogram); samples of Church Slavonic handwriting (2-3 per desk).

DURING THE CLASSES:

1. Joining a topic .

Today our lesson will be devoted to the first chronicles and chroniclers.

And we will take a trip to Ancient Rus', and talk about who and how wrote ancient books and chronicles. After all, earlier, in the old days, there was neither radio nor television, but storytellers and guslars walked through villages and villages, introducing people to important events through epics, tales taken from ancient chronicles.

Working with the lesson epigraph:

“Books are rivers that fill the universe, they are sources of wisdom; There is immeasurable depth in books; with them we will be comforted in sorrow...” The Tale of Bygone Years.

And she will help us make this journey, she will perform the epic Ilya Muromets (phonogram sounds).

- What thoughts and feelings arose while you were listening?

epic?

Ancient books are perhaps the only source; the narrator is an eyewitness to distant ancestors, their morals and customs, everyday worries and solemn rituals...

There is a feeling of awe when you touch a manuscript created several centuries ago, into which the chronicler carefully invested his mind and work.

pay attention to exhibition of ancient books. These books mark entire eras in people's life: “The Tale of Bygone Years”, “Lives of the Saints...”, “Gospel”, “Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh”, Code of Laws of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. These books contain many wise instructions that are still useful in our time. From ancient times there is a call to respect the knowledge and experience that has come down to us in books.

- Guys, how many of you know when the first handwritten books appeared in Rus'?

At the end of the 10th century, with the adoption of Christianity in Rus', the first handwritten books appeared, and the writing of letters was developed by two brother monks Cyril and Methodius, immigrants from Macedonia. It was they who created the first Russian alphabet, thereby making an invaluable contribution to the development of Russian culture.

CONSIDER the Church Slavonic style of writing and compare it with our modern one. Which way to write is easier and which way is more difficult, why? ( handouts are used)

WORKING WITH THE TEXTBOOK: page 111.

- What were the ancient chronicles like? Let's read about this in the textbook on page 111 1st paragraph.

Ancient chronicles have preserved and brought to us evidence of deep antiquity.

- So what is a chronicle?

+Chronicle - a record of events by year, i.e. by year. (put up a sign with the definition).

Chronicles are ours national property.

-How do you understand this??

Ancient chronicles wisely and slowly tell about our history. - Why was it important for our ancestors to record that some event happened “in the summer”? (children's opinion).

Life acquired universal significance, the Russian land was comprehended in the system of the world, Russian history became part of world history. Old manuscripts turn out to be very useful today. They are national property.

And now we will read about the first chroniclers and what they wrote in the ancient chronicles.

WORKING WITH THE TEXTBOOK pp., 2nd paragraphs, 112-113 (excerpt from “The Tale of Bygone Years” - p. 114).

- What do the old chronicles tell us about?

(after reading, the teacher summarizes)

The chronicle tells not only about the events of Russian history, but also about people, about our ancestors, how they lived, what they believed in, what they valued, what kind of memory did they leave about themselves? The chronicle answers all these questions. In addition, receiving news from the distant past, we learn to love our Motherland, be proud of it, take care of it as our ancestors - the Russians - did many, many years ago.

TRAINING (developmental).

1.Preparatory stage.

The worldview of ancient Russian people was Christian: people compared all their actions, feelings and thoughts with the commandments of God and tried to live by them. The chroniclers felt especially great responsibility before God and their people, since they reflected the history of the Fatherland in the light of Divine providence.

2.Individual stage.

Operating time 5 minutes.

“What were the first chroniclers like?”

Work in a notebook. Page 21, task No. 1.

Vocabulary work (find out which words are unclear, explain their meaning).

ON ONE'S OWN.

Imagine a monk - a chronicler. What qualities did you think he needed? Select the 7 most important qualities and highlight them.

Intelligence, enterprise, patience, physical strength, faith in God, love for the Fatherland, humility, cunning, hard work, wisdom.

3. WORK IN FOUR.

Discuss an individual solution in a group and come to a common decision. Highlight your choice.

4. Class discussion. Expert review.

(A representative of one of the groups reports the decision, gives reasons for his answer, the rest of the students listen carefully, express their agreement or express a different point of view.) The teacher sums up the discussion and reports the expert assessment.

(INTELLIGENCE, PATIENCE, FAITH IN GOD, LOVE OF THE FATHERLAND, HUMILITY, HARDWORK, WISDOM).

Ancient chronicles inspired many historians, musicians, writers, poets to create their best masterpieces.

Ancient Rus' valued books as rare treasures. To have several books meant to have a fortune. One book could cost a herd of cows or horses. The chronicler Nestor calls books rivers that fill the universe with wisdom of immeasurable depth. “If you diligently search in the books of wisdom,” Nestor noted, you will find great benefit for your soul.”

The ancient book absorbed the knowledge and intelligence, history and art of glorious Rus'. And now, the surviving book gives us, now living in the great land of our ancestors, the good light of that distant time.

RESOURCE CIRCLE:

Guys, let's stand in a circle of friendship and think: What feelings and thoughts arise in you when you hold an ancient book in your hands? (circle the ancient book.) (the teacher of origins begins) When I hold an ancient book in my hands, I feel how excitedly my heart beats, because right now my thoughts and feelings will come into contact with that distant, distant past, and I will find out the answers to many questions in the ancient in books I will find something wise and interesting, because “books, as the chronicler Nestor said, are rivers that fill the universe, they are sources of wisdom, in books there is immeasurable depth, with them we console ourselves in sorrow”......

REFLECTION:

- What wise, interesting things will I take away from the lesson today? - What character qualities would I like to have?

(a bouquet of wisdom is collected, the words are hung on the board: KNOWLEDGE, WISDOM, TRUTH, FAITH, TRUTH, PATRIOTISM, LOVE, INTELLIGENCE, PATIENCE, HUMILITY, HARDWORK...).

That's how many interesting and wise thoughts we learned during the lesson. I especially liked the statements (name the guys’ names). I want to say “thank you” to everyone. All the best, goodbye.

"THE TALE OF BYE YEARS"(Continuation)

Now we must consider the written foundations of the “Tale of Bygone Years” - its roots in Russian writing of the 11th - early 12th centuries. The reader became a co-author, and the co-author was also the “maker of the book” - its copyist. The Middle Ages did not know “copyright”, copyright ownership in our sense of the word. It is as a result of this kind of connections in the chronicles of previous chronicles that it turns out that one or another chronicle speaks twice, and sometimes three times, about the same event: by combining several previous chronicles into one, the chronicler might not notice that he repeated his story , “duplicated” the news based on several sources. n. In connection with this, the ancient Russian historian gave his new author's text mainly about contemporary events, about those that he could have witnessed or which he could know about from witnesses. We can rarely point out a historical work in ancient Russian literature, the original text of which was written a century or more after the events described. Medieval authors did not write new works about the more or less distant past; they preferred to combine and rework old works, compile codes, preserve all the old factual basis, valuing document and authenticity in old works. This work was not mechanical: the chronicler sometimes had to eliminate contradictions, sometimes carry out complex chronological research in order to place each event under its own year. Based on his political ideas, the chronicler sometimes omitted this or that news, made a tendentious selection of these news, occasionally accompanied them with his own brief political commentary, but did not compose new news. Having completed his work as a compiler, the chronicler supplemented this material with his own notes about the events of recent years. etc.), also depicted in their etiquette expressions. Like the consolidated nature of the chronicles, this “stringing” of different types of stylistic stencils in the same chronicle leads us to a different, deeply different from the modern idea of ​​both the author’s text (the unity of which was not at all mandatory) and the author’s point of view on events . D.L.) did not displease them.” As evidence, the chronicler refers to the Moscow chronicle: “And if you want to crucify, open the book: The Great Russian Chronicler - and read from the great Yaroslav to this current prince.” Vladimir Svyatoslavich speaks in similar terms in the chronicle when the murmur of his squad reached him: “The imam did not fill the squad with silver and gold, but I will get silver and gold with my squad, just as my grandfather and my father searched for gold and silver with a squad” (in “The Tale of Bygone Years” under 996). The opposition of the squad to wealth is felt especially clearly in the story “The Tale of Bygone Years” from 971 about the gifts of Tzimiskes to Svyatoslav: Svyatoslav did not even look at the gold and pavoloks, but took the weapon and welcomed it. The same contrast is noticeable in the story under 1073 about Izyaslav’s flight to Poland “with a lot of property,” about which Izyaslav, deceived, thought: “I’ll climb in.” Finally, the same opposition of gold to the squad is heard both in the “Preface” of the Primary Code preceding the “Tale of Bygone Years”, and in the words of Yaroslav the Wise in the Primary Code, addressed to his squad, under 1016: “My beloved and honest squad, Yesterday in my madness, you won’t repay them with gold first.” The course of the chronicler's narrative, his specific historical ideas very often go beyond the boundaries of religious thinking and are purely pragmatic in nature. The chronicler largely receives his providentialism in a ready-made form, and does not reach it himself; for him it is not a consequence of the peculiarities of his thinking. The chronicler receives his religious ideas in all their details from the outside; as a result, they may largely diverge from his personal experience, from his practical activities as a historian. Russian political thought found expression in close connection with the real relations of its time. She specifically relied on the facts of modern history. It is not characterized by independent abstract constructions of Christian thought, which led the chronicler away from the earthly world to abstract questions of the upcoming break with earthly existence and the structure of the other world. That is why, fortunately for the historical knowledge of Ancient Rus', the chronicler was not so often guided by his philosophy of history and did not completely subordinate his narrative to it. It is important to note that in the choice of moments on which the chronicler found it necessary to give religious and didactic comments, the same medieval “etiquette” of the writing craft, which we discussed above, was reflected. The chronicler's religious and didactic comments always evoked the same phenomena of the life he described: crop failures, pestilence, fires, devastation from enemies, sudden death or heavenly “signs.” So, the religious moment did not permeate the entire chronicle presentation. Viewed closely, point-blank, it gives the impression of a random collection of pieces of precious smalt, but, looking at it as a whole, it amazes us with the strict thoughtfulness of the entire composition, the consistency of the narrative, the unity and grandeur of the idea, and the pervasive patriotism of the content. It is clear, for example, that the texts of the treaties between the Russians and the Greeks in 907, 912, 945 and 971. they were not invented by the chronicler, that these are documents only included by the chronicler in his chronicle. Translated sources also stand out quite clearly in The Tale of Bygone Years. Chroniclers used various translated works as historical sources, made selections from them, painstakingly recreating the historical past of Rus' on the basis of documents. These translations have reached us in full; therefore, it is not difficult to establish where, from what place in this or that work, the chronicler took any text and how it was processed for inclusion in the chronicle. From the translated sources of the chronicler’s historical information, we will indicate first of all the “Chronicle of George Amartol” (that is, the “sinner”) and its Greek successor, unknown to us by name. The chronicler himself refers to this Chronicle: “George said in the chronicle...” The chronicler also refers to the Chronograph (under 1114), from which he also provides excerpts in various places in the Tale of Bygone Years. This Chronograph was probably similar in type to the Russian Hellenic and Roman chronicler, compiled on the basis of the translated chronicles of Amartol and John Malala. In any case, excerpts from the Chronicle of George Amartol are given in the Tale of Bygone Years in a number of places in the same combination with excerpts from the Chronicle of John Malala as in this Greek and Roman chronicler. The chronicler uses the “Chronicle Soon” of the Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople as a historical source, from where he borrows a chronological account for the year 852. From the translated Greek “Life” of Vasily the New, the chronicler gives a description of Igor’s military actions near Constantinople under 941. The chronicler also refers to the authority of the “Revelation” of Methodius, Bishop of Pataria in 1096 (“Methodius testifies about them...” - about the Polovtsians; “as Methodius of Pataria said about them, saying...”). The chronicler gives extensive excerpts from Methodius of Patara. There is no doubt that the great Legend about the beginning of Slavic literacy in 898 was also not invented by the chronicler, but was cited by him from some West Slavic sources. It is more difficult to identify individual Russian legends included in the “Tale of Bygone Years”: about the baptism and death of Olga, about the first Varangian martyrs, about the baptism of Rus' with the “philosopher’s speech”, about Boris and Gleb, etc. It is even more difficult to determine those preceding “ The Tale of Bygone Years” chronicle used by its compiler and his predecessors. What was the composition of these chronicles that preceded the Tale of Bygone Years? Which extra-chronicle historical sources did each of the chroniclers use? When were these chronicles compiled? It is not easy to answer all these questions; for the most part, only assumptions are possible here - some more convincing, others less, but it is necessary to answer these questions, since the degree of reliability of the information they provide depends on this. Let us cite just a few of the considerations that make it possible to restore the work of the predecessors of the compiler of The Tale of Bygone Years. Obviously, the compiler of the “Tale of Bygone Years,” including in it Oleg’s 911 treaty with the Greeks, drew attention to the fact that Oleg is a completely independent prince in it, and accordingly, he rebuilt the story of the previous chronicle. If we assume, on the contrary, that the “Tale of Bygone Years” was compiled earlier than the initial part of the Novgorod First and that the compiler of the latter simply shortened the “Tale of Bygone Years”, then it will turn out to be completely incomprehensible why, having thrown out the treaties with the Greeks, the chronicler “transferred” Oleg from the princes to voivode. The initial corpus, and after it the Tale of Bygone Years, tell about 986 how representatives of different faiths came to Vladimir and convinced him to accept their faith. The last speaker was the Greek "philosopher", who gave an extensive speech. He outlined Christian teaching in detail, ending by showing Vladimir the “zapona” - a canvas depicting the Last Judgment. Among them we will cite this. Under 977 it is said that Oleg Svyatoslavich was buried near the city of Vruchy (modern Ovruch) and that his grave is “to this day near Vruchy.” But later the chronicler says that the “bones” of Oleg Svyatoslavich and his brother Yaropolk Svyatoslavich were dug up from their graves in 1044 and buried in the Kyiv Church of the Virgin Mary (Tithe). From here it is clear: the chronicler who wrote that Oleg Svyatoslavich was buried near Vruchy, where his grave is “to this day,” worked until 1044; otherwise, he would have stipulated such an important circumstance as the absence of Oleg’s body buried in it from the grave. A. A. Shakhmatov did not stop at clarifying the most important facts of the history of the initial Russian chronicles. He sought to restore the text itself of each of the above codes. In “Research on the most ancient Russian chronicle codes” (1908), A. A. Shakhmatov gave the text of the most ancient code restored by him in the edition of 1073, that is, the text of the Nikon code of 1073, highlighting in it using a special font those parts that were included in it from the Most Ancient Code of 1037-1039. In his later work “The Tale of Bygone Years” (vol. I, 1916), A. A. Shakhmatov gave the text of “The Tale of Bygone Years”, in which in large print he highlighted those parts of it that go back to the Initial Code of 1093-1095. We would also have to assume that the chronicle stood outside the social struggle of its time.

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 expounders 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. The latter are certainly 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: “For men are harsh, unruly, stubborn, unruly... who has not angered the prince or who has pleased them from the prince? 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 crucify, open the book of the Great Russian Chronicler - and read from the Great Yaroslav to this current prince.”

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 chronicle Novgorod XII century), defense of the foundations of the grand ducal “single power” (in the Tver chronicle of the mid-XV century and in the Moscow chronicle of the late XV-XVI century), 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.

D.S. Likhachev. Textology - St. Petersburg, 2001