Man in Old Russian Literature. “The Tale of Bygone Years” as a historical and literary monument - Literature - Catalog of articles - Methodology room

Introduction

1. The concept of chronicle

3. Methods for studying the chronicle

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Chronicles, historical works of the 11th-17th centuries, in which the narrative was told by year. The story about the events of each year in the chronicles usually began with the words: “in the summer” - hence the name - chronicle. The words “chronicle” and “chronicler” are equivalent, but the compiler of such a work could also be called a chronicler. Chronicles are the most important historical sources, the most significant monuments of social thought and culture of Ancient Rus'. Usually the chronicles set out Russian history from its beginning; sometimes the chronicles opened with biblical history and continued with ancient, Byzantine and Russian history. Chronicles played an important role in the ideological justification of princely power in Ancient Rus' and the promotion of the unity of Russian lands. The chronicles contain significant material about the origin of the Eastern Slavs, their state power, and the political relationships of the Eastern Slavs among themselves and with other peoples and countries.

Purpose of the study– study of the chronicle as a historical source, methods of their study.

Research objectives:

1) reveal the concept of chronicle;

2) consider the contents of the chronicle;

3) identify methods for studying the chronicle.

1. The concept of chronicle

In Kyiv in the 12th century. Chronicle writing was carried out in the Kiev-Pechersk and Vydubitsky St. Michael's monasteries, as well as at the princely court. Galician-Volyn chronicle in the 12th century. concentrated at the courts of the Galician-Volyn princes and bishops. The South Russian chronicle was preserved in the Ipatiev Chronicle, which consists of the “Tale of Bygone Years”, continued mainly by the Kyiv news (ending 1200), and the Galicia-Volyn Chronicle (ending 1289-92). In the Vladimir-Suzdal land, the main centers of chronicle writing were Vladimir, Suzdal, Rostov and Pereyaslavl. The monument to this chronicle is the Laurentian Chronicle, which begins with the “Tale of Bygone Years,” continued by the Vladimir-Suzdal news until 1305, as well as the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl-Suzdal (ed. 1851) and the Radziwill Chronicle, decorated with a large number of drawings. Chronicle writing received great development in Novgorod at the court of the archbishop, at monasteries and churches.

The Mongol-Tatar invasion caused a temporary decline in chronicle writing. In the XIV-XV centuries. it develops again. The largest centers of chronicle writing were Novgorod, Pskov, Rostov, Tver, and Moscow. The chronicles reflected ch. events of local significance (the birth and death of princes, elections of posadniks and thousand in Novgorod and Pskov, military campaigns, battles, etc.), church events (the installation and death of bishops, abbots of monasteries, construction of churches, etc.), crop failure and famine , epidemics, remarkable natural phenomena, etc. Events that go beyond local interests are poorly reflected in such chronicles. Novgorod chronicle of the XII-XV centuries. most fully represented by the Novgorod First Chronicle of the older and younger editions. The older, or earlier, version was preserved in the only Synodal parchment (charatein) list of the 13th-14th centuries; the younger version reached the lists of the 15th century. In Pskov, chronicle writing was associated with mayors and the state chancellery at the Trinity Cathedral. In Tver, chronicle writing developed at the court of Tver princes and bishops. An idea of it is given by the Tverskoy collection and the Rogozhsky chronicler. In Rostov, chronicle writing was carried out at the court of bishops, and the chronicles created in Rostov are reflected in a number of codes, incl. in the Ermolin Chronicle of the 15th century.

New phenomena in chronicles are noted in the 15th century, when the Russian state was taking shape with its center in Moscow. The politics of Moscow leaders. princes was reflected in all-Russian chronicles. The Trinity Chronicle gives an idea of the first Moscow all-Russian code. XV century (disappeared in a fire in 1812) and the Simeonovskaya Chronicle in the list of the 16th century. The Trinity Chronicle ends in 1409. To compile it, various sources were involved: Novgorod, Tver, Pskov, Smolensk, etc. The origin and political orientation of this chronicle are emphasized by the predominance of Moscow news and a general favorable assessment of the activities of Moscow princes and metropolitans. The all-Russian chronicle compiled in Smolensk in the 15th century was the so-called. Chronicle of Abraham; Another collection is the Suzdal Chronicle (15th century).

A chronicle collection based on the rich Novgorod written language, the “Sofia Vremennik”, appeared in Novgorod. A large chronicle appeared in Moscow in the 15th century. XVI centuries The Resurrection Chronicle, which ends in 1541, is especially famous (the main part of the chronicle was compiled in 1534-37). It includes many official records. The same official records were included in the extensive Lvov Chronicle, which included “The Chronicler of the Beginning of the Kingdom of the Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich,” up to 1560. At the court of Ivan the Terrible in the 1540-60s, the Front Chronicle was created, i.e. chronicle, including drawings corresponding to the text. The first 3 volumes of the Litsevoy vault are devoted to world history (compiled on the basis of the “Chronograph” and other works), the next 7 volumes are devoted to Russian history from 1114 to 1567. The last volume of the Litsevoy vault, dedicated to the reign of Ivan the Terrible, was called the “Royal Book”. The text of the Facial Code is based on an earlier one - the Nikon Chronicle, which was a huge compilation of various chronicles, stories, lives, etc. In the 16th century. Chronicle writing continued to develop not only in Moscow, but also in other cities. The most famous is the Vologda-Perm Chronicle. Chronicles were also kept in Novgorod and Pskov, in the Pechersky Monastery near Pskov. In the 16th century New types of historical narration also appeared, already moving away from the chronicle form - “The Sedate Book of the Royal Genealogy” and “The History of the Kazan Kingdom”.

In the 17th century There was a gradual withering away of the chronicle form of storytelling. At this time, local chronicles appeared, of which the most interesting are the Siberian Chronicles. The beginning of their compilation dates back to the 1st half. XVII century Of these, the Stroganov Chronicle and the Esipov Chronicle are the best known. In the 17th century Tobolsk son of boyar S.U. Remezov compiled “Siberian History”. In the 17th century Chronicle news is included in the composition of power books and chronographs. The word “chronicle” continues to be used according to tradition even for such works that faintly resemble the Chronicles of earlier times. This is the New Chronicler, telling about the events of the XVI - AD. XVII centuries (Polish-Swedish intervention and peasant war), and “Chronicle of many rebellions.”

A characteristic feature of the Chronicle is the chroniclers' belief in the intervention of divine forces. New Chronicles were usually compiled as collections of previous Chronicles and various materials (historical stories, lives, messages, etc.) and consisted of records about contemporary events of the chronicler. Literary works were also used as sources in the Chronicle. Traditions, epics, treaties, legislative acts, documents from princely and church archives were also woven by the chronicler into the fabric of the narrative. By rewriting the materials included in the Chronicle, he sought to create a single narrative, subordinating it to a historical concept that corresponded to the interests of the political center where he wrote (the prince’s court, the office of the metropolitan, bishop, monastery, posadnik’s hut, etc.). However, along with the official ideology, the Chronicle reflected the views of their immediate compilers, sometimes very democratically progressive. In general, the Chronicles testify to the high patriotic consciousness of the Russian people in the 11th-17th centuries. Great importance was attached to the compilation of the Chronicle; they were consulted in political disputes and during diplomatic negotiations. The skill of historical narration reached high perfection in the Chronicle. At least 1,500 copies of the Chronicle have survived. Many works of ancient Russian literature have been preserved in the Chronicle: The Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh, The Legend of the Battle of Mamaev, The Walking of Three Seas by Afanasy Nikitin, etc. Ancient Chronicles of the 11th-12th centuries. preserved only in later lists. The most famous of the early chronicles that have survived to our time is “The Tale of Bygone Years.” Its creator is considered to be Nestor, a monk of the Pechersk Monastery in Kyiv, who wrote his work around 1113.

Feudal fragmentation of the XII-XIV centuries. reflected in the chronicles: the vaults of this time express local political interests. In Kyiv in the 12th century. Chronicle writing was carried out in the Pechersk and Vydubitsky monasteries, as well as at the princely court. Galician-Volyn chronicle in the 13th century. (see Galicia-Volyn Chronicle) is concentrated at the courts of Galicia-Volyn princes and bishops. The South Russian chronicle was preserved in the Ipatiev Chronicle, which consists of the "Tale of Bygone Years", continued mainly by the Kyiv news (ending 1200), and the Galicia-Volyn Chronicle (ending 1289-92) (PSRL, vol. 2, Chronicles according to the Ipatiev list). In the Vladimir-Suzdal land, the main centers of chronicle writing were Vladimir, Suzdal, Rostov and Pereyaslavl. The monument of this chronicle is the Laurentian Chronicle, which begins with the "Tale of Bygone Years", continued by the Vladimir-Suzdal news until 1305 (PSRL, vol. 1, Chronicles according to the Laurentian list), as well as the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl-Suzdal (edition 1851) and the Radziwill Chronicle, decorated a lot of drawings. Chronicle writing received great development in Novgorod at the court of the archbishop, at monasteries and churches.

The Mongol-Tatar invasion caused a temporary decline in chronicle writing. In the XIV-XV centuries. it develops again. The largest centers of chronicle writing were Novgorod, Pskov, Rostov, Tver, and Moscow. The chronicles reflected mainly local events (the birth and death of princes, elections of posadniks and mayors in Novgorod and Pskov, military campaigns, battles, etc.), church events (the installation and death of bishops, abbots of monasteries, the construction of churches, etc.). ), crop failure and famine, epidemics, remarkable natural phenomena, etc. Events that go beyond local interests are poorly reflected in such Chronicles. Novgorod chronicle of the XII-XV centuries. The Novgorod First Chronicle of the older and younger editions is most fully represented (see Novgorod Chronicles). The older, or earlier, version was preserved in the only Synodal parchment (charatein) list of the 13th-14th centuries; the younger version reached the lists of the 15th century. (Novgorod First Chronicle of the older and younger editions, PSRL, vol. 3). In Pskov, chronicle writing was associated with mayors and the state chancellery at the Trinity Cathedral (PSRL, vol. 4-5; Pskov Chronicles, v. 1-2, 1941-55). In Tver, chronicle writing developed at the court of Tver princes and bishops. An idea of it is given by the Tver collection (PSRL, vol. 15) and the Rogozhsky chronicler (PSRL, vol. 15, v. 1). In Rostov, chronicle writing was carried out at the court of bishops, and the Chronicles created in Rostov are reflected in a number of codes, including the Ermolinsk Chronicle of the Con. XV century

A chronicle collection based on the rich Novgorod written language, the Sophia Vremennik, appeared in Novgorod. A large chronicle collection appeared in Moscow at the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th centuries. The Resurrection Chronicle, which ends in 1541, is especially famous (the main part of the Chronicle was compiled in 1534-37). It includes many official records. The same official records were included in the extensive Lvov Chronicle, which included “The Chronicler of the Beginning of the Kingdom of the Tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich,” until 1560. At the court of Ivan the Terrible in the 40-60s. XVI century A facial chronicle was created, i.e. a chronicle including drawings corresponding to the text. The first 3 volumes of the obverse vault are devoted to world history (compiled on the basis of the “Chronograph” and other works), the next 7 volumes are devoted to Russian history from 1114 to 1567. The last volume of the obverse vault, dedicated to the reign of Ivan the Terrible, was called the “Royal Book”. The text of the front vault is based on an earlier one - the Nikon Chronicle, which was a huge compilation of various chronicles, stories, lives, etc. In the 16th century. Chronicle writing continued to develop not only in Moscow, but also in other cities. The most famous is the Vologda-Perm Chronicle. Chronicles were also kept in Novgorod and Pskov, in the Pechersky Monastery near Pskov. In the 16th century New types of historical narration also appeared, already moving away from the chronicle form - “The Sedate Book of the Royal Genealogy” and “The History of the Kazan Kingdom”.

In the 17th century There was a gradual withering away of the chronicle form of storytelling. At this time, local Chronicles appeared, of which the most interesting are the Siberian Chronicles. The beginning of their compilation dates back to the 1st half of the 17th century. Of these, the Stroganov Chronicle and the Esipov Chronicle are the best known. At the end of the 17th century. The Tobolsk boyar's son S.U. Remezov compiled "Siberian History" ("Siberian Chronicles", 1907). In the 17th century Chronicle news is included in the composition of power books and chronographs. The word "Chronicles" continues to be used by tradition even for such works that faintly resemble the Chronicles of earlier times. This is the New Chronicler, telling about the events of the late 16th - early 17th centuries. (Polish-Swedish intervention and peasant war), and "Chronicle of many rebellions."

Chronicle writing, which received significant development in Russia, was developed to a lesser extent in Belarus and Ukraine, which were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The most interesting work of this chronicle of the early 16th century. is the "Brief Kiev Chronicle", containing the Novgorod and Kyiv abridged Chronicles (1836). The ancient history of Rus' is presented in this Chronicle on the basis of earlier chronicles, and the events of the late XV - early XVI centuries. described by a contemporary. Chronicle writing also developed in Smolensk and Polotsk in the 15th-16th centuries. The Belarusian and Smolensk Chronicles formed the basis for some Chronicles on the history of Lithuania. Sometimes some Ukrainian historical works of the 18th century are also called Chronicles. (Chronicle of the Samovidets, etc.). Chronicle writing was also carried out in Moldova, Siberia, and Bashkiria.

Chronicles serve as the main source for studying the history of Kievan Rus, as well as Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus in the 13th-17th centuries, although they mainly reflected the class interests of the feudal lords. Only the Chronicle preserved such sources as the treaties between Rus' and the Greeks of the 10th century, the Russian Truth in a brief edition, etc. The Chronicles are of enormous importance for the study of Russian writing, language and literature. The chronicles also contain valuable material on the history of other peoples of the USSR.

The study and publication of the Chronicle in Russia and the USSR has been going on for more than two hundred years: in 1767, the chronicle text was published in the “Russian Historical Library, containing ancient chronicles and all kinds of notes,” and from 1841 to 1973 the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles was published.

V.N. Tatishchev and M.M. Shcherbatov laid the foundation for the study of the Chronicle. He devoted forty years to the study of the “Tale of Bygone Years” by A. Shletser, clearing the chronicle of errors and typos, explaining the “dark” places. P.M. Stroev viewed chronicles as collections or “codes” of previous material. Using the method of Shletser and Stroev, M.P. Pogodin and I. I. Sreznevsky enriched science with many facts that facilitated the study of the history of the Russian Chronicle

I.D. Belyaev classified the Chronicles into state, family, monastic and chronicle collections and pointed out that the position of the chronicler was determined by his territorial and class position. M.I. Sukhomlinov, in his book “On the Ancient Russian Chronicle as a Literary Monument” (1856), tried to establish the literary sources of the initial Russian chronicle. K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin in his work “On the composition of Russian chronicles until the end of the 14th century.” (1868) was the first to decompose the chronicle text into annual records and legends. A real revolution in the study of the Chronicle was made by Academician. A. A. Shakhmatov. He used comparison of various lists, subtly and deeply analyzing the material, and made this method the main one in his work on the study of the Chronicle. Shakhmatov attached great importance to clarifying all the circumstances of the creation of the Chronicle, each list and code, and paid attention to the study of various chronological indications found in the Chronicle. clarifying the time of their compilation and correcting factual inaccuracies. Shakhmatov extracted a lot of data from the analysis of typos, language errors, and dialectisms. He was the first to recreate a complete picture of Russian chronicles, presenting it as a genealogy of almost all lists and at the same time as the history of Russian social consciousness. Shakhmatov’s method was developed in the works of M.D. Priselkov, who strengthened its historical side. A significant contribution to the study of the Russian Chronicle was made by Shakhmatov’s followers - N.F. Lavrov, A.N. Nasonov, Chronicles V. Cherepnin, D.S. Likhachev, S.V. Bakhrushin, A.I. Andreev, M.N. Tikhomirov, N.K. Nikolsky, V.M. Istrin et al. The study of the history of chronicle writing is one of the most complex sections of source study and philological science.

3. Methods for studying the chronicle

The methods of studying the history of chronicles, applied by Shakhmatov, formed the basis of modern textual criticism.

The restoration of the chronicle codes that preceded the “Tale of Bygone Years” belongs to the most fascinating pages of philological science.

So, for example, at the beginning of the lists of the First Novgorod Chronicle (except for the First Novgorod Chronicle according to the Synodal list, where the beginning of the manuscript is lost) one reads a text that is partly similar and partly different from the Tale of Bygone Years.

Studying this text, A.A. Shakhmatov came to the conclusion that it preserved fragments of an older chronicle than the Tale of Bygone Years. Among the evidence of A.A. Shakhmatov also cites the places noted above where insertions are found in the text of The Tale of Bygone Years. Thus, under 946, in the Novgorod First Chronicle there is no story about Olga’s fourth revenge and the narrative unfolds logically: “and she defeated the Drevlyans and imposed a heavy tribute on them,” that is, exactly as, according to the assumption of A.A. Shakhmatov, was read in the chronicle that preceded the Tale of Bygone Years.

Also absent from the Novgorod Chronicle is the agreement between Svyatoslav and the Greeks, which, as stated above, broke the phrase: “And he said: “I will go to Rus' and bring more to the squad; and go to the boats."

Based on these and many other considerations, A.A. Shakhmatov came to the conclusion that the initial part of the First Novgorod Chronicle is based on a chronicle code older than the Tale of Bygone Years. The chronicler who compiled the “Tale of Bygone Years” expanded it with new materials, various written and oral sources, documents (treaties with the Greeks), extracts from Greek chronicles and brought the appendix up to his time.

However, the code that preceded the “Tale of Bygone Years” is reconstructed according to the First Novgorod Chronicle only partially; for example, it does not contain a statement of the events of 1016 - 1052. and 1074 - 1093 The code that formed the basis of both the “Tale of Bygone Years” and the First Novgorod Chronicle was called “Initial” by A. A. Shakhmatov, suggesting that Russian chronicle writing began with it.

Step by step in various studies of A.A. Shakhmatov managed to completely restore its composition, establish the time of its composition (1093-1095) and show in what political situation it arose.

The initial collection was compiled under the fresh impression of the terrible Polovtsian invasion of 1093. It ended with a description of this invasion; it began with reflections on the causes of the misfortunes of the Russian people. In the introduction to the Initial Code, the chronicler wrote that God was executing the Russian land for the “insatiability” of modern princes and warriors. The chronicler contrasts them, greedy and selfish, with the ancient princes and warriors, who did not ruin the people with judicial exactions, supported themselves with booty on long campaigns, and cared about the glory of the Russian land and its princes.

Calling this code Primary, A.A. Shakhmatov did not imagine that this name would soon turn out to be inaccurate. Further research by A. A. Shakhmatov showed that the Initial arch also contains various layers and inserts. A.A. Shakhmatov managed to uncover two even more ancient vaults at the base of the Initial vault.

Thus, the history of the oldest Russian chronicles is presented by A.A. Shakhmatov in the following form.

In 1037-1039 The first Russian chronicle was compiled - the Ancient Kiev Code.

Since the beginning of the 60s. XI century Abbot Nikon of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery continued chronicling and by 1073 compiled a second chronicle.

In 1093-1095 in the same Kiev-Pechersk monastery, the third chronicle code, conventionally called the Initial one, was compiled. Finally, at the beginning of the 12th century, not all at once, but in several stages, the “Tale of Bygone Years” that has come down to us was compiled.

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 chronicles” (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 Ancient Code of 1037-1039. In his later work “The Tale of Bygone Years” (vol. 1, 1916) A.A. Shakhmatov gave the text of the “Tale of Bygone Years”, in which he highlighted in large font those parts of it that go back to the Initial Code of 1093-1095.

It should be noted that in his extremely bold attempt to visually present the entire history of Russian chronicles, to restore the long-lost texts of A.A. Shakhmatov was faced with a number of issues for which sufficient material could not be found.

Therefore, in this last part of the work A.A. Shakhmatov - where he inevitably had to, reconstructing the text, solve all the questions - even those that were almost impossible to answer - his conclusions were only speculative.

Along with the greatest advantages of the study by A.A. Shakhmatov, however, have significant drawbacks. These shortcomings are primarily of a methodological nature. For its time, the general understanding of A.A. Shakhmatov's history of Russian chronicles was distinguished by progressive features. A.A. Shakhmatov was the first to introduce a historical approach into the subtle but formal philological analysis of bourgeois philology. He drew attention to the politically acute and by no means dispassionate nature of the chronicles, to their connection with the feudal struggle of his time.

Only on these premises A.A. Shakhmatov was able to create a history of chronicling. However, the historical approach of A.A. Shakhmatova was not always correct. In particular, A.A. Shakhmatov did not study the chronicle as a literary monument, did not notice purely genre changes in it. The genre of the chronicle and the methods of its maintenance were presented by A.A. Shakhmatov unchanged, always the same.

Following A.A. Shakhmatov, we would have to assume that already the first Russian chronicle combined in itself all the features of Russian chronicle writing: the manner of compiling new records by year, features of the language, the widespread use of folklore data to restore Russian history, the very understanding of Russian history, its main milestones. We would also have to assume that the chronicle stood outside the social struggle of its time.

It goes without saying that such a beginning of chronicle writing is unlikely. In fact, as we will see below, the chronicle, its literary form and its ideological content grew gradually, changing under the influence of the ideas and trends of their time, reflecting the internal, social struggle of the feudalizing state.

In fact, insertions, alterations, additions, and combinations of ideologically and stylistically heterogeneous material characterize the Ancient Chronicle, even in the form in which it is restored by A.A. Shakhmatov.

Conclusion

So, having studied the work of A.A. Shakhmatov, it should be noted that in his extremely bold attempt to visually present the entire history of Russian chronicles, to restore the long-lost texts of A.A. Shakhmatov achieved serious success.

However, at the same time he was faced with a number of questions for which sufficient material could not be found.

He drew attention to the politically acute and by no means dispassionate nature of the chronicles, to their connection with the feudal struggle of his time.

Only on these premises A.A. Shakhmatov was able to create a history of chronicling. However, the historical approach of A.A. Shakhmatova was not always correct.

In particular, A.A. Shakhmatov did not study the chronicle as a literary monument, did not notice purely genre changes in it. The genre of the chronicle and the methods of its maintenance were presented by A.A. Shakhmatov unchanged, always the same.

Bibliography

1. Danilevsky I.N. and others. Source study. – M., 2005. – 445 p.

2. Danilets A.V. Source study // History and politics. – 2009. - No. 5. - P.78-85.

3. Kovalchenko I. D. Methods of historical research. - M., 2003. – 438 p.

4. Likhachev D.S. Russian Chronicles // Sat. Literature and art. - M.: Nauka, 1997. – 340 p.

5. Medushevskaya O.M. Theoretical problems of source study. - M., 2005. – 86 p.

6. The Tale of Bygone Years. – M.: Academy. 1987. – 540 p.

7. Priselkov M.D. History of Russian chronicles of the 11th – 15th centuries. – L.: Education, 1990. – 188 p.

Priselkov M.D. History of Russian chronicles of the 11th – 15th centuries. – L.: Education, 1990. – P. 95.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Edited by Molev E.A., Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Dean of the Faculty of History, Nizhny Novgorod State University. Lobachevsky

The methodological guidance of the team of authors of the rural Chronicle is carried out by the district department of culture through the methodological department of the central district library (the centralized library system of the district)
For the practical maintenance of the Chronicle, a positive attitude towards it from the local government authority - the village council, documented - is required. Moreover, this document should record:
a) who is creating the Chronicle and for how long;
b) within what time frame the team of authors (compilers of the Chronicle) reports on their work in this village council.
Only people who actually work on the Chronicle should be included in the decision of the local government to create the Chronicle.
Of decisive importance for the creation and maintenance of the rural Chronicle is the statute of the Chronicle - a relatively large document that reveals in detail all aspects of the activities of the group of authors (compilers of the Chronicle) and their relationship with the village council. This is a very important organizational document for the Chronicle. The head of the village council administration approves the statute.

Statute of the Chronicle

1. The purpose and objectives of the rural Chronicle

The creation and maintenance of a rural chronicle is aimed at maintaining an orderly collection of information about events that occurred in a given village or related to this village and are of a socially significant nature, from the moment the settlement was created to the present day.

The information included in the “Chronicle...” is open to everyone interested in the history, economy, culture and other factors of rural life.

Particular importance is expected in informing the younger generation of village residents and rural school students about the history of this settlement and increasing the role of local history.

2. Team of authors, approval procedure and terms of work of the team of authors

To maintain the “Chronicle ...”, the decision of the head of the administration of the village council approves the team of authors (compilers of the chronicle), consisting of two people: an official who maintains the paper version of the “Chronicle ...” (at the stage of approving the status of “Chronicle ...”, the head of the village library), and a resident of the village (optional) who has the desire, knowledge, skills and technical capabilities to maintain the “Chronicle ...” in electronic form.

In the process of working on the Chronicle, the team of authors independently searches for and finds volunteer assistants and informants to collect information on the topic of the Chronicle. The number of assistants and informants is not limited. Their participation in the creation of the chronicle is recorded in a separate part of the chronicle: “Helpers and Informants”

The team of authors is looking for people who are capable of not writing under dictation from management, but who have independent thinking, interest and desire for local history. At the same time, it uses a wide range of searches for these people in the field of culture, education, etc.

The team of authors brings together people interested in the history of their region into groups to work together on the preparation of the Chronicle in accordance with the approved statutes of the rural Chronicle. It does this based on decisions of local administrations.

3. What events are included in the rural chronicle

The “Chronicle ...” contains events that are of public significance and concern both individuals and legal entities related to a given locality. Somehow:
statistics of births, marriages, divorces and deaths, the total population of a village, town, number of schoolchildren, conscripts, pensioners, other statistical information;
information of various types on the culture, economy, infrastructure of the village, town;
information about organizations located in the village, significant milestones and achievements in their activities, full names of leaders from the moment the organization began its activities to the present;
educational, labor, combat and other socially significant achievements of village residents or other persons related to the rural settlement;
decisions of rural and higher administrations and bodies relating to a village or rural settlement, both in general and in particular;
information and articles from the media on issues related to the village;
school events in a rural school, events concerning students from this village;
information about corporate events and celebrations celebrated in the village
natural events and phenomena in the village
information about folk crafts, occupations, hobbies and interests of village residents;
economic activities of individuals and organizations in the village;
other events, facts, figures, documents and dates of social significance for the village.

4. Procedure for maintaining the Chronicle, registration, numbering

In accordance with Russian legislation, the legal document has the paper version of the Chronicle of Rural Chronicle. “Chronicle...” is registered as a paper document in the administration of the village council.

All entries in the book are kept in chronological order, as information becomes available, indicating the date of the event, the text of information about the past event and a link to the source of information about the event. As information accumulates on any topic, you can make analyses, create various kinds of generalizations and other materials, but this is secondary. The main approach is chronological.

Each completed page of the “Chronicle...” is numbered and signed by the compiler of the paper version of the “Chronicle...”. Certain review and thematic materials, which due to their large volume cannot be included in the text of the “Chronicle ...” itself, are taken into account in the table of contents of the “Chronicle ...” as separate appendices and are an integral part of the rural Chronicle.

5. Sources of information, their reliability

The principle of reference to the exact source of information - oral, written or electronic - is strictly required. Sources of information can be official and unofficial, written and oral, photo, video and audio recordings. Each source of information has its own meaning, degree of reliability and importance.

Even a sign on a grave monument, as a source of information, provides three types of information: the date of birth, death and place of burial of the person. Links to sources of information can be placed in a separate part of the Chronicle, but in any case there must be a link to the source of information.

The most reliable information is from archival and other official documents - if it is repeated more than once (information confirmed by two or more documentary sources).

Less reliable are records based on information from one documentary source or the media.

And the third degree of reliability is the memories of our contemporaries. They are valuable for their primacy and sharpness and will always find a worthy place in the Chronicle. But due to the properties of human memory and the subjectivity of assessing past events, it is not always possible to remember everything “according to the book.” Therefore, chronicle records based on memories must be clarified and supplemented with cross-sectional data from documentary sources.”

6. Procedure for storing the Chronicle

In the process of maintaining the “Chronicle ...”, its paper version is stored in the rural library. After completing the next volume, it, together with its electronic copy on a CD, is transferred to the rural library with an accession number. Its paper and electronic copies (on CD) are transferred for storage to the administration of the village council.

7. Responsibilities of the founder of the Chronicle

The founder of “Chronicle” is the administration of the village council. She:

approves the statute of the chronicle;

registers paper and electronic versions of the “Chronicle...”;

within the established timeframes of the inventory, checks the availability of the “Chronicle ...”, as a document of the administration of the village council;

upon completion of maintaining the next volume of “Chronicles ...”, makes a decision to transfer it in paper and electronic form (on a CD) for permanent storage to the village library, and its paper and electronic copies to the administration of the village council.

8. Responsibilities and reporting of the team of authors (compilers of the chronicle)

within the time limits agreed upon with the administration, maintains a record of statistical information relating to the village;

gives proposals to the village council administration for making additions and changes to the status of the “Chronicles ...”

within the deadlines established by the administration of the village council, prepares a report on its activities in maintaining the “Chronicle ...”.

9. The role and place of the electronic version of the Rural Chronicle

Simultaneously with the paper text of the “Chronicles ...”, an electronic recording of the text of the rural Chronicle is being carried out. It must completely duplicate the paper text of the Chronicle. Under this condition, the electronic version of the “Chronicle ...” is a full author’s copy of the “Chronicle ...”, and in case of loss of the paper version of the “Chronicle ...”, the Chronicle must be restored on the basis of its electronic copy.

Upon completion and delivery of the next volume of “Chronicles ...” to the village library, its electronic copy is recorded in two copies on a CD, is also taken into account by the inventory number and is deposited in one copy each at the village library and the administration of the village council.

Copying, replication, reprinting of “Chronicles ...” materials in electronic and paper form is allowed, with a mandatory link to

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

We know practically nothing about the life of the Monk Nestor the chronicler before he became a resident of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery. We do not know who he was by social status, we do not know the exact date of his birth. Scientists agree on an approximate date - the middle of the 11th century. History has not even recorded the secular name of the first historian of the Russian land. And he preserved for us invaluable information about the psychological appearance of the holy brothers-passion-bearers Boris and Gleb, the Monk Theodosius of Pechersk, remaining in the shadow of the heroes of his works. The circumstances of the life of this outstanding figure of Russian culture have to be reconstructed bit by bit, and not all the gaps in his biography can be filled. We celebrate the memory of St. Nestor on November 9.

The Monk Nestor came to the famous Kiev-Pechersk Monastery when he was a seventeen-year-old youth. The holy monastery lived according to the strict Studite Rule, which was introduced into it by the Monk Theodosius, borrowing it from Byzantine books. According to this charter, before taking monastic vows, the candidate had to go through a long preparatory stage. Newcomers first had to wear secular clothes until they had thoroughly studied the rules of monastic life. After this, the candidates were allowed to put on monastic attire and begin testing, that is, to show themselves in work at various obediences. Those who passed these tests successfully received tonsure, but the test did not end there - the last stage of acceptance into the monastery was tonsure into the great schema, which not everyone was awarded.

The Monk Nestor went all the way from a simple novice to a schemamonk in just four years, and also received the rank of deacon. In addition to obedience and virtue, his education and outstanding literary talent played a significant role in this.

The Kiev Pechersky Monastery was a unique phenomenon in the spiritual life of Kievan Rus. The number of brethren reached one hundred people, which was rare even for Byzantium itself. The severity of the communal rules found in the Constantinople archives had no analogues. The monastery also flourished materially, although its governors did not care about collecting earthly riches. The powers that be listened to the voice of the monastery; it had a real political and, most importantly, spiritual influence on society.

The young Russian Church at that time was actively mastering the rich material of Byzantine church literature. She was faced with the task of creating original Russian texts in which the national image of Russian holiness would be revealed.

The first hagiographical (hagiography is a theological discipline that studies the lives of saints, theological and historical-church aspects of holiness - Ed.) work of the Monk Nestor - “Reading about the life and destruction of the blessed passion-bearers Boris and Gleb” - is dedicated to the memory of the first Russian saints. The chronicler, apparently, responded to the expected all-Russian church celebration - the consecration of a stone church over the relics of Saints Boris and Gleb.

The work of the Monk Nestor was not the first among works devoted to this topic. However, he did not recount the story of the brothers according to a ready-made chronicle legend, but created a text that was deeply original in form and content. The author of “Reading about the Life...” creatively reworked the best examples of Byzantine hagiographic literature and was able to express ideas that were very important for the Russian church and state consciousness. As Georgy Fedotov, a researcher of ancient Russian church culture, writes, “the memory of Saints Boris and Gleb was the voice of conscience in inter-princely appanage accounts, not regulated by law, but only vaguely limited by the idea of clan seniority.”

The Monk Nestor did not have much information about the death of the brothers, but as a subtle artist he was able to recreate a psychologically reliable image of true Christians meekly accepting death. The truly Christian death of the sons of the baptizer of the Russian people, Prince Vladimir, is inscribed by the chronicler in the panorama of the global historical process, which he understands as the arena of the universal struggle between good and evil.

Father of Russian monasticism

The second hagiographic work of St. Nestor is dedicated to the life of one of the founders of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery - St. Theodosius. He writes this work in the 1080s, just a few years after the death of the ascetic, in the hope of the speedy canonization of the saint. This hope, however, was not destined to come true. The Monk Theodosius was canonized only in 1108.

The internal appearance of St. Theodosius of Pechersk has special meaning for us. As Georgy Fedotov writes, “in the person of St. Theodosius, Ancient Rus' found its ideal saint, to which it remained faithful for many centuries. Venerable Theodosius is the father of Russian monasticism. All Russian monks are his children, bearing his family traits.” And Nestor the Chronicler was the person who preserved for us his unique appearance and created on Russian soil the ideal type of biography of the saint. As the same Fedotov writes, “Nestor’s work forms the basis of all Russian hagiography, inspiring heroism, indicating the normal, Russian path of labor and, on the other hand, filling in the gaps of biographical tradition with general necessary features.<…>All this gives Nestor’s life exceptional significance for the Russian type of ascetic holiness.” The chronicler was not a witness to the life and exploits of St. Theodosius. Nevertheless, his life story is based on eyewitness accounts, which he was able to combine into a coherent, vivid and memorable story.

Of course, to create a full-fledged literary life, it is necessary to rely on a developed literary tradition, which did not yet exist in Rus'. Therefore, the Monk Nestor borrows a lot from Greek sources, sometimes making long verbatim extracts. However, they have virtually no effect on the biographical basis of his story.

Memory of the unity of the people

The main feat of the life of the Monk Nestor was the compilation of the “Tale of Bygone Years” by 1112-1113. This work is separated from the first two literary works of the Monk Nestor known to us by a quarter of a century and belongs to another literary genre - the chronicle. Unfortunately, the entire set of “The Tale...” has not reached us. It was revised by the monk of the Vydubitsky monastery Sylvester.

The Tale of Bygone Years is based on the chronicle work of Abbot John, who made the first attempt at a systematic presentation of Russian history from ancient times. He brought his narrative up to 1093. Earlier chronicle records represent a fragmentary account of disparate events. It is interesting that these records contain a legend about Kiy and his brothers, a brief account of the reign of the Varangian Oleg in Novgorod, the destruction of Askold and Dir, and a legend about the death of the Prophetic Oleg. Actually, Kiev history begins with the reign of “old Igor,” whose origin is kept silent.

Hegumen John, dissatisfied with the inaccuracy and fabulousness of the chronicle, restores the years, relying on Greek and Novgorod chronicles. It is he who first introduces “old Igor” as the son of Rurik. Askold and Dir appear here for the first time as boyars of Rurik, and Oleg as his governor.

It was the arch of Abbot John that became the basis for the work of the Monk Nestor. He subjected the greatest processing to the initial part of the chronicle. The initial edition of the chronicle was supplemented by legends, monastic records, and Byzantine chronicles of John Malala and George Amartol. Saint Nestor attached great importance to oral testimonies - the stories of the elder boyar Jan Vyshatich, merchants, warriors, and travelers.

In his main work, Nestor the Chronicler acts both as a scientist-historian, and as a writer, and as a religious thinker, giving a theological understanding of Russian history, which is an integral part of the history of the salvation of the human race.

For St. Nestor, the history of Rus' is the history of the perception of Christian preaching. Therefore, he records in his chronicle the first mention of the Slavs in church sources - the year 866, and talks in detail about the activities of Saints Cyril and Methodius, Equal-to-the-Apostles, and about the baptism of Equal-to-the-Apostles Olga in Constantinople. It was this ascetic who introduced into the chronicle the story about the first Orthodox church in Kyiv, about the preaching feat of the Varangian martyrs Theodore Varangian and his son John.

Despite the huge amount of heterogeneous information, the chronicle of St. Nestor has become a true masterpiece of ancient Russian and world literature.

During the years of fragmentation, when almost nothing reminded of the former unity of Kievan Rus, “The Tale of Bygone Years” remained the monument that awakened in all corners of crumbling Rus' the memory of its former unity.

The Monk Nestor died around 1114, bequeathing to the Pechersk monks-chroniclers the continuation of his great work.

Newspaper "Orthodox Faith" No. 21 (545)

Bygone Years” was written during a period when one social structure was replaced by another: the outgoing patriarchal-communal one with a new, feudal one. Two historical consciousnesses are connected with this - epic and chronicle. “” was created as a work of writing, but, in essence, reflects oral folk art. Based on the oral tradition of its time, The Tale of Bygone Years creates a written literary language, the written history of Rus'.

Oral sources provided mainly material, content and ideas for constructing Russian history, partly its stylistic design - language. ( This material will help you write competently on the topic of What is the Russian chronicle and its features. A summary does not make it possible to understand the full meaning of the work, so this material will be useful for a deep understanding of the work of writers and poets, as well as their novels, novellas, short stories, plays, and poems.) The traditions of writing introduced all this material into the compositional framework familiar to medieval books. The chroniclers worked using the usual methods of medieval scribes. The Tale of Bygone Years reflected skills in handling material that were typical of medieval writers and not at all similar to the writing skills of modern times.

The medieval Russian book, in appearance and in its composition, differs sharply from the books of modern times - the 18th-20th centuries. In medieval writing it was rare to find a work by a single author or a single work bound in a separate binding, separated into a separate independent book. It is impossible to imagine that on the bookshelf of a medieval reading lover there stood side by side in separate bindings “The Tale of Igor’s Host”, “The Prayer of Daniel the Sharper”, “The Teachings of Monomakh”, etc. The medieval Russian book was originally parchment (that is, written on a special leather, and at the end of the 14th century, paper, covered with wooden lids covered with leather, fastened with copper clasps, multi-leaf and heavy - was most often a collection.

Indeed, a careful and thorough study of numerous texts of Russian chronicles shows that the chroniclers compiled the chronicles as collections - “codes” of previous chronicle materials with the addition of their entries for recent years. It is as a result of this kind of connections in the chronicles of previous chronicles that it sometimes 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.

So, the chronicle is a set of... When compiling his collection, the chronicler first of all cared about getting into his hands the works of his predecessors - the same chroniclers, then historical documents - treaties, messages, wills of princes, historical stories, lives of Russian saints, etc., etc. Having collected all the material available to him, sometimes numerous and varied, sometimes only two or three works, the chronicler put it together in a consistent presentation over the years. He connected the chronicles year by year. The document was placed under the year to which it belonged, the life of a saint - under the year of death of this saint, a historical story, if it covered several years, divided by years and each part placed under its own year, etc. The construction of the chronicle by year gave him a convenient network for adding more and more new works to it. 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.

Compiled from pieces from different times, from works of different genres, the chronicle outwardly seems motley, complex, heterogeneous. However, in general, the chronicle is still unified, like a single building built from large, roughly hewn stones. There is even a special beauty in this - the beauty of strength, enormity, monumentality.

The unity of the chronicle, as a historical and literary work, is not in the smoothing of the seams and not in the destruction of traces of masonry, but in the integrity and harmony of the entire large chronicle structure as a whole, in a single thought that enlivens the entire composition. The chronicle is a work of monumental art; it is mosaic. 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.