Historian Igor Danilevsky about the structure of “The Tale of Bygone Years”, the motives of its author and the mythical nature of Prince Rurik
What sources is the text of The Tale of Bygone Years based on? What guided the chronicler, according to Alexey Shakhmatov? What information from The Tale of Bygone Years does not correspond to archaeological materials? Doctor of Historical Sciences Igor Danilevsky answers these and other questions.
“The Tale of Bygone Years” is, it would seem, the basis of the foundations, the history of Ancient Rus'. This is a rather interesting text. This is a conditionally highlighted text with a conditional date. That is, The Tale of Bygone Years itself does not exist in a separate list. This is the initial part of the vast majority of chronicles. As a matter of fact, most chronicles begin with the Tale of Bygone Years. This is a conditional name, it is given according to the first lines in the Laurentian list of 1377: “Behold the stories of the bygone years, where the Russian land came from, who began to reign first in Kyiv, and where the Russian land began to eat.”
Unfortunately, even the title itself is not entirely clear, not to mention the text of the Tale. The Tale covers the period from the division of the land between the sons of Noah to the first two decades of the 12th century. There is an undated part that includes legends, and then there seems to be a dated part that starts with the year 6360. Although the entry itself of 6360 - usually this date is translated as 852 in our chronology system - is quite strange. It says: “In the summer of 6360, the 15th day of Indicta, I began to reign as Michael, and began to call Ruska the land.” The question immediately arises: what kind of Mikhail is this? We are talking about the Byzantine Emperor Michael III. And for some reason Russian history begins with him.
The dated part contains a number of legendary information that we often remember. This is the calling of the Varangians, and the reign of Kiy, Shchek and Khoriv in Kyiv, and the foundation of Kyiv as the future capital of the state association that will arise. But we must remember one very unpleasant thing, which is very often forgotten. Firstly, the text of the “Tale” was written at the beginning of the 12th century. Secondly, the “Tale” was based on previous chronicle codes - this is the Initial code of the 90s of the 11th century, it was preceded by the Most Ancient Code, as Alexey Aleksandrovich Shakhmatov called it, who singled out this initial text, and it was written in the 30s of the 11th century century. Many researchers disagree with Shakhmatov, but everyone agrees that some kind of story was created in the 30s of the 11th century. This story is said to be monothematic, that is, it is not divided into years. Although this is also a chronicle. The fact is that in the Old Russian language the word “chronicle writing” did not necessarily imply a chronological grid. For example, the “Acts of the Apostles” was also called a chronicle, although no matter how hard you try, you will not find a single date in the “Acts of the Apostles”.
The most interesting thing is when the annual dates appeared in the text of The Tale of Bygone Years. Alexey Alexandrovich Shakhmatov established that these dates were inserted retroactively at the turn of the 60-70s of the 11th century. One of the mysteries is who inserted them, why they were inserted. Shakhmatov drew attention: not only annual dates appear at the turn of the 60-70s, but also calendar and hour dates appear. Moreover, they appeared very interesting. First, this is an event that takes place in Kyiv, then in Tmutarakan on the Taman Peninsula, then in Chernigov, then again in Tmutarakan, then again in Kyiv. And Shakhmatov, who created the modern basis for the study of chronicles at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, came to the conclusion that he knew a person who at that very time left Kyiv for Tmutarakan, then went to Chernigov, returned to Tmutarakan, returned to Kyiv. This was Nikon the Great, or Nikon of Pechersk, an associate of Anthony of Pechersk and confessor of Theodosius of Pechersk (one of the founders of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery). But these are conclusions that we do not always remember - that the dates for all events that occur before the end of the 60s of the 11th century are conditional, the text itself gradually developed, and many of the information that we now consider to be reliable are showed up very late. These, apparently, are legendary stories that were included in the Tale of Bygone Years.
Of course, a whole series of questions arise: “Why was this text created?”, “For what purpose?”, “Why were some events recorded and others were not?”
Let's say that Svyatoslav's campaign against Bulgaria is recorded, but the campaign against the Caspian Sea, which took place a little earlier, is not recorded. And this is a rather serious question.
The Tale of Bygone Years is a mysterious source for another reason. As one of the researchers of the Tale, Igor Petrovich Eremin, wrote, when we read the Tale, we find ourselves in a world where everything is incomprehensible. And this is true. On the other hand, many modern researchers, including Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev, said that no, everything is clear, a person’s thinking has always been the same, it has not changed. Although in reality, to put it mildly, this is not the case. And this awareness that there is a certain temporal and cultural gap between the author of “The Tale of Bygone Years” and us provides the key to understanding “The Tale of Bygone Years.”
This is a rather complicated thing, because when you start to look at these events carefully, very interesting things come to light. For example, the chronicler cared little about telling how everything really happened. He is not at all going to obey the will of the prince. Unlike later chronicles, which were very strictly controlled by the central government, the Tale of Bygone Years was apparently compiled by the monks at their own discretion, as one of the chroniclers would write in the 15th century: “I envy those chroniclers who worked without such strict censorship "
On the other hand, the chronicler is very interested in the question: what would this mean? That is, he is trying to explain to his readers not how it really happened, but what it was. Moreover, he embeds his story into sacred history - this is a continuation of sacred history, in some ways its repetition. Therefore, he often quotes directly or indirectly from biblical texts and adapts the events he records to them.
This is a very serious point, because The Tale of Bygone Years has been characterized in different ways. The same Alexey Aleksandrovich Shakhmatov will say that “the hand of the chronicler was guided not by abstract ideas about the truth, but by worldly passions and political interests.” This phrase took root very well in Soviet historiography. The idea itself was developed by the student and follower of Alexei Aleksandrovich Shakhmatov, Mikhail Dmitrievich Priselkov, who simply wrote that the chronicler is a servant of the prince’s court office, who does not stop before distorting folk tradition, rearranging events, putting a false date, and he sold at a high price your pen.
This rather cunning installation leads Priselkov to the very difficult conclusion for us that “The Tale of Bygone Years” is an artificial and unreliable source. This was written back in 1940, although no one paid serious attention to it, and “The Tale of Bygone Years” continues to be used as the main source on the early history of Ancient Rus', although much of the information is clearly legendary. This is also a legend about the East Slavic tribes: the Polyans, the Drevlyans, the Northerners. The latest information about these tribes ends at the end of the 10th century. The northerners live the longest - in 1024 they were mentioned for the last time. This is despite the fact that the “Tale” itself was written at the beginning of the 12th century, that is, the gap is more than a hundred years.
This information fits very poorly with archaeological materials. Archaeologists have puzzled over how to connect their archaeological materials to chronicle data. They can't do anything worthwhile. And if we remember that the Southern Slavs and the Western Slavs have exactly the same names - this was known back in the 19th century. Mikhail Pogodin wrote: “It seems that all the Slavs were dealt from the same deck of cards, we were just luckier than everyone else, and we received cards of all stripes.” But this is often forgotten and considered as completely reliable information. I probably wouldn't do that.
So The Tale of Bygone Years is a very complex source. Simply retelling it for professionals does not make much sense.
Although professionals periodically resort to this and try to establish the ethnicity of Rurik, who is actually a mythical figure.
By the way, in the Netherlands, schoolchildren begin to study the history of their country with the fact that in 862 King Rurik came to them and created his own state.
Therefore, I would not take the story about the calling of the Varangians as evidence of real events. Although princes were probably invited. Most likely, the Varangians were also invited. If we look at the genealogy of our princes, it turns out that all of them had foreign mothers and that they were all, to put it mildly, non-Eastern Slavs, although all the princes were ours. But that doesn't mean anything. Rather, this speaks of the cultural context in which The Tale of Bygone Years was created.
Its author is a fairly well-read person. He knows Greek texts well, and he also uses texts written in Hebrew. At least two insertions were found in the beginning and end of the “Tale of Bygone Years” from “Josippon” - this is a reworking of “The Jewish War” by Josephus. He is, apparently, a fairly well-read person; he often refers to the apocrypha, although we do not notice this, since he talks as if it all really happened. But in order to understand the text of the Tale, we must, of course, turn to the literary sources that were available to this monk, and then we will understand the meaning of these messages, because these quotes were used for a reason. This is always a reference to the context of quotes, and such a text can only be understood if we know how it ends in other texts.
That is why a new study of The Tale of Bygone Years should be a serious step forward. First, understand the chronicler. Secondly, to involve other sources in order to restore the side that worries us: how it really was? A serious step forward will probably be a monograph that should be published in Kyiv by the wonderful Ukrainian historian Alexei Petrovich Tolochko, who just followed the very path that Mikhail Dmitrievich Priselkov outlined, but never used. He wrote a very interesting book, which, I think, will cause a mixed reaction both in Moscow and Kyiv, and among professional historians involved in the early history of Ancient Rus'. But this is a very serious step, because to some extent it will save us from the illusions that exist with a literal understanding of the text of The Tale of Bygone Years.
I repeat once again that this text is very complex. And I would agree with Igor Petrovich Eremin, who wrote that when we begin to read “The Tale of Bygone Years,” we find ourselves in a completely mysterious world in which everything is incomprehensible. And such misunderstanding, recording it, is probably a worthy activity, it’s better than saying: “No, we understand everything, no, we know exactly how everything really happened.”
After the flood, Noah's three sons divided the earth - Shem, Ham, Japheth. And Shem got the east: Persia, Bactria, even to India in longitude, and in width to Rhinocorur, that is, from the east to the south, and Syria, and Media to the Euphrates River, Babylon, Corduna, the Assyrians, Mesopotamia, Arabia the Oldest, Elimais, Indi, Arabia Strong, Colia, Commagene, all of Phenicia.
Ham got the south: Egypt, Ethiopia, neighboring India, and another Ethiopia, from which flows the Ethiopian Red River, flowing to the east, Thebes, Libya, neighboring Kyrenia, Marmaria, Sirtes, another Libya, Numidia, Masuria, Mauritania, located opposite Ghadir. In his possessions in the east are also: Cilicnia, Pamphylia, Pisidia, Mysia, Lycaonia, Phrygia, Kamalia, Lycia, Caria, Lydia, another Mysia, Troas, Aeolis, Bithynia, Old Phrygia and the islands of some: Sardinia, Crete, Cyprus and the river Geona, otherwise called the Nile.
Japheth inherited the northern and western countries: Media, Albania, Armenia Lesser and Greater, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, Galatia, Colchis, Bosporus, Meots, Derevia, Capmatia, the inhabitants of Tauris, Scythia, Thrace, Macedonia, Dalmatia, Malosiya, Thessaly, Locris, Pelenia, which is also called Peloponnese, Arcadia, Epirus, Illyria, Slavs, Lichnitia, Adriakia, Adriatic Sea. They also got the islands: Britain, Sicily, Euboea, Rhodes, Chios, Lesbos, Kythira, Zakynthos, Cefallinia, Ithaca, Kerkyra, a part of Asia called Ionia, and the Tigris River flowing between Media and Babylon; to the Pontic Sea to the north: the Danube, the Dnieper, the Caucasus Mountains, that is, the Hungarian Mountains, and from there to the Dnieper, and other rivers: the Desna, Pripyat, Dvina, Volkhov, Volga, which flows east to the Simov part. In the Japheth part there are Russians, Chud and all sorts of peoples: Merya, Muroma, Ves, Mordovians, Zavolochskaya Chud, Perm, Pechera, Yam, Ugra, Lithuania, Zimigola, Kors, Letgola, Livs. The Poles and Prussians seem to be sitting near the Varangian Sea. The Varangians sit along this sea: from here to the east - to the borders of the Simovs, they sit along the same sea and to the west - to the lands of England and Voloshskaya. The descendants of Japheth are also: Varangians, Swedes, Normans, Goths, Rus, Angles, Galicians, Volokhs, Romans, Germans, Korlyazis, Venetians, Fryags and others - they adjoin the southern countries in the west and neighbor the tribe of Ham.
Shem, Ham and Japheth divided the land by casting lots, and decided not to enter into anyone’s brother’s share, and each lived in his own part. And there was one people. And when people multiplied on earth, they planned to create a pillar up to heaven - this was in the days of Nectan and Peleg. And they gathered in the place of the field of Shinar to build a pillar up to heaven, and near it the city of Babylon; and they built that pillar 40 years, and they did not finish it. And the Lord God came down to see the city and the pillar, and the Lord said: “Behold, there is one generation and one people.” And God mixed up the nations, and divided them into 70 and 2 nations, and scattered them throughout the whole earth. After the confusion of the peoples, God destroyed the pillar with a great wind; and its remains are located between Assyria and Babylon, and are 5433 cubits high and wide, and these remains have been preserved for many years.
After the destruction of the pillar and the division of the peoples, the sons of Shem took the eastern countries, and the sons of Ham took the southern countries, while the Japhethites took the west and northern countries. From these same 70 and 2 languages came the Slavic people, from the tribe of Japheth - the so-called Noriks, who are the Slavs.
After a long time, the Slavs settled along the Danube, where the land is now Hungarian and Bulgarian. From those Slavs the Slavs spread throughout the land and were called by their names from the places where they settled. So some, having come, sat down on the river in the name of Morava and were called Moravians, while others called themselves Czechs. And here are the same Slavs: white Croats, and Serbs, and Horutans. When the Volochs attacked the Danube Slavs, and settled among them, and oppressed them, these Slavs came and sat on the Vistula and were called Poles, and from those Poles came the Poles, other Poles - Lutichs, others - Mazovshans, others - Pomeranians.
In the same way, these Slavs came and sat down along the Dnieper and were called Polyans, and others - Drevlyans, because they sat in the forests, and others sat between Pripyat and Dvina and were called Dregovichs, others sat along the Dvina and were called Polochans, after a river flowing into the Dvina , called Polota, from which the Polotsk people took their name. The same Slavs who settled near Lake Ilmen were called by their own name - Slavs, and built a city and called it Novgorod. And others sat along the Desna, and the Seim, and the Sula, and called themselves northerners. And so the Slavic people dispersed, and after their name the letter was called Slavic.
When the glades lived separately in these mountains, there was a path from the Varangians to the Greeks and from the Greeks along the Dnieper, and in the upper reaches of the Dnieper - a drag to Lovot, and along Lovot you can enter Ilmen, the great lake; The Volkhov flows from the same lake and flows into the Great Lake Nevo, and the mouth of that lake flows into the Varangian Sea. And along that sea you can sail to Rome, and from Rome you can sail along the same sea to Constantinople, and from Constantinople you can sail to the Sea of Pontus, into which the Dnieper River flows. The Dnieper flows from the Okovsky forest and flows to the south, and the Dvina flows from the same forest and heads north, and flows into the Varangian Sea. From the same forest the Volga flows to the east and flows through seventy mouths into the Khvalisskoye Sea. Therefore, from Rus' you can sail along the Volga to the Bolgars and Khvalis, and go east to the inheritance of Sima, and along the Dvina to the land of the Varangians, from the Varangians to Rome, from Rome to the tribe of Khamov. And the Dnieper flows at its mouth into the Pontic Sea; This sea is reputed to be Russian, - as they say, St. Andrew, Peter’s brother, taught it along its shores.
When Andrei taught in Sinop and arrived in Korsun, he learned that the mouth of the Dnieper was not far from Korsun, and he wanted to go to Rome, and sailed to the mouth of the Dnieper, and from there he went up the Dnieper. And it so happened that he came and stood under the mountains on the shore. And in the morning he got up and said to the disciples who were with him: “Do you see these mountains?” On these mountains the grace of God will shine, there will be a great city, and God will erect many churches.” And having ascended these mountains, he blessed them, and put up a cross, and prayed to God, and came down from this mountain, where Kyiv would later be, and went up the Dnieper. And he came to the Slavs, where Novgorod now stands, and saw the people living there - what their custom was and how they washed and whipped themselves, and he was surprised at them. And he went to the country of the Varangians, and came to Rome, and told about how he taught and what he saw, and said: “I saw a marvel in the Slavic land on my way here. I saw wooden bathhouses, and they would heat them up, and they would undress and be naked, and they would douse themselves with leather kvass, and they would pick up young rods on themselves and beat themselves, and they would finish themselves off so much that they would barely get out, barely alive, and douse themselves with cold water, and This is the only way they will come to life. And they do this constantly, not being tormented by anyone, but torturing themselves, and then they perform ablution for themselves, and not torment.” Those who heard about this were surprised; Andrei, having been in Rome, came to Sinop.
The Glades lived separately in those days and were governed by their own clans; for even before that brethren (which will be discussed later) there were already glades, and they all lived with their clans in their own places, and each was governed independently. And there were three brothers: one named Kiy, the other - Shchek and the third - Khoriv, and their sister - Lybid. Kiy sat on the mountain where Borichev now rises, and Shchek sat on the mountain that is now called Shchekovitsa, and Khoriv on the third mountain, which was nicknamed Khorivitsa after his name. And they built a city in honor of their elder brother, and named it Kyiv. There was a forest and a large forest around the city, and they caught animals there, and those men were wise and sensible, and they were called glades, from them glades are still in Kyiv.
Some, not knowing, say that Kiy was a carrier; At that time, Kyiv had transportation from the other side of the Dnieper, which is why they said: “For transportation to Kyiv.” If Kiy had been a ferryman, he would not have gone to Constantinople; and this Kiy reigned in his family, and when he went to the king, they say that he received great honors from the king to whom he came. When he was returning, he came to the Danube, and took a fancy to the place, and cut down a small town, and wanted to sit in it with his family, but those living around did not let him; This is how the inhabitants of the Danube region still call the settlement - Kievets. Kiy, returning to his city of Kyiv, died here; and his brothers Shchek and Horiv and their sister Lybid died immediately.
The Tale of Bygone Years- the scientifically accepted name for the chronicle corpus created at the beginning of the 12th century. PVL has reached us in two editions, conventionally called the second and third. The second edition is read as part of the Laurentian Chronicle (GPB manuscript, F.p.IV, No. 2), the Radzivilov Chronicle (BAN manuscript, 34.5.30) and the Moscow Academic Chronicle (GBL, collected by MDA, No. 236), as well as others chronicle collections, where this edition most often underwent various revisions and reductions. The third edition has reached us as part of the Ipatiev Chronicle (lists: Ipatievsky - BAN, 16.4.4, 15th century, Khlebnikovsky - GPB, F.IV, No. 230, 16th century, etc.). Most researchers consider the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor to be the compiler of the first edition of the PVL, which has not reached us. In the Laurentian list, the PVL is entitled: “Behold the stories of the time years, where the Russian land came from, who in Kyiv began to reign first and where the Russian land began to eat”; in the Ipatiev list, after the word “years”, the following is added: “monk of Fedosiev of the Pechersk monastery”, and in the Khlebnikovsky list - “Nester of the monk of Fedosiev of the Pechersk monastery”. The research of A. A. Shakhmatov made it possible to abandon the dominant principles in science in the first half of the 19th century. ideas about the PVL as a chronicle compiled solely by Nestor: A. A. Shakhmatov proved that the PVL was preceded by another chronicle, the so-called Initial Code, but Nestor significantly revised it and supplemented it with a presentation of the events of the end. XI – beginning XII century The initial code, according to the hypothesis of A. A. Shakhmatov, was compiled in 1093–1095. Abbot of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery John. The initial code has not reached us, but was reflected in the Novgorod chronicle, in particular, it was preserved in the Novgorod chronicle of the first junior edition, in its initial part (until 1016) and in articles 1053–1074. Traces of it can also be found in NIVL and SIL, the protograph of which was used by the Novgorod chronicle.
The basis of the Initial Code, according to the hypothesis of A. A. Shakhmatov, was Nikon’s chronicle code of the 70s. XI century, supplemented by a description of events up to 1093 inclusive. The initial code was compiled under the impression of the Polovtsian invasion of 1093 and in the context of a quarrel between the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery and Prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, therefore the code is characterized by a journalistic emphasis, especially pronounced in its introductory part: the modern princes who ruined the Russian land with their extortions are contrasted with the “ancient princes and their men,” who “didn’t collect much property,” took care of their land, subjugated the surrounding countries to Rus', and were generous to the squad. The code emphasized that the current princes began to neglect the “senior squad” and “love the meaning of the young.” It is believed that these reproaches were suggested to the chronicler Jan Vyshatich, a spokesman for the interests of the senior squad, who considered successful campaigns of conquest, and not feudal exactions, to be the main source of enrichment. However, this motive is also associated with a patriotic call to stop internecine strife and act together against the Polovtsian danger. The anti-princely orientation of the Initial Code was, according to A. A. Shakhmatov, the reason why the Novgorod chroniclers of the 15th century. (and according to D.S. Likhachev - after 1136) they replaced the text of the PVL at the beginning of the Novgorod chronicle (“Sofia Vremennik”) with the text of the Initial Code.
This hypothesis of A. A. Shakhmatov is shared in its main features by many of his followers (M. D. Priselkov, L. V. Cherepnin, A. N. Nasonov, D. S. Likhachev, Ya. S. Lurie, etc.). Another explanation for the differences between the chronicle text in the Novgorod chronicles and the PVL was proposed by V. M. Istrin, who believed that the Novgorod chroniclers shortened the text of the PVL, and thus we find here not a text that preceded the PVL, but one that goes back to it. Doubts about the existence of the Initial Code were also expressed by A.G. Kuzmin.
According to the hypothesis of A. A. Shakhmatov, Nestor, reworking the Initial Code, deepened and expanded the historiographical basis of Russian chronicles: the history of the Slavs and Rus' began to be considered against the backdrop of world history, the place of the Slavs among other peoples was determined, tracing their ancestors to the descendants of the legendary Noah. Thus, Russian history was introduced into the framework of traditional Christian historiography.
The composition of the PVL was subordinated to this historiographical concept. Nestor prefaced the story of the Primary Code about the founding of Kyiv with an extensive historical and geographical introduction, telling about the origin and ancient history of the Slavic tribes, defining the boundaries of the original Slavic lands and territories developed by them. Nestor included in the chronicle extracts from the Legend of the Beginning of Slavic Writing in order to once again emphasize the antiquity and authority of Slavic culture. Describing the customs of various tribes living in Rus', or the peoples of distant countries, information about which Nestor provides from the translation of the Byzantine Chronicle of George Amartol, the chronicler emphasizes the wisdom and high morality of the glades on whose land Kyiv is located. Nestor strengthens the historiographical concept proposed by Nikon, according to which the great princes of Kyiv descend from the Varangian prince Rurik, “called” by the Novgorodians. Moving on to the presentation of the events of the 10th–11th centuries, Nestor basically follows the text of the Initial Code, but supplements it with new materials: he introduces the texts of treaties between Rus' and Byzantium into the PVL, supplements the stories about the first Russian princes with new details drawn from folk historical legends: for example , a story about how Olga, by cunning, took possession of the capital of the Drevlyans, Iskorosten, how the young Kozhemyak defeated the Pecheneg hero, and the old man saved Belgorod, besieged by the Pechenegs, from imminent capitulation. Nestor also owns the final part of the PVL (after the end of the text of the Initial Code), however, it is believed that this part could have been revised in subsequent editions of the PVL. It was under the pen of Nestor that PVL became an outstanding monument of ancient Russian historiography and literature. According to D. S. Likhachev, “never before or later, until the 16th century, did Russian historical thought rise to such a height of scholarly inquisitiveness and literary skill” ( Likhachev. Russian Chronicles, p. 169).
Thus, the PVL of the second edition contains an account of the ancient history of the Slavs, and then the history of Rus' up to 1100. The PVL, as already said, begins with an introductory part telling about the origin and settlement of the Slavic tribes. This part is not divided into weather articles. The first date in the PVL is 852, because from that time, according to the chronicler, “the nickname Ruska land began.” The following tells about the so-called calling of the Varangians (under 862), about the capture of Kyiv by Oleg (under 882), the Kyiv princes Igor, Olga, Svyatoslav, the internecine struggle of the sons of Svyatoslav, from which Vladimir emerged victorious. The story of the “test of faith” by Vladimir (under 986) includes a brief summary of biblical history (the so-called “Philosopher’s Speech”). Article 1015 tells of the murder of Vladimir's sons Boris and Gleb by their half-brother Svyatopolk. This plot formed the basis of the most ancient hagiographic monuments - the Tale of Boris and Gleb and Reading about the Life and Destruction of Boris and Gleb, written by Nestor. Narrating about the reign of Vladimir’s son Yaroslav, the chronicler (under 1037) reports on the intense translation and book-writing activity that unfolded during this prince’s reign. Of fundamental importance for understanding the political structure of Kievan Rus is the story of the PVL about the will of Yaroslav (under 1054), because it determined the leading role of Kyiv and the Kyiv prince, to whom the rest of the princes had to obey. The narrative about Yaroslav and his successors on the Kiev grand princely table - Izyaslav (1054-1073), Svyatoslav (1073-1078) and Vsevolod (1078-1098) - contains extensive stories about the founding of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery (under 1051 and 1074) and about his abbot - Theodosius (under 1074 and 1091): these topics will be developed in more detail in the Patericon of the Kiev-Pechersk and the Life of Theodosius (see Nestor, monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery). A constant theme of the PVL is the fight against Polovtsian raids (see, for example, articles 1068, 1093 and 1096). The final part of the PVL tells about the reign of Svyatopolk (1093–1113). Article 1097 contains a dramatic story about the blinding of Prince Vasilko of Terebovl by Svyatopolk and David Igorevich (see Vasily, author of the Tale of the Blinding of Prince Vasilko). The second edition of the PVL ends with an unfinished story about a miraculous phenomenon in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery (Article 1110). In the third edition of the PVL (according to the Ipatiev Chronicle), this story is read in full, followed by articles from 1111–1117.
There are different opinions about the editions of PVL and their relationships. According to the hypothesis of A. A. Shakhmatov, the first edition of the PVL (Nestor) was created in the Kiev Pechersk Monastery in 1110–1112. After the death of Prince Svyatopolk, who patronized the monastery, the chronicle was transferred to the Vydubitsky St. Michael's Monastery, where in 1116 Abbot Sylvester revised the final articles of the PVL, positively assessing the activities of Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh, who became the Grand Duke of Kyiv in 1113. In 1118, on behalf of the Novgorod prince Mstislav Vladimirovich, the third edition of the PVL was compiled.
However, not all details of this hypothesis are equally convincing. Firstly, there are different opinions about the date of compilation of the first edition of the PVL and its volume. A. A. Shakhmatov himself either attributed its creation to 1110, or admitted that Nestor’s work was continued until 1112, or believed that Nestor himself brought it to 1112 ( Shakhmatov. Tale of Bygone Years, vol. 1, p. XV, XVIII, XXI and XLI). M.D. Priselkov points to 1113 as the time of compilation of the first edition, based, in particular, on the calculation of years in article 852, brought up to the death of Svyatopolk in 1113, but Shakhmatov considered the mention of Svyatopolk’s death in this list to be an insertion , made by Sylvester ( Shakhmatov. Tale of Bygone Years, vol. 1, p. XXVII). Secondly, the assumption that “Sylvester’s main attention was directed to reworking Nesterov’s account for 1093–1113, i.e., during the reign of Svyatopolk” is based only on the premise that “the chronicle of Prince Svyatopolk” (i.e. the first PVL editors) “turned out to be hostile... to the new Kyiv prince Monomakh, Svyatopolk’s long-time political enemy” ( Priselkov. History of Russian chronicles, p. 42). But it is impossible to prove this thesis, since the first edition has not survived. The scope and nature of Sylvester's editorial work is unclear. A. A. Shakhmatov then pointed out that “the main edition of the Tale of the time. years, when it was remade by Sylvester, it completely disappeared” (The Tale of Bygone Years, vol. 1, p. XVII), then at the same time he admitted that Sylvester, “one might think, limited his work to editorial amendments” (p. XXVII). Shakhmatov’s assumption that the PVL of the first edition was used by one of the compilers of the Patericon of the Kiev-Pechersk - Polycarp (see ibid., pp. XIV-XV), was developed by M. D. Priselkov into the assumption that Sylvester “mainly simply omitted very interesting stories Nestor within these years, which in most cases concerned Svyatopolk’s relationship with the Pechersk Monastery" ( Priselkov. History of Russian chronicles, p. 42). However, the examples of news cited by Shakhmatov (The Tale of Bygone Years, vol. 1, p. XIV), possibly reflected in the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon, contain a negative characterization of Svyatopolk. Their presence in the chronicle compiled under his patronage, and their subsequent removal from the chronicle, which was hostile to him (as Priselkov believed), is very strange. Thirdly, the presence in the second edition of text fragments attributed by Shakhmatov to the third edition forces him to admit a secondary influence of the third edition on the second ( Shakhmatov. Tale of Bygone Years, vol. 1, p. V–VI), which significantly weakens his hypothesis. Therefore, attempts were made to explain the relationship of the most ancient PVL lists differently. Thus, L. Muller proposed a hypothesis according to which the second edition of the PVL (1116), compiled by Sylvester, came to us as part of the Hypatian Chronicle, and in the Laurentian and similar ones we find a reflection of the same edition, but with the end lost (articles 1110 –1115). Müller considers the existence of the third edition of the PVL (1118) to be completely unproven. M. X. Aleshkovsky also saw in the Laurentian list a copy of the edition presented by the Ipatiev list, and attributed to Nestor the chronicle code reflected in the first Novgorod chronicle. Thus, the relationship between the oldest lists of PVL and the establishment of its oldest editions still requires further study.
Much research has been devoted to the PVL language. For their review, see the book: Tvorogov O. V. Lexical composition..., p. 3–8, 16–21.
Edition: Chronicle of Nesterov, according to the list of monk Lavrenty, published by professors: Khariton Chebotarev and N. Cherepanov from 1804 to 1811 M. (edition not completed); Chronicle of Nesterov according to the oldest list of Mnich Lavrentiy / Ed. prof. Timkovsky, intermittent 1019. Printed under the OLDP. M., 1824: Ipatiev Chronicle. SPb., 1843 (PSRL, vol. 2) – text of PVL 3rd ed. from 1111 to 1117, p. 1–8; Laurentian and Trinity Chronicles. SPb., 1846 (PVL 2nd ed., p. 1–123); Chronicle of the Laurentian List / Ed. Archaeogr. com. St. Petersburg, 1872, p. 1–274; The Tale of Bygone Years according to the Laurentian List / Ed. Archaeographical Commission. St. Petersburg, 1872 (phototype reproduced by RKP); Chronique dite de Nestor / Trad. par L. Leger. Paris, 1884 (translated into French); Ipatiev Chronicle. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg, 1908, stb. 1–285 (PSRL, vol. 2) (phototype reproduced edition: M., 1962); Nestorkr?nikan ?vers?tting fr?n fornryskan av A. Norrback. Stockholm, 1919 (translated into Swedish); Laurentian Chronicle: Tale of Bygone Years. 2nd ed. L., 1926 (PSRL, vol. 1, issue 1) (phototype reproduced edition: M., 1962); Die altrussische Nestorchronik / Herausgeg. von R. Trautmann. Leipzig, 1931 (translated in German); Cronica lui Nestor / Trad. de Gh. Popa-Lisseanu. Bucureti, 1935 (translated into Romanian); The Tale of Bygone Years. Part 1. Text and translation / Prep. text by D. S. Likhachev, trans. D. S. Likhacheva and B. A. Romanov; Part 2, Applications / Articles and com. D. S. Likhacheva. M.; L., 1950 (series “Literary Monuments”); The Russian Primary Chronicle / By S. H. Cross, O. P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor. Cambridge Mass., 1953 (translated into English); Nestor?v letopis rusk?. Pov?st d?vn?ch let. P?elo?il K. J. Erben. Praha, 1954 (translated into Czech); Powie?? minionych lat. Przek?ad F. Sielickego. Wroc?aw, 1968 (translated into Polish); The Tale of Bygone Years / Prep. text and com. O. V. Tvorogova, trans. D. S. Likhacheva. – PLDR. XI – 1st half. XII century 1978, p. 22–277, 418–451; The Tale of Bygone Years / Prep. text and notes O. V. Tvorogova, trans. D. S. Likhachev. – In the book: Tales of Ancient Rus' XI-XII centuries. L., 1983, p. 23–227, 524–548.
Lit.: Sukhomlinov M. I. About the ancient Russian chronicle as a literary monument. St. Petersburg, 1856; Bestuzhev-Ryumin K. On the composition of Russian chronicles until the end of the 14th century. – LZAK, 1868, issue. 4, dept. 1, p. I–IV, 1–157, 1–138 (Appendix); Nekrasov N. P. Notes on the language of the Tale of Bygone Years according to the Laurentian list of the Chronicle. – IORYAS, 1896, vol. 1, p. 832–927; 1897, vol. 2, book. 1, p. 104–174; Shakhmatov A. A. 1) The oldest editions of the Tale of Bygone Years. – ZhMNP, 1897, October, dept. 2, p. 209–259; 2) About the initial Kiev chronicle code. – CHOIDR, 1897, book. 3, dept. 3, p. 1–58; 3) The initial Kiev chronicle and its sources. – In the book: Anniversary collection in honor of Vsevolod Fedorovich Miller / ed. his students and admirers. M., 1900, p. 1–9; 4) Investigations; 5) Preface to the Primary Kyiv Code and the Nesterov Chronicle. – IORYAS, 1909, vol. 13, book. 1, p. 213–270; 6) The Tale of Bygone Years, vol. 1. Introductory part. Text. Notes Pgr., 1916 (LZAK, 1917, issue 29); 7) “The Tale of Bygone Years” and its sources. – TODRL, 1940, vol. 4, p. 11–150; 8) Kiev Initial Code 1095 - In the book: A. A. Shakhmatov: 1864–1920 / Collection. articles and materials. ed. acad. S. P. Obnorsky. M.; L., 1947, p. 117–160; Istrin V. M. Notes on the beginning of Russian chronicles: Regarding the research of A. A. Shakhmatov in the field of ancient Russian chronicles. – IORYAS for 1921, 1923, vol. 23, p. 45–102; for 1922, 1924, vol. 24, p. 207–251; Nikolsky N.K. The Tale of Bygone Years as a source for the history of the initial period of Russian writing and culture / On the issue of the oldest Russian chronicles. L., 1930 (Collection on RYAS, vol. 2, issue 1); Priselkov M. D. History of Russian chronicles of the 11th–15th centuries. L., 1940, p. 16–44; Bugoslavsky S.“The Tale of Bygone Years”: (Lists, editions, original text). – In the book: Ancient Russian story / Articles and research. by ed. N.K. Gudziya. M.; L., 1941, p. 7–37; Eremin I. P.“The Tale of Bygone Years”: Probl. her ist.-lit. studied L., 1946 (on the cover of 1947) (republished in the book: Eremin I. P. Literature of Ancient Rus': (Sketches and Characteristics). M.; L., 1966, p. 42–97); Likhachev D. S. 1) Russian chronicles and their cultural and historical significance. M.; L., 1947, p. 35–172; 2) “The Sophia Temporary” and the Novgorod political revolution of 1136 - IZ, 1948, vol. 25, p. 240–265; 3) The Tale of Bygone Years. - In the book: Likhachev D. S. Great Heritage: Classic works of literature of ancient Rus'. 2nd ed. M., 1979, p. 46–140; Cherepnin L.V.“The Tale of Bygone Years”, its editions and the chronicle collections preceding it. – IZ, 1948, vol. 25, p. 293–333; Filin F. P. Vocabulary of the Russian literary language of the ancient Kiev era: (According to the materials of the chronicles). - Scientist. zap. LGPI named after. A. I. Herzen. L., 1949, t. 80; Rybakov B. A. Ancient Rus': Legends. Epics. Chronicles. M., 1963, p. 215–300; Aleshkovsky M. X. 1) “The History of Time Lit” ta i? editor?. – Ukr. ict. zhurn., 1967, No. 3, p. 37–47; 2) The first edition of The Tale of Bygone Years. – AE for 1967. M., 1969, p. 13–40; 3) To the dating of the first edition of the Tale of Bygone Years. – AE for 1968, 1970, p. 71–72; 4) The Tale of Bygone Years: The fate of a literary work in ancient Rus'. M., 1971; M?ller L. Die "Dritte Redaktion" der sogenannten Nestorchronik. – In.: Festschrift f?r M. Woltner zum 70. Geburtstag. Heidelberg, 1967, pp. 171–186; Durnovo N. N. Introduction to the history of the Russian language. M., 1969, p. 72, 255–257; Kuzmin A. G. 1) Russian chronicles as a source on the history of Ancient Rus'. Ryazan, 1969; 2) Old Russian historical traditions and ideological trends of the 11th century. (based on chronicles of the 11th–12th centuries). – VI, 1971, No. 10, p. 55–76; 3) The initial stages of Old Russian chronicle writing. M., 1977; Nasonov A. N. History of Russian chronicles X – beginning. XVIII century M., 1964, p. 12–79; Tvorogov O. V. 1) Plot narration in chronicles of the 11th–13th centuries. – In the book: Origins of Russian fiction. L., 1970, p. 31–66; 2) The Tale of Bygone Years and the Chronograph according to the great presentation. – TODRL, 1974, vol. 28, p. 99–113; 3) The Tale of Bygone Years and the Initial Code: (Textological commentary). – TODRL, 1976, vol. 30, p. 3–26; 4) Lexical composition of “The Tale of Bygone Years”: (Word indicators and frequency vocabulary). Kyiv, 1984; Dushechkina E. V. The artistic function of someone else's speech in Russian chronicles. - Scientist. zap. Tartus. Univ., 1973, issue. 306 (Tr. on Russian and Slavic philol., vol. 21, pp. 65–104); Poppe A.V. On the question of the ultra-Martian style in the Tale of Bygone Years. – History of the USSR, 1974, No. 4, p. 175–178; Buganov V. I. Domestic historiography of Russian chronicles: Review of Soviet literature. M., 1975, p. 15–20, 49–65, 130–132, 229–247; Gromov M. N. 1) Old Russian philosophy of history in The Tale of Bygone Years. – In the book: Current problems in the history of philosophy of the peoples of the USSR. M., 1975, issue. 2, p. 3–13; 2) “The Philosopher’s Speech” from the ancient Russian chronicle “The Tale of Bygone Years.” - Philol. Sciences, 1976, No. 3, p. 97–107; Lvov A. S. Vocabulary "The Tale of Bygone Years." M., 1975; Handbuch zur Nestorchronik / Herausgeg. von L. M?ller. M?nchen, 1977, Bd 1–3, I. Lieferung; Kizilov Yu. A. Historical worldview of the authors of the Tale of Bygone Years. – VI, 1978, No. 10, p. 61–78; Khaburgaev G. A. Ethnonymy "Tale of Bygone Years". M., 1979; Pautkin A. A. Battle descriptions of “The Tale of Bygone Years”: (Originality and varieties). - Vestn. Moscow State University. Ser. 9, Philol., 1981, No. 5, p. 13–21; Florya B. N. The legend about the translation of books into the Slavic language: Sources, time and place of writing. – Byzantinoslavica, 1985, t. 46(1), s. 121–130.
Additional: Boeva L.“The Tale of Bygone Years” – Bulgarian sources and parallels. – In the book: Slavic philology. T. 18. Literary studies and folklore. Sofia, 1983, p. 27–36; Smirnova L. Textual organization of military weather records in the Tale of Bygone Years. – In the book: Russian vocabulary: Word formation; The language of fiction. M., 1985, p. 2–26.
Great definition
Incomplete definition ↓
The Tale of Bygone Years (PVL) is the most important source on the history of Ancient Rus' and the most controversial. Some researchers propose treating it as a collection of legends and tales, others continue to study, finding new facts from the history of Rus', others (mostly archaeologists) try to connect topographical and ethnonymic information from the Tale with data from archaeological research and, to tell the truth, not always they succeed. The most pressing issue remains the problem of attributing the Tale to the host of historical sources. It seems that there is no clear solution; the truth is always somewhere in the middle. In this article we will try to answer the question: can the Tale of Bygone Years be a source for studying the history and culture of Ancient Rus' and, if so, is this source reliable?
The Tale of Bygone Years was “noted” in almost all chronicles known to science today. It was created at the turn of the XI-XII centuries. and is of a compilative nature. PVL consists of two parts. The first - cosmogonic - describes the formation of the Russian people and the Russian state, deriving their genealogy from Noah and his sons. The first part contains no dates or facts; it is more legendary, epic and mythical, and serves the purpose of explaining and consolidating the independence of the recently born Russian Orthodox Church. This is quite logical, the author of the story is the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery - Nestor, accordingly, he explains the history of Rus' based on the Christian paradigm, however, this has nothing to do with science itself, except for the history of religion. We learn about the formation of the Slavs as an ethnic group, unfortunately, not from the source, which in the first lines tells us that it will talk about “where the Russian land came from,” but from the chronicle of the Goth Jordan, who lived in the 6th century. AD. The strange thing is that “Nestor” knows nothing about this Jordan. At least there are no borrowings or echoes of this chronicle in the text of the PVL. Historiography emphasizes the fact that Nestor for his work used some other code that has not reached us (the most ancient, as researchers lovingly and reverently call it), however, for some reason he did not use the chronicle of Jordan. The initial code, which, according to all historians, Nestor used, is the same chronicle, but revised, into which events contemporary to the author of the work were added.
It can be assumed that Nestor was unaware of the Goths and their historians, and accordingly he did not have access to Jordanes’ “Getica”. We do not agree with this assumption. During Nestor’s time, and long before him, Rus' did not live in isolation; the Goths were its closest neighbors. In addition, monasteries have always been a collection of knowledge and wisdom; it was in them that books were kept, and these books were copied there to preserve descendants. That is, in fact, it was Nestor, and moreover, only he who had access to other written sources, not only Russian, but also Byzantine and Gothic. The library at the Kiev Pechersk Lavra was created under Yaroslav the Wise. The prince specifically sent monks to Constantinople to bring books from there and, I think, did not insist that only church books be selected. So the library in the Pechersk Monastery was decent, and it most likely contained many chronicles that Nestor could rely on. But for some reason I didn’t lean on it. None of the famous historians of antiquity or the early Middle Ages (with the exception of Armatol, about which below) is quoted in the PVL, as if they never existed at all, as if Rus', described in the Tale, is some kind of mythical country, like Atlantis.
The Tale of Bygone Years is also the oldest known to us. As mentioned above, it was established that the PVL was written on the basis of another, even more ancient source (code), which has not reached us, but this is the conclusion of linguists, not historians. Although historians have accepted this hypothesis. The famous linguist Shakhmatov studied the text of the PVL for almost his entire life and identified linguistic layers characteristic of a particular era, on the basis of which he concluded that the chronicle borrows some fragments from an older text. It is also known that in addition to this ancient code, the author of the Tale relied extensively on the Chronicle of George Armatol, written in the 9th century. The Byzantine Armatol tells the general story from the creation of the world to the year 842. The cosmogonic part of the Tale repeats this Byzantine text almost word for word.
Thus, it is unknown what sources the chronicler relied on when creating the dated part of the chronicle from 842, except for the already mentioned Initial Code, parts of which were used by Nestor to describe the actions of the first Russian princes. No material evidence of the existence of this chronicle has survived (does not exist?)
As for the main question, regarding the classification of PVL as historical sources, it has been clearly resolved in science. PVL was and is a chronicle on the basis of which ancient Russian history was reconstructed. In fact, absolutely everything can be recognized as a historical source, any evidence of the era, both oral and written, as well as visual and even psychological (cultural), for example, a custom or a meme. Thus, the Tale is truly a very large and significant source - how many facts, names and events are described in it! The Tale also lists the first princes of the Russian land and talks about the calling of the Varangians to Rus'.
Fortunately, today we can no longer limit ourselves to just one Tale, but look at the so-called parallel sources, i.e. documents and evidence created at the same time as the PVL or describing the same period of time. In these sources, fortunately, we find both Princess Olga and Kagan Vladimir the Saint, so yes, in this part the Tale can really be considered a source, because it is consistent with other evidence, and therefore writes truthfully. Only the dates do not agree: the Tale tells us about some events, giving details, but is silent about others. That is, we can say that the author of the chronicle did not invent the main historical characters, but did not always convey their “deeds” correctly - he embellished something, invented something, kept silent about something.
The problem of the author of the Tale remains a pressing issue. According to the canonical version, the author of the PVL is the monk of the Pechersk Monastery Nestor, who compiled all text. Some insertions in the Tale belong to another monk - Sylvester, who lived later than Nestor. In historiography, opinions on this issue are divided. Some believe that Nestor wrote only the introductory sacred part of the chronicle, while others attribute the authorship entirely to him.
Nestor. Sculptural reconstruction based on the skull, author S. A. Nikitin, 1985
Tatishchev, who wrote a fundamental work on the history of Russia from ancient times and included the Tale in his author’s chronicle, has no doubt that Nestor is a historical character, and not a collective image of all chroniclers, and that he is the author of PVL. The historian is surprised that the Bishop of the Constantinople Orthodox Church Peter Mohyla from the 17th century does not see, for some reason, that Nestor is the author of the Initial Code, on the basis of which subsequent scribes made insertions into the chronicle. Tatishchev believed that the oldest code that has not reached us belongs to the pen of Nestor, and the Tale itself in the form in which it has reached us is the fruit of the work of the monk Sylvester. It is curious that Tatishchev reports that Bishop Mogila has one of the best libraries, and that Vladyka could have looked there more closely, and he would have discovered the Initial Vault.
We find mention of Nestor's authorship only in the Khlebnikov list of PVL, this is a chronicle code from the 16th century, which was restored and edited in the 17th century, under the leadership of who do you think? - the same Peter Mogila. The bishop carefully studied the chronicle, made notes in the margins (these notes have been preserved), however, for some reason he did not see the name of the monk, or he saw it, but did not attach any significance. And after that he wrote: “Nestor’s writing of Russian deeds through wars has been lost to us, read, Simon Bishop of Suzdal wrote.” Tatishchev believes that the Grave speaks of the continuation of Nestor’s chronicle, which was lost, and the beginning, that is, what has been preserved, certainly belongs to the pen of Nestor. Note that the very first bishop of Suzdal named Simon (and there were several of them) lived at the beginning of the 12th century. Nestor died in 1114, so it is quite possible that Tatishchev correctly understood the Mogila and it was meant that Simon of Suzdal Bishop continued Nestor’s story, however, it is not known at what point exactly where Nestor stopped.
In general, the issue of Nestor’s authorship is currently almost beyond doubt. But it must be remembered that Nestor was not the only author of the Tale. The co-authors were Simon of Suzdal, and another monk, Sylvester, and numerous copyists of subsequent generations.
Although this point can be disputed. The same Tatishchev noticed a curious fact in his “Russian History”; in his opinion, the entire chronicle was written by the same adverb, that is, style, whereas if there are several authors, then the syllable of the letter should be at least a little different. Except perhaps for the records after 1093, which were clearly made by a different hand, but there is no longer any secret here - the abbot of the Vydubetsky monastery, Sylvester, directly writes that it is he who is now compiling the chronicle. It is possible that new linguistic research will help shed light on this interesting question.
The Tale of Bygone Years handles the issue of chronology very poorly. And this is very surprising. The word “chronicle” means that the record is kept year by year, in chronological order, otherwise it is not a chronicle at all, but a work of art, for example, an epic or a fairy tale. Despite the fact that PVL is precisely a chronicle, a source of history, in almost all works on the historiography of PVL one can find the following phrases: “the date is calculated here inaccurately”, “meaning... (year such and such)”, “in fact the campaign took place a year earlier,” etc. Absolutely all historiographers agree that some date is incorrect. And this is, of course, not just like that, but because this or that event was documented in another source (one would like to say “more reliable than Nesterov’s chronicle”). Even in the first line of the dated part of the chronicle (!) Nestor makes a mistake. Year 6360, indict 15. “Mikhail began to reign...”. According to the Era of Constantinople (one of the chronology systems from the creation of the world), 6360 is the year 852, while the Byzantine Emperor Michael III ascended the throne in 842. 10 year mistake! And this is not the most serious, since it was easy to track, but what about the events where only Russians were involved, which the Byzantine and Bulgarian chronographs did not cover? One can only guess about them.
In addition, the chronicler provides a kind of chronology at the beginning of the text, calculating how many years have passed from one or another event to another. In particular, the quote: “from the birth of Christ to Constantine is 318 years, from Constantine to Michael this is 542 years.” This Michael, we believe, is the one who began to reign in 6360. Through simple mathematical calculations (318+542) we get the year 860, which now does not agree with the data of the chronicle itself or with other sources. And such discrepancies are legion. A completely logical question arises: why was it necessary to set any dates at all, if they were taken approximately, and some even from different chronologies and chronologies. D. Likhachev, who devoted a lot of time to studying the PVL, believes that it was not Nestor himself who put the dates in the chronicle, but later scribes, who not only “told” him in what year this or that event happened, but sometimes simply changed the whole story. More than one generation of historians has been trying to separate truth and fiction in such a collective work.
The historian I. Danilevsky believes that the word “chronicle” does not necessarily mean a description of events in chronological order, confirming this by the fact that, for example, “The Acts of the Apostles” is also called a chronicle, although there are no references to dates in them. From this we can conclude that in fact Nestor’s work is not a reworking of some other source, the same Primary Code, but the essence of a story that the chronicler expanded, and subsequent scribes put dates in it. That is, Nestor did not set out to establish the chronology of ancient Russian events, but only to convey the general cultural context in which Rus' was formed as a state. In our opinion, he succeeded.
The literature notes that during the period when the Tale was created, the genre of history was undeveloped in Rus', in which, for example, the “History of the Jewish War” by Josephus or the history of Herodotus was written. Accordingly, PVL is a kind of innovative work, the author of which reworked existing legends, deeds and lives so that they correspond to the chronicle genre. Hence the confusion with dates. From the same point of view, the Tale is, first of all, a cultural monument, and secondarily a source on the history of Ancient Rus'.
Involuntarily, every historiographer studying PVL either takes the position of a lawyer, inventing excuses for Nestor, for example, why is it emphasized twice in the title that the speech will be “from where?” There is the Russian land has gone" (literally: " Where is it from? went Russian land who in Kyiv began to rule first, and where is the Russian land from? became There is") or why the formation of the Russian ethnos is described according to the Old Testament, and not according to historical chronicles. Others take the position of an accuser and point out that, for example, Nestor made up everything about the baptism of Rus' and the story of the three embassies that offered Vladimir the Red Sun a choice of three faiths is nothing more than a fairy tale, since Rus' by that time was already Christian and there is evidence for this there are (The historian has already written about this in the article “The Baptism of Rus': How it Happened”).
But it is historiographers who use the Tale as an important source for their research, since the presence of the author-compiler is read in every line of the PVL: Nestor loves some princes, stigmatizes some, some events are written out with special care, some years are skipped altogether - they say they never happened nothing significant, although parallel sources claim otherwise. It is the image of the author that helps to better understand the mindset of the enlightened part of the population of Ancient Rus' (scribes, priests) in relation to the role that Rus' plays in the political arena of the emerging feudal Europe, as well as to express the author’s opinion regarding the foreign and domestic policies of the ruling elite.
In our opinion, when determining the genre, and therefore the reliability of PVL as a historical source, one should be guided by the name that the author gave to his work. He called it not a timepiece, nor a chronograph, nor annals, nor a life, nor deeds, he called it “ The story temporary years." Despite the fact that “temporary summers” sounds quite tautological, the definition of “story” is very suitable for Nestor’s work. We see the very best narrative, sometimes jumping from place to place, sometimes discordant chronologically - but this was not required. The author was faced with a task, which he reveals to the reader, namely: “Where did the Russian land come from, who was the first prince in Kyiv.” And, having learned about it, we understand that the author probably fulfilled some kind of social order, otherwise why is it so important who “first” became the prince? Does it really matter who Kiy was and where he came from?
However, for the chronicler the question of the first ruler is very important, and all because, most likely, at the time of writing the chronicle, the author was faced with the task of showing the legitimacy of the then prince and his tribe. At the indicated time, the great prince of Kyiv was Svtyaopolk Izyaslavich, and then Vladimir Monomakh. It was the latter who needed to justify his rights to Kyiv; on his order, the chronicler figured out who “first began the reign.” For this reason, the Tale contains the legend about the division of the land by the sons of Noah - Shem, Ham and Japheth. This was noted in his work “Reading the Tale of Bygone Years” by Vladimir Egorov. According to Egorov, these words of the Tale “Now Shem, Ham and Japheth divided the land, casting lots, and decided not to enter into anyone’s brother’s share, and each lived in his own part. And there was one people” have the goal of shaking the foundations of the ladder of law, when the Kiev throne was inherited by the eldest in the clan, and not by a direct descendant (son). And if Vladimir Monomakh succeeded his brother Svyatopolk precisely by seniority in the clan, then after Monomakh’s death his son, Mstislav Vladimirovich, nicknamed the Great, became the Prince of Kyiv. Thus, the right of everyone to live in their own kind is realized. By the way, the legend about the sons of Noah and their division of the land, according to Egorov, is pure fiction. The Old Testament does not give any details about the land transaction.
In addition to the text of the PVL itself, its translation into modern Russian is also often criticized. Today, only one version of the literary translation is known, made by D. S. Likhachev and O. V. Tvorogov, and there are many complaints about it. It is argued, in particular, that translators treat the source text quite freely, filling spelling gaps with contemporary concepts, which leads to confusion and inconsistencies in the text of the chronicle itself. Therefore, advanced historians are still recommended to read the Tale in the original and build theories and put forward propositions based on the Old Russian text. True, for this you need to learn Old Church Slavonic.
The same V. Egorov points out, for example, inconsistencies between the translation and the Old Russian source. Old Slavonic text: “You are Var ѧ̑ gy Rus'. This is what the friends call Svee. Friends are Ourmans. English. and Goethe,” and here is Likhachev-Tvorogov’s translation: “Those Varangians were called Rus, just as others are called Swedes, and others are Normans and Angles, and still others are Gotlanders.” As you can see, the Swedes in the chronicle are actually called Svei, as it should be in the indicated era, but for some reason the translator decided to modernize them. For some reason, the “Goethe” are called Gotlanders, although such peoples are not observed anywhere else, in any other chronicles. But there are closest neighbors - the Goths, who are very in tune with “Goethe”. Why the translator decided to introduce the Gotlanders instead of the Goths remains a mystery.
Much confusion in the Tale is noted in connection with the consideration of the ethnonym Rus, which is assigned either to the Varangians or to the original Slavs. It is said that the Varangians-Rus came to reign in Novgorod and from them the name of Rus' came, then it is said that the tribes that originally lived on the Danube were Rus. Thus, it is not possible to rely on the Tale in this matter, and therefore it will not be possible to understand “where the Russian land came from” - either from the Varangians, or on behalf of the Ros River. As a source here, PVL is unreliable.
There are a lot of later inserts in the Tale of Bygone Years. They were made in the 13th, 14th, and even 16th centuries. Sometimes they can be traced when the terms and ethnonyms are very different from the ancient Russian ones, for example, when the German peoples are called “Germans,” we understand that this is a late insertion, while in the 11th-12th centuries they were called Fryags. Sometimes they merge with the general outline of the narrative and only linguistic analysis can highlight them. The point is that truth and fiction merged in the Tale into one large epic layer, from which it is difficult to isolate individual motives.
To summarize all of the above, we can conclude that The Tale of Bygone Years is, of course, a fundamental work on the cultural history of Ancient Rus', but it is a tendentious work, fulfilling the social order of the ruling grand-ducal dynasty, and also pursuing the goal of placing Rus' in the continuum of the Christian world in order to find its own in it. rightful place. In this regard, it is worth using the Tale as a historical source with extreme caution, relying on the Old Church Slavonic text when deducing any provisions, or often comparing the translation with the original. In addition, when deducing certain dates and compiling chronologies, it is imperative to consult parallel sources, giving preference to chronicles and annals rather than the lives of certain saints or abbots of monasteries.
Let us emphasize once again that, in our opinion, PVL is an excellent literary work interspersed with historical characters and facts, but in no way can it be a historical or historiographical source.
“The Tale of Bygone Years” is an ancient Russian chronicle created by the monk Nestor at the beginning of the 12th century.
The story is a large work that describes the events taking place in Rus' from the arrival of the first Slavs to the 12th century. The chronicle itself is not a complete narrative; it includes:
- historical notes;
- yearly articles (starting from 852); one article talks about events that happened in one year;
- historical documents;
- the teachings of princes;
- lives of saints;
- folk tales.
The history of the creation of “The Tale of Bygone Years”
Before the appearance of The Tale of Bygone Years, there were other collections of essays and historical notes in Rus', which were compiled mainly by monks. However, all these records were local in nature and could not represent the complete history of life in Rus'. The idea of creating a single chronicle belongs to the monk Nestor, who lived and worked in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery at the turn of the 11th and 12th centuries.
There are some disagreements among scholars about the history of the story. According to the generally accepted theory, the chronicle was written by Nestor in Kyiv. The original edition was based on early historical records, legends, folklore stories, teachings and records of monks. After writing, Nestor and other monks revised the chronicle several times, and later the author himself added Christian ideology to it, and this edition was considered final. As for the date of creation of the chronicle, scientists name two dates - 1037 and 1110.
The chronicle compiled by Nestor is considered the first Russian chronicle, and its author is considered the first chronicler. Unfortunately, no ancient editions have survived to this day; the earliest version that exists today dates back to the 14th century.
Genre and idea of “The Tale of Bygone Years”
The main goal and idea of creating the story was the desire to consistently present the entire history of Rus' since biblical times, and then gradually supplement the chronicle, painstakingly describing all the events that took place.
As for the genre, modern scientists believe that the chronicle cannot be called a purely historical or purely artistic genre, since it contains elements of both. Since “The Tale of Bygone Years” was rewritten and expanded several times, its genre is open, as evidenced by the parts that sometimes do not agree with each other in style.
“The Tale of Bygone Years” was distinguished by the fact that the events told in it were not interpreted, but were simply retold as dispassionately as possible. The chronicler's task is to convey everything that happened, but not to draw conclusions. However, it is worth understanding that the chronicle was created from the point of view of Christian ideology, and therefore has a corresponding character.
In addition to its historical significance, the chronicle was also a legal document, as it contained some codes of laws and instructions of the great princes (for example, “The Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh”).
The story can be roughly divided into three parts:
- at the very beginning it tells about biblical times (the Russians were considered the descendants of Japheth), about the origin of the Slavs, about the reign, about the formation, about the Baptism of Rus' and the formation of the state;
- the main part consists of descriptions of the lives of princes (Princess Olga, Yaroslav the Wise, etc.), descriptions of the lives of saints, as well as stories of conquests and great Russian heroes (Nikita Kozhemyaka, etc.);
- the final part is devoted to a description of numerous wars and battles. In addition, it contains princely obituaries.
The meaning of "The Tale of Bygone Years"
“The Tale of Bygone Years” became the first written document in which the history of Rus' and its formation as a state were systematically outlined. It was this chronicle that later formed the basis of all historical documents and legends; it is from it that modern historians drew and continue to draw their knowledge. In addition, the chronicle has become a literary and cultural monument of Russian writing.
