Origin of the chronicle. – Sylvester Vydubetsky, its compiler

IV. PECHERSK ASCETS. THE BEGINNING OF BOOK LITERATURE AND LEGISLATION

(continuation)

Origin of the chronicle. – Sylvester Vydubetsky, its compiler. - A fable about the calling of the Varangians. – Daniel the Pilgrim.

Laurentian list of "Tale of Bygone Years"

By all indications, these two works, filled with high merits, earned Nestor the respect of his contemporaries and a lasting memory in posterity. Perhaps he wrote something else that has not reached us. In any case, his authorial fame can primarily explain the fact that subsequently such an important monument of ancient Russian literature as the initial Russian Chronicle began to be associated with his name; although she did not belong to him.

Our chronicles arose with the direct participation of the Russian princes themselves. It is known that already the son of the first Christian prince in Kyiv, Yaroslav, was distinguished by his love for book education, and gathered translators and scribes around him; forced to translate from Greek or rewrite ready-made Slavic-Bulgarian translations. Here we must understand translations of Holy Scripture, the works of the Church Fathers, as well as Byzantine chronographs. Yaroslav's zeal for the success of Russian literature is also evidenced by the patronage he provided to such a gifted writer as Hilarion, who by his will was elevated to the rank of metropolitan. The same phenomenon was repeated here as in Danube Bulgaria: Boris was baptized along with all the Bulgarian land; and under his son, the book lover Simeon, the prosperity of Bulgarian book literature began. Yaroslav's sons continued their father's work. At least it is known that Svyatoslav Yaroslavich already had a significant book depository, from which the Collection known under his name came down. Deacon John, who copied this collection from a Bulgarian manuscript for Svyatoslav Yaroslavich, noted about this prince in his afterword that he “fulfilled his pay with divine books.” Some of their boyars also imitated the princes. From the same era, we have preserved a copy of the Gospel known under the name “Ostromir”. It was written by order of Ostromir, who was a relative of the Grand Duke Izyaslav Yaroslavich and his mayor in Novgorod, as the writer himself, some deacon Gregory, noted in the afterword. Particularly dedicated to book education is Yaroslav's grandson Vladimir Monomakh, who himself was an author. Two of his works have reached us: an eloquent letter to Oleg Svyatoslavich about his son Izyaslav, who died in battle, and the famous “Teaching” addressed to children. Even if both of these works were written with the help of one of the clergy close to him, in any case, a significant share of the creativity here undoubtedly belongs to the prince himself. The participation of Vladimir Monomakh in the cause of Russian literature is most clearly confirmed by the fact that it was during his reign in Kyiv and, of course, not without his assistance that our first chronicle was compiled. There is no doubt that the beginnings of chronicle writing in Rus' date back to an earlier time and, in all likelihood, to the era of the book lover Yaroslav. Brief notes about important military events, about the birth, about the death of princes, about the construction of the most important temples, about solar eclipses, about famine, the sea, etc. could be included in the so-called. Easter tables. From these tables chronicles developed in the West; so it was with us. Easter tables came to us, of course, from Byzantium with their chronology based on indicts, with the solar circle, etc. The mentioned notes, as in Western Europe, were kept by literate monks at the main episcopal churches or in the silence of monastic cells. With the development of literacy, the need arose in Rus' to explain where the old Russian princes came from, and to perpetuate the deeds of the modern princes: a need arose for historical literature. Translated Byzantine chronographs, or reviews of world history, served as the closest models for our chronicle. Such a chronicle naturally should have appeared in the center of the Russian land, near the main Russian prince, i.e. in the capital Kyiv.

A few miles from the capital, further behind the Pechersk monastery, on the steep bank of the Dnieper, there was the St. Michael’s Vydubetsky Monastery, which was especially patronized by Grand Duke Vsevolod Yaroslavich, Monomakh’s father. By the way, he built a stone church of St. Mikhail. After Vsevolod, this monastery enjoyed special respect and patronage from his descendants. When Vladimir Monomakh established himself on the Kiev table, Sylvester was the abbot of the Vydubetsky monastery. The beginning of our chronicles, or so-called, belongs to him. The Tale of Bygone Years, which took upon itself the task of telling “where the Russian people came from, who first reigned in Kyiv and how the Russian land was established.” The author of the "Tale" obviously had skill in book writing and remarkable talent. He based his work on the Byzantine chronograph Georgiy Amartol, who lived in the 9th century, and his successors, having at hand a Slavic-Bulgarian translation of this chronograph. From here Sylvester, by the way, borrowed a description of the different peoples and languages that inhabited the earth after the Flood and the Babylonian Pandemonium. From here he took the news about the first attack of Rus' on Constantinople in 860 and about the attack of Igor in 941. The story is often decorated with texts and large extracts from Holy Scripture, from collections of Old Testament stories (i.e. from Palea), from some church writers Greek (for example, Methodius of Patarsky and Mikhail Sinkel) and Russian writers (for example, Theodosius of Pechersk), as well as from Slavic-Bulgarian works (for example, from the Life of Cyril and Methodius), which indicates the author’s rather extensive reading and his preparation for his business. Stories about the first times are filled with legends and fables, as is the case in the initial history of any people; but the closer to its time, the more complete, more reliable, and more thorough the “Tale” becomes. Its reliability, of course, has increased since the final establishment of Christianity in the Kyiv land, especially since the time of Yaroslav, when literacy began to develop in Rus' and when the above-mentioned notes on the Easter tables began. Traces of these tables are visible in the fact that the chronicler, telling events by year, also designates those years whose events remained unknown to him or in which nothing remarkable happened. For the 11th century, he was still served by the memories of old people. Sylvester himself points to one of these old men, namely the Kyiv boyar Yan Vyshatich, the same one who was a friend of Theodosius of Pechersk and died in 1106. ninety years old. Citing the news of his death, the author of the Tale notes: “I included a lot of what I heard from him in this chronicle.” The history of the second half of the 11th century and the beginning of the 12th century took place before the eyes of the author himself. His conscientious attitude to his work is evident from the fact that he tried to collect stories about this time at first hand, i.e. I questioned eyewitnesses and participants whenever possible. Such, for example, are the testimonies of some Pechersk monk about St. Abbot Theodosius, about the discovery and transfer of his relics from the cave to the Church of the Assumption, the story of some Vasily about the blinding and detention of Vasilko Rostislavich, the stories of the noble Novgorodian Gyurat Rogovich about the northern regions, the aforementioned Yan Vyshatich, etc.

Vladimir Monomakh, in all likelihood, not only encouraged the compilation of this chronicle, but, perhaps, himself helped the author by providing information and sources. This circumstance can explain, for example, the entry into the chronicle of his letter to Oleg Svyatoslavich and the “Teachings” to his children, as well as the famous agreements with the Greeks of Oleg, Igor and Svyatoslav - agreements, Slavic translations of which were, of course, kept at the Kiev court. It is also possible that, not without his knowledge and approval, the well-known fable that Rus' called three Varangian princes from across the sea to restore order in its vast land was included on the first pages of the chronicle. When and how this fable was first put into practice will, of course, forever remain unknown; but its appearance in the second half of the 11th or the first of the 12th century is sufficiently explained by the circumstances of that time. In history, one often encounters the tendency of sovereigns to trace their family from noble foreigners, from a princely tribe of another land, even from an insignificant tribe, but for some reason became famous. This vain desire was probably not alien to the Russian princes of that time and, perhaps, Monomakh himself. The idea of the Varangian origin of the Russian princely house could very naturally arise at a time when the glory of Norman exploits and conquests was still resounding in Europe; when the entire English kingdom became the prey of the Norman knights, and in southern Italy they founded a new kingdom, from where they smashed the Byzantine Empire; when in Rus' there were still memories of the close ties of Vladimir and Yaroslav with the Varangians, of the brave Varangian squads who fought at the head of their militias. Finally, such a thought could most naturally arise with the sons and grandsons of the ambitious and intelligent Norman princess Ingigerda, Yaroslav's wife. Perhaps this idea initially appeared not without the participation of the Russified sons or descendants of those Norman immigrants who really found their happiness in Russia. An example of such noble people is Shimon, the nephew of that Varangian prince Yakun, who was an ally of Yaroslav in the war with Mstislav of Tmutarakan. Expelled from his fatherland by his uncle, Shimon and many fellow citizens arrived in Russia, entered Russian service and converted to Orthodoxy; Subsequently, he became the first nobleman of Vsevolod Yaroslavich and helped with the construction of the Pechersk Church of the Mother of God with rich offerings. And his son Georgy was governor in Rostov under Monomakh. In the era of the chronicler, friendly and family ties of the Russian princely house with the Norman sovereigns still continued. Vladimir Monomakh himself had in his first marriage Gida, the daughter of the English king Harold; their eldest son Mstislav was married to Christina, daughter of the Swedish king Inga Stenkilson; two granddaughters of Vladimir were married to Scandinavian princes.

When Sylvester began his chronicle work, two and a half centuries had already passed since the first attack of Rus' on Constantinople, mentioned in the “Chronicle” of Amartol. The chronicler, in fact, begins his “Tale of Bygone Years” with this attack. But, in accordance with the naive concepts and literary techniques of that era, he prefaced this historical event with several fables, as if explaining the previous fates of Rus'. By the way, he tells the Kiev legend about the three brothers Kiya, Shchek and Horeb, who once reigned in the land of the glades and founded Kyiv; and next to it he placed a legend, the first grain of which, in all likelihood, came from Novgorod - the legend of three Varangian brothers called from across the sea to the Novgorod land. This speculation, obviously, was not yet a well-known legend: we do not find a hint of it in any of the other works of Russian literature of that time. But later he especially. lucky. The legend expanded and changed, so that among the later compilers of chronicles, it is no longer Rus' and the Novgorod Slavs who call on the Varangian princes, as was the case with the first chronicler, but the Slavs, Krivichi and Chud who call on the Varangians - Rus', i.e. the entire great Russian people are already ranked among the Varangians and appear in Russia under the guise of some princely retinue arriving from overseas. Such a distortion of the original legend is, of course, to blame for the ignorance and negligence of Sylvester's later copyists. Sylvester finished his Tale in 1116. Vladimir Monomakh was obviously pleased with his work: two years later he ordered him to be installed as bishop of his hereditary city of Pereyaslavl, where Sylvester died in 1123.

Almost at the same time as the "Tale of Bygone Years" by Abbot Sylvester, the work of another Russian abbot, Daniel, was written, namely: "Walking to Jerusalem." We have seen that pilgrimage, or the custom of going to worship holy places, arose in Rus' after the establishment of the Christian religion. Already in the 11th century, when Palestine was under the rule of the Seljuk Turks, Russian pilgrims penetrated there and suffered oppression there along with other Christian pilgrims. Their numbers increased from the beginning of the 12th century, when the Crusaders conquered the Holy Land and founded a kingdom there. Busy fighting with other Turks, i.e. with the Polovtsy, our princes did not participate in the crusades; nevertheless, the Russian people sympathized with the great movement of Western peoples against the infidels. This sympathy was also reflected in Daniel’s notes about his walk. He simply calls himself the Russian abbot, without naming his monastery; judging by some of his expressions, it is believed that he was from the Chernigov region. Daniel was not alone in visiting the Holy Land; he mentions a whole squad of Russian pilgrims and calls some by name. His entire work breathes deep faith and reverence for the sacred objects that he was privileged to see. He speaks with praise of the King of Jerusalem Baldwin; who paid attention to the Russian abbot and allowed him to place a censer on the Holy Sepulcher for the Russian princes and for the entire Russian land. Among the princes whose names our abbot wrote down for prayer for their health in the Lavra of St. Sava, where he had shelter, the first place is occupied by: Svyatopolk - Mikhail, Vladimir (Monomakh) - Vasily, Oleg - Mikhail and David Svyatoslavich.

November 6th, 2017

Modern Russian historical science about ancient Rus' is built on the basis of ancient chronicles written by Christian monks, and on handwritten copies that are not available in the originals. Can you trust such sources for everything?

"The Tale of Bygone Years" is called the oldest chronicle code, which is an integral part of most of the chronicles that have reached us (and in total about 1500 of them have survived). The Tale covers events up to 1113, but the earliest listing was made in 1377 monk Lawrence and his assistants at the direction of the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod Prince Dmitry Konstantinovich.

It is unknown where this chronicle was written, which was named Laurentian after the creator: either in the Annunciation Monastery of Nizhny Novgorod, or in the Nativity Monastery of Vladimir. In our opinion, the second option looks more convincing, and not only because the capital of North-Eastern Rus' moved from Rostov to Vladimir.

In the Vladimir Nativity Monastery, according to many experts, the Trinity and Resurrection Chronicles were born; the bishop of this monastery, Simon, was one of the authors of a wonderful work of ancient Russian literature "Kievo-Pechersk Patericon"- a collection of stories about the life and exploits of the first Russian monks.

One can only guess what kind of list from the ancient text the Laurentian Chronicle was, how much was added to it that was not in the original text, and how many losses it suffered,–VAfter all, each customer of the new chronicle strove to adapt it to his own interests and to discredit his opponents, which was quite natural in conditions of feudal fragmentation and princely enmity.

The most significant gap occurs in the years 898–922. The events of the “Tale of Bygone Years” are continued in this chronicle by the events of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' until 1305, but there are gaps here too: from 1263 to 1283 and from 1288 to 1294. And this despite the fact that the events in Rus' before the baptism were clearly disgusting to the monks of the newly brought religion.

Another famous chronicle - the Ipatiev Chronicle - is named after the Ipatiev Monastery in Kostroma, where it was discovered by our wonderful historian N.M. Karamzin. It is significant that it was again found not far from Rostov, which, along with Kiev and Novgorod, is considered the largest center of ancient Russian chronicles. The Ipatiev Chronicle is younger than the Laurentian Chronicle - it was written in the 20s of the 15th century and, in addition to the Tale of Bygone Years, includes records of events in Kievan Rus and Galician-Volyn Rus.

Another chronicle that is worth paying attention to is the Radziwill chronicle, which first belonged to the Lithuanian prince Radziwill, then entered the Koenigsberg library and under Peter the Great, and finally to Russia. It is a 15th century copy of an older 13th century copy and talks about the events of Russian history from the settlement of the Slavs to 1206. It belongs to the Vladimir-Suzdal chronicles, is close in spirit to the Laurentian chronicles, but is much richer in design - it contains 617 illustrations.

They are called a valuable source “for the study of material culture, political symbolism and art of Ancient Rus'.” Moreover, some miniatures are very mysterious - they do not correspond to the text (!!!), however, according to researchers, they are more consistent with historical reality.

On this basis, it was assumed that the illustrations of the Radziwill Chronicle were made from another, more reliable chronicle, not subject to corrections by copyists. But we will dwell on this mysterious circumstance later.

Now about the chronology adopted in ancient times. Firstly, we must remember that previously the new year began on September 1 and March 1, and only under Peter the Great, from 1700, on January 1. Secondly, chronology was carried out from the biblical creation of the world, which occurred before the birth of Christ by 5507, 5508, 5509 years - depending on what year, March or September, this event occurred, and in what month: before March 1 or until September 1st. Translating ancient chronology into modern times is a labor-intensive task, so special tables were compiled, which historians use.

It is generally accepted that chronicle weather records begin in the “Tale of Bygone Years” from the year 6360 from the creation of the world, that is, from the year 852 from the birth of Christ. Translated into modern language, this message sounds like this: “In the summer of 6360, when Michael began to reign, the Russian land began to be called. We learned about this because under this king Rus' came to Constantinople, as it is written about in the Greek chronicles. That’s why from now on we’ll start putting numbers down.”

Thus, the chronicler, in fact, established with this phrase the year of the formation of Rus', which in itself seems to be a very dubious stretch. Moreover, starting from this date, he names a number of other initial dates of the chronicle, including, in the entry for 862, the first mention of Rostov. But does the first chronicle date correspond to the truth? How did the chronicler come to her? Maybe he used some Byzantine chronicle in which this event is mentioned?

Indeed, Byzantine chronicles recorded the campaign of Rus' against Constantinople under Emperor Michael III, but the date of this event is not given. To derive it, the Russian chronicler was not too lazy to give the following calculation: “From Adam to the flood 2242 years, and from the flood to Abraham 1000 and 82 years, and from Abraham to the exodus of Moses 430 years, and from the exodus of Moses to David 600 years and 1 year , and from David to the captivity of Jerusalem 448 years, and from the captivity to Alexander the Great 318 years, and from Alexander to the birth of Christ 333 years, from the birth of Christ to Constantine 318 years, from Constantine to the aforementioned Michael 542 years.”

It would seem that this calculation looks so solid that checking it is a waste of time. However, historians were not lazy - they added up the numbers named by the chronicler and got not 6360, but 6314! An error of forty-four years, as a result of which it turns out that Rus' attacked Byzantium in 806. But it is known that Michael the Third became emperor in 842. So rack your brains, where is the mistake: either in the mathematical calculation, or did they mean another, earlier campaign of Rus' against Byzantium?

But in any case, it is clear that it is impossible to use “The Tale of Bygone Years” as a reliable source when describing the initial history of Rus'. And it's not just a matter of clearly erroneous chronology. “The Tale of Bygone Years” has long deserved to be looked at critically. And some independent-minded researchers are already working in this direction. Thus, the magazine “Rus” (No. 3-97) published an essay by K. Vorotny “Who and when created the Tale of Bygone Years?” » reliability. Let's name just a few such examples...

Why is there no information about the calling of the Varangians to Rus' - such an important historical event - in European chronicles, where this fact would certainly be focused on? N.I. Kostomarov also noted another mysterious fact: not a single chronicle that has reached us contains any mention of the struggle between Rus' and Lithuania in the twelfth century - but this is clearly stated in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” Why are our chronicles silent? It is logical to assume that at one time they were significantly edited.

In this regard, the fate of “Russian History from Ancient Times” by V.N. Tatishchev is very characteristic. There is a whole series of evidence that after the death of the historian it was significantly corrected by one of the founders of the Norman theory, G.F. Miller; under strange circumstances, the ancient chronicles used by Tatishchev disappeared.

Later, his drafts were found, which contain the following phrase:

“The monk Nestor was not well informed about the ancient Russian princes.” This phrase alone makes us take a fresh look at the “Tale of Bygone Years,” which serves as the basis for most of the chronicles that have reached us. Is everything in it genuine, reliable, and weren’t those chronicles that contradicted the Norman theory deliberately destroyed? The real history of Ancient Rus' is still not known to us; it has to be reconstructed literally bit by bit.

Italian historian Mavro Orbini in his book “ Slavic kingdom", published back in 1601, wrote:

“The Slavic family is older than the pyramids and so numerous that it inhabited half the world.” This statement is in clear contradiction with the history of the Slavs as set out in The Tale of Bygone Years.

In working on his book, Orbini used almost three hundred sources, of which we know no more than twenty - the rest disappeared, disappeared, or perhaps were deliberately destroyed as undermining the foundations of the Norman theory and casting doubt on the Tale of Bygone Years.

Among other sources he used, Orbini mentions the extant chronicle history of Rus', written by the thirteenth-century Russian historian Jeremiah. (!!!) Many other early chronicles and works of our initial literature have also disappeared, which would have helped answer where the Russian land came from.

Several years ago, for the first time in Russia, a historical study, “The Sacred of Rus',” by Yuri Petrovich Mirolyubov, a Russian emigrant historian who died in 1970, was published. He was the first to notice "Isenbek boards" with the text of the now famous Veles book. In his work, Mirolyubov cites the observation of another emigrant, General Kurenkov, who found the following phrase in an English chronicle: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no decoration in it... And they went overseas to foreigners.” That is, an almost word-for-word coincidence with the phrase from “The Tale of Bygone Years”!

Y.P. Mirolyubov made a very convincing assumption that this phrase found its way into our chronicle during the reign of Vladimir Monomakh, who was married to the daughter of the last Anglo-Saxon king Harald, whose army was defeated by William the Conqueror.

This phrase from the English chronicle, which fell into his hands through his wife, as Mirolyubov believed, was used by Vladimir Monomakh to substantiate his claims to the grand-ducal throne. The court chronicler Sylvester accordingly “corrected” the Russian chronicle, laying the first stone in the history of the Norman theory. From that very time, perhaps, everything in Russian history that contradicted the “calling of the Varangians” was destroyed, persecuted, hidden in inaccessible hiding places.

Now let us turn directly to the chronicle record for the year 862, which reports on the “calling of the Varangians” and mentions Rostov for the first time, which in itself seems significant to us:

“In the summer of 6370. They drove the Varangians overseas, and did not give them tribute, and began to rule over themselves. And there was no truth among them, and generation after generation rose up, and there was strife among them, and they began to fight with themselves. And they said to themselves: “Let’s look for a prince who would rule over us and judge us by right.” And they went overseas to the Varangians, to Rus'. Those Varangians were called Rus, just as others are called Swedes, and some Normans and Angles, and still others Gotlanders - that’s how these were called. The Chud, Slavs, Krivichi and all said to Rus': “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it. Come reign and rule over us."

It was from this record that the Norman theory of the origin of Rus' sprouted, degrading the dignity of the Russian people. But let's read it carefully. After all, it turns out to be absurd: the Novgorodians drove the Varangians overseas, did not give them tribute - and then immediately turned to them with a request to own them!

Where is the logic?

Considering that our entire history was again ruled in the 17-18th century by the Romanovs, with their German academicians, under the dictation of the Jesuits of Rome, the reliability of the current “sources” is low.

"The Tale of Bygone Years" is called the oldest chronicle code, which is an integral part of most of the chronicles that have reached us (and in total about 1500 of them have survived). "Tale" covers events up to 1113, but its earliest list was made in 1377 monk Lawrence and his assistants at the direction of the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod Prince Dmitry Konstantinovich.

In the Vladimir Nativity Monastery, according to many experts, the Trinity and Resurrection Chronicles were born; the bishop of this monastery, Simon, was one of the authors of a wonderful work of ancient Russian literature "Kievo-Pechersk Patericon"- a collection of stories about the life and exploits of the first Russian monks.

One can only guess what kind of list from the ancient text the Laurentian Chronicle was, how much was added to it that was not in the original text, and how many losses it suffered - VAfter all, each customer of the new chronicle strove to adapt it to his own interests and to discredit his opponents, which was quite natural in conditions of feudal fragmentation and princely enmity.

The most significant gap occurs in the years 898-922. The events of the “Tale of Bygone Years” are continued in this chronicle by the events of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' until 1305, but there are gaps here too: from 1263 to 1283 and from 1288 to 1294. And this despite the fact that the events in Rus' before the baptism were clearly disgusting to the monks of the newly brought religion.

Another chronicle that is worth paying attention to is the Radziwill chronicle, which first belonged to the Lithuanian prince Radziwill, then entered the Koenigsberg library and under Peter the Great, and finally to Russia. It is a 15th century copy of an older 13th century copy and talks about the events of Russian history from the settlement of the Slavs to 1206. It belongs to the Vladimir-Suzdal chronicles, is close in spirit to the Laurentian chronicles, but is much richer in design - it contains 617 illustrations.

Now about the chronology adopted in ancient times. Firstly, we must remember that previously the new year began on September 1 and March 1, and only under Peter the Great, from 1700, on January 1. Secondly, chronology was carried out from the biblical creation of the world, which occurred before the birth of Christ by 5507, 5508, 5509 years - depending on what year, March or September, this event occurred, and in what month: until March 1 or until September 1 . Translating ancient chronology into modern times is a labor-intensive task, so special tables were compiled, which historians use.

Why is there no information about the calling of the Varangians to Rus' - such an important historical event - in European chronicles, where this fact would certainly be focused on? N.I. Kostomarov also noted another mysterious fact: not a single chronicle that has reached us contains any mention of the struggle between Rus' and Lithuania in the twelfth century - but this is clearly stated in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” Why are our chronicles silent? It is logical to assume that at one time they were significantly edited.

Later, his drafts were found, which contain the following phrase:

Italian historian Mavro Orbini in his book " Slavic kingdom", published back in 1601, wrote:

In working on his book, Orbini used almost three hundred sources, of which we know no more than twenty - the rest disappeared, disappeared, or perhaps were deliberately destroyed as undermining the foundations of the Norman theory and casting doubt on the Tale of Bygone Years.

Several years ago, for the first time in Russia, the historical study “Sacred Rus'” by Yuri Petrovich Mirolyubov, a Russian emigrant historian who died in 1970, was published. He was the first to notice "Isenbek boards" with the text of the now famous Veles book. In his work, Mirolyubov cites the observation of another emigrant, General Kurenkov, who found the following phrase in an English chronicle: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no decoration in it... And they went overseas to foreigners.” That is, an almost word-for-word coincidence with the phrase from “The Tale of Bygone Years”!

This phrase from the English chronicle, which fell into his hands through his wife, as Mirolyubov believed, was used by Vladimir Monomakh to substantiate his claims to the grand-ducal throne. Court chronicler Sylvester, respectively "corrected" Russian chronicle, laying the first stone in the history of the Norman theory. From that very time, perhaps, everything in Russian history that contradicted the “calling of the Varangians” was destroyed, persecuted, hidden in inaccessible hiding places.

It was from this record that the Norman theory of the origin of Rus' sprouted, degrading the dignity of the Russian people. But let's read it carefully. After all, it turns out to be absurd: the Novgorodians drove the Varangians overseas, did not give them tribute - and then immediately turned to them with a request to own them!

Where is the logic?

Known from several editions and lists with minor deviations in the texts introduced by copyists. Was compiled in Kyiv.

The period of history covered begins with biblical times in the introductory part and ends with 1117 (in the 3rd edition). The dated part of the history of the Old Russian state begins in the summer of 6360 of Emperor Michael (852).

The name of the collection gave rise to the first phrase “The Tale of Bygone Years...” or in part of the lists “Behold the Tale of Bygone Years...”

History of the creation of the chronicle

The author of the chronicle is listed in the Khlebnikov list as the monk Nestor, a famous hagiographer at the turn of the 11th-12th centuries, a monk of the Kiev Pechersk Monastery. Although earlier lists omitted this name, researchers of the 18th-19th centuries considered Nestor the first Russian chronicler, and the Tale of Bygone Years the first Russian chronicle. The study of chronicles by the Russian linguist A. A. Shakhmatov and his followers showed that there were chronicle collections that preceded the Tale of Bygone Years. It is now recognized that the first original edition of the Tale of Bygone Years by Monk Nestor has been lost, and modified versions have survived to this day. At the same time, none of the chronicles contains any indication of where exactly the Tale of Bygone Years ends.

The problems of sources and structure of PVL were developed in most detail at the beginning of the 20th century in the works of Academician A. A. Shakhmatov. The concept he presented still plays the role of a “standard model”, on which subsequent researchers rely or argue with it. Although many of its provisions have often been subject to quite justified criticism, it has not yet been possible to develop a concept of comparable importance.

The second edition is read as part of the Laurentian Chronicle (1377) and other lists. The third edition is contained in the Ipatiev Chronicle (the oldest lists: Ipatiev (XV century) and Khlebnikov (XVI century)). In one of the chronicles of the second edition, under the year 1096, an independent literary work was added, “The Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh,” dating back to 1117.

Nikon, Nestor, others unknown, Public Domain

According to Shakhmatov’s hypothesis (supported by D. S. Likhachev and Ya. S. Lurie), the first chronicle collection, called The most ancient, was compiled at the metropolitan see in Kyiv, founded in 1037. The source for the chronicler was legends, folk songs, oral stories of contemporaries, and some written hagiographic documents. The oldest code was continued and supplemented in 1073 by the monk Nikon, one of the founders of the Kyiv Pechersk Monastery. Then in 1093 the abbot of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery John was created Initial arch, which used Novgorod records and Greek sources: “Chronograph according to the Great Exposition”, “Life of Anthony”, etc. The initial code was fragmentarily preserved in the initial part of the Novgorod first chronicle of the younger edition. Nestor revised the Initial Code, expanded the historiographical basis and brought Russian history into the framework of traditional Christian historiography. He supplemented the chronicle with the texts of treaties between Rus' and Byzantium and introduced additional historical legends preserved in oral tradition.

According to Shakhmatov, Nestor wrote the first edition of the Tale of Bygone Years in the Kiev Pechersk Monastery in 1110-1112. The second edition was created by Abbot Sylvester in the Kiev Vydubitsky St. Michael's Monastery in 1116. Compared to Nestor's version, the final part was revised. In 1118, the third edition of the Tale of Bygone Years was compiled on behalf of the Novgorod prince Mstislav Vladimirovich.

The history of the Russian land dates back to the time of Noah. His three sons divided the Earth:

Sim got the east: Bactria, Arabia, India, Mesopotamia, Persia, Media, Syria and Phenicia.
Ham got the south: Egypt, Libya, Mauritania, Numidia, Ethiopia, but also Bithynia, Cilicia, Troas, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Cyprus, Crete, Sardinia.
Japheth (slav. Afet) got the north-west: Armenia, Britain, Illyria, Dalmatia, Ionia, Macedonia, Media, Paphlagonia, Cappadocia, Scythia and Thessaly.

The descendants of Japheth are the Varangians, Germans, Rus', Swedes (Old Slavic Swedes). In the beginning, humanity constituted a single people, but after the Babylonian pandemonium, “Noriki, who are Slavs,” emerged from the tribe of Japheth. The original ancestral home of the Slavs is the banks of the Danube River in the region of Hungary, Illyria and Bulgaria. As a result of the aggression of the Wallachians, part of the Slavs went to the Vistula (Poles), and the other to the Dnieper (Drevlyans and Polyana), to the Dvina (Dregovichi) and Lake Ilmen (Slovenians). The settlement of the Slavs dates back to the time of the Apostle Andrew, who visited the Slavs on Ilmen. The Polyans founded Kyiv and named it in honor of their prince Kiy. Other ancient Slavic cities are Slovenian Novgorod and Krivichi Smolensk. Then, under King Heraclius, the Danube Slavs experienced an invasion of the Bulgarians, Ugrians, Obras and Pechenegs. However, the Dnieper Slavs became dependent on the Khazars.

The first date mentioned in the chronicle is 852 (6360), when the Russian land began to be called, and the Rus first sailed to Constantinople. In 859, Eastern Europe was divided between the Varangians and Khazars. The first took tribute from the Slovenians, Krivichi, Vesi, Meri and Chud, and the second took tribute from the Polyans, Northerners and Vyatichi.

An attempt by the Northern Slavs to get rid of the power of the overseas Varangians in 862 led to civil strife and ended with the calling of the Varangians. The Russian land was founded by three brothers Rurik (Ladoga), Truvor (Izborsk) and Sineus (Beloozero). Soon Rurik became the sole ruler of the country. He founded Novgorod and installed his governors in Murom, Polotsk and Rostov. A special Varangian state was formed in Kyiv, led by Askold and Dir, which harassed Byzantium with raids.

In 882, Rurik's successor, Prince Oleg, captured Smolensk, Lyubech and Kyiv, uniting the two Russian-Varangian states. In 883, Oleg conquered the Drevlyans, and in 884-885 he conquered the Khazar tributaries Radimichi and northerners. In 907, Oleg undertook a major sea voyage on boats to Byzantium, which resulted in an agreement with the Greeks.

After Oleg's death from a snake bite, Igor began to reign, who fought with the Drevlyans, Pechenegs and Greeks. The Rus were originally overseas Varangians, but gradually merged with the glades, so the chronicler could say that the glades are now called Rus. The money of the Rus was hryvnia, and they worshiped Perun.

Igor was killed by the rebellious Drevlyans, and his throne was inherited by his wife Olga, who, with the help of the Varangian governors Sveneld and Asmud, brutally took revenge, killing over 5 thousand Drevlyans. Olga ruled as regent for her son Svyatoslav. Having matured, Svyatoslav conquered the Vyatichi, Yasov, Kasogs and Khazars, and then fought on the Danube against the Greeks. Returning from one of his campaigns against the Greeks, Svyatoslav was ambushed by the Pechenegs and died.

From Svyatoslav the princely throne passed to Yaropolk, whose reign was complicated by civil strife. Yaropolk defeated his brother and the ruler of the Drevlyan Oleg, but was killed by the Varangians of his other brother Vladimir. Vladimir first sent away the Varangians, unified the pagan pantheon, but then adopted Christianity. During his reign there were wars with the Poles, Yatvingians, Vyatichi, Radimichi and Volga Bulgars.

After the death of Vladimir, Svyatopolk began to reign in Kyiv. For the cruel reprisal against his brothers he was nicknamed the Accursed. He was overthrown by his brother Yaroslav. The opposition to the new prince was formed by the ruler of Tmutarakan Mstislav. After the end of the strife, Yaroslav built stone walls in Kyiv and the Cathedral of St. Sofia. After the death of Yaroslav, the Russian land fell apart again. In Kyiv Izyaslav ruled, in Chernigov Svyatoslav, in Vladimir Igor, in Pereyaslavl Vsevolod, in Tmutarakan Rostislav. In the strife, Vsevolod gained the upper hand. After Vsevolod, Kiev was ruled by Svyatopolk, who was replaced by Vladimir Monomakh.

Christianity in The Tale of Bygone Years

The Tale of Bygone Years imbued with Christian motifs and allusions to the Bible, which is quite natural, given that its author was a monk. One of the central places of the work is the choice of faith made by Prince Vladimir. He chose Greek-style Christianity, which was distinguished by communion with wine and bread, and not wafers, like the Germans. The foundations of the Christian faith (in the form of a retelling of the book of Genesis and the Old Testament history before the division of the kingdom of Israel) are presented to Vladimir by a certain philosopher who, among other things, mentions the fall of the elder angel Satanael on the 4th day of creation. God replaced Satanael with Michael. The Old Testament prophets (Mal. 2:2, Jer. 15:1, Ezek. 5:11) are mentioned to prove the end of the Israeli mission (v. rejection of Judaism). In 5500 from the creation of the world, Gabriel appeared to Mary in Nazareth and announced the incarnation of God, who was born as Jesus during the years of King Herod (Art. Tsar Zhidovesk), having reached the age of 30 and was baptized in the Jordan River by John. Then he gathered 12 disciples and healed the sick. Out of envy, he was handed over to crucifixion, but was resurrected and ascended. The meaning of the incarnation was redemption from the sin of Adam.

God is “three entities”: Father, Son and Holy Spirit ( one deity of three faces). It is curious that in relation to the persons of the Trinity, which to separate without separateness, and to copulate inseparably, the term is used obscene. Historians since the 18th century have been interested in the question of why, according to the Tale of Bygone Years, Kagan Vladimir Svyatoslavovich, who baptized Rus', allegedly read a rather strange Creed at his own baptism, and why this creed was reproduced by the monk Nestor. According to him, Vladimir said: “The Son is subsubstantial and co-existent with the Father...” Subsubstantial, and not consubstantial, as is stated in the Orthodox Nicene and Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creeds. This could be a reflection of the fact that the Arians of Rus', unlike neighboring Khazaria, did not convert to Nestorianism, Judaism and Orthodoxy until 988 and continued to remain the powerful force on which Vladimir wanted to rely in the fight against paganism. But it could also be simply a slander against Vladimir in order to prevent his canonization. God has at will save creature. For this God accepts flesh And pupil and dies truly ( not by daydreaming) and also truly resurrects and ascends to heaven.

Also, the Christianity of the Tale prescribes the veneration of icons, the cross, relics and sacred vessels, support of church tradition and the adoption of seven councils: the 1st Nicaea (against Arius), Constantinople (for the consubstantial Trinity), Ephesus (against Nestorius), Chalcedon, Second Constantinople (against Origen, but for the divine humanity of Christ), 2nd Nicene (for the veneration of icons).

God is in heaven, sitting on a throne in ineffable Light, surrounded by angels whose nature is invisible. Demons oppose him rabble, krilati, people with a tail), whose abode is the abyss.

The meaning of the baptism of Rus' in the chronicle is revealed as deliverance from idolatry, ignorance and devilish charms. After death, the righteous instantly go to heaven, becoming intercessors for their people.

After baptism in Korsun, Vladimir ordered the people to be baptized in the Dnieper and wooden churches to be built. One of the first was the Church of St. Basil, erected on the site of the temple of Perun. There were also churches of the Virgin Mary, St. Sophia, St. apostles, St. Peter, St. Andrew, St. Nicholas, St. Fedora, St. Dmitry and St. Mikhail. In churches decorated with icons, vessels and crosses, liturgies, prayers and readings were performed euangel. Those who were baptized were required to wear crosses. The Annunciation, Ascension, Dormition of the Virgin Mary and the day of the holy martyrs Boris and Gleb were especially celebrated. The 40-day fast on the eve of the Resurrection of the Lord played an important role. The head of a single church was priests clothed in vestments, bishops stood above the priests, and the metropolitan was the spiritual head of Russian Christians. The first monastery on Russian soil was the Pechersky Monastery, consisting of the brethren of the Monkmen living in their cells, led by the abbot.

Sources and insert stories

Abbreviations: N1L - Novgorod First Chronicle. N4L - Novgorod fourth chronicle. S1L - Sofia First Chronicle, VoskrL - Resurrection Chronicle. PSRL - Complete collection of Russian chronicles. PVL 1999 - The Tale of Bygone Years. /prep. text, trans., art. and comment. D. S. Likhacheva; ed. V. P. Adrianova-Peretz. - St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1999.

Texts of folklore origin

The story of Oleg's death from a horse (under 912). Not in N1L.
The story of Olga's revenge on the Drevlyans (under 945-946). Only a few words in the Nikon Chronicle.
A story about a young man and a Pecheneg, under 992. Not in N1L.
Siege of Belgorod by the Pechenegs, under 997. Not in N1L.

Documentary sources

Treaty of 912. Not in N1L.
Treaty of 945. Not in N1L and in the Nikon Chronicle.
Treaty of 971. Not in N1L.

Brief extracts from the history of Byzantium and Bulgaria

852 - Year 6360, indicta 15. “Michael began to reign...”.
858 - Michael's campaign against the Bulgarians. Baptism of the prince and Bulgarian boyars. From “The Continuator of Amartol”, but it has no date.
866 - Askold and Dir's campaign against the Greeks, in the 14th year of Michael.
868 - “Basily began to reign.”
869 - “The whole Bulgarian land was baptized.”

All information below is from the “Continuator of Amartol”. In N1L they are all absent, in N4L they are all present.

887 - “Leon, the son of Vasily, who was called Leo, and his brother Alexander reigned, and they reigned for 26 years.” Missed in S1L.
902 - War of the Hungarians with the Bulgarians. In fact, the campaign took place in 893.
907 - Oleg's campaign against Byzantium.
911 - Appearance of a star in the west (Halley's Comet).
913 - “Constantine, son of Leon, began to reign.”
914 - Campaign of Simeon of Bulgaria to Constantinople. Not in N4L, S1L.
915 - Simeon captures Adrianople.
920 - “The Greeks have installed Tsar Roman” (in N4L and S1L more fully).
929 - Simeon's campaign against Constantinople. Peace be with Roman.
934 - Hungarian campaign against Constantinople. World.
942 - Simeon is defeated by the Croats and dies. Peter became the prince. News of the “Continuer of Amartol”, under 927.
943 - Hungarian campaign against Constantinople. Under 928 (1 indict).

Some important stories in the PVL (indicating the recording of these stories in the main chronicles)

"Chronicle of George Amartol". Extracts: a list of peoples and a story about the customs of peoples. Not in N1L.
A story about Andrew the First-Called’s visit to Rus'. Not in N1L.
A story about the origin of Slavic literacy (under 898). Not in N1L.
The story of Apollonius of Tyana from Amartol (under 912). Not in N1L.
A story about Olga's trip to Constantinople (under 955).
Praise to Olga (under 969).
A story about a Varangian and his son (no names, under 983).
Dispute about faith: the arrival of Muslims, Jews and Catholics (under 986).
"The Speech of a Philosopher."
A story about the campaign against Korsun.
The Creed, the Seven Councils and the Corruption of the Latins.
A story about the return from Korsun and the baptism of the people of Kiev.
Stories about the murder of Boris, the murder of Gleb, praise to Boris and Gleb.
Praise for the books under 1037. Not in N1L, N4L, S1L, VoskrL.
A story about the beginning of the Pechersk Monastery, under 1051. Not in N1L, N4L, S1L, VoskrL.
A story about signs in the present and past, with borrowings from the Chronograph according to the great exposition, under the year 1065.
Teaching about the executions of God, under the year 1068. Not in N4L, S1L, VoskrL.
Discussion about the cross that helped Vseslav, under 1068.
The story of the Magi and Jan, under 1071, and the continuation of the story of the Magi.
The story about the death of Theodosius of Pechersk and the monks of the monastery, under 1074. Not in N4L.
Discourse on the death of Izyaslav and brotherly love, under the year 1078. Not in N1L, N4L, S1L, VoskrL.
The story of the death of Yaropolk Izyaslavich, under 1086. Not in N1L, N4L.
The story of the transfer of the relics of Theodosius of Pechersk, his predictions and praise to him, under 1091. Not in N1L, N4L, S1L.
Teaching about the executions of God, under 1093. Not in N1L, N4L, S1L, VoskrL.
A story about the Polovtsian raid on Kyiv and the monastery, under 1096. Not in N1L, N4L, S1L.
Extract about tribes from Methodius of Patar and the story of Gyuryata Rogovich. Not in N1L, N4L, S1L.
The story of the blinding of Vasilko and subsequent events, under 1097. Not in N1L, N4L.
A story about the campaign against the Polovtsians in 1103. Not in N1L, N4L, S1L.

Stories from the editorial office of the Ipatiev Chronicle

Discourse on angels with quotations from David, Epiphanius and Hippolytus. Not in other chronicles.
Campaign of 1111 against the Polovtsians.
A story about a trip to Ladoga, Slavic and ancient gods. Not in other chronicles.
A story about the transfer of the relics of Boris and Gleb. Not in other chronicles.

Quotes

Quotes from the Ipatiev list of “The Tale of Bygone Years.”

On the settlement of the Slavs in Rus' after their departure from the Danube in ancient undated times:

... the same Slovenes · who came along the Dnieper · and the drug route Polina · and the friends of Derevlyne · who rode in the forests · and the friends who rode between the Pripetya and the Dvina · and the drug route Dregovichi · and the other people who sat on the Dvina · and ѧ Polochans · river rad . It will also flow into the Dvina · in the name of Polot · and also nicknamed Polotsk. The word is gray near the lake of Ilmer · and nicknamed by its own name · and made the city · and named Novgorod · and the friends are sitting on the Desna · and along the Semi and along the Sul · and the drug chain of the North · and thus the Slovenian language dissolved. that’s also the nickname Slovenian gramota...

About the calling of the Varangians led by Rurik in 862:

In lѣⷮ҇. ҂ѕ҃. t҃. o҃ ⁘ and expelled Varѧgy overseas. and did not give them tribute. and more often you will feel better about yourself. and there would be no truth in them. and the family rose up to roⷣ. and there was a conflict in nothing. and fight for yourself as often as possible. and we will look for the good fortune in ourselves. whoever would rule over us and destroy us. by right. going overseas to Vargoⷨ҇. to Rus'. This is a good name. you are Varⷽ҇gy Rus'. All these friends are called Sveje. Friends of Jermani. English. ini and Gothe. tacos and si rkosh. Rus. Chud. Slovenia. Krivichi. and our whole land is great. and ѡbilna. but there are no people in it. let you go princes and lead us. and elected. three brothers. with your birth. and walked around all of Rus'. and came to Sloven first. and cut down the mountain of Ladoga. and the gray elders in Ladoza Rurik. and others Sineis on Belѣezer. and the third Truvor in Izborsk. and ѿ those Varѧg. nicknamed Ruska of the earth.

Criticism

Criticism of the beginning of this chronicle is present in Karamzin’s “History of the Russian State”. In particular, he questions the fact that in 862, according to the chronicle, the Slavs first expelled the Varangians from their lands, and then a few months later invited their princes to rule Novgorod. Karamzin claims that the Slavs, due to their warlike nature, could not do this. He also doubts the brevity of the narrative about the times of Prince Rurik - Karamzin concludes that Nestor bases the beginning of the chronicle solely on dubious oral legends.

We draw information about early Russian history from chronicles. What, exactly, do we know about them? To this day, researchers cannot come to a consensus about both their authorship and their objectivity.

Who is author?

For people who do not delve deeply into history, there is only one chronicler - Nestor, a Monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery. The consolidation of this status for him was facilitated by his canonization as a saint under the name Nestor the Chronicler. However, this monk as the author of the “Tale of Bygone Years” is mentioned only in one of its later (16th century) lists, and besides the “Tale” there are many other chronicle texts created in different centuries and in different, far distant places. friend, places.

Nestor alone could not have been torn apart in time and space to write them all. So, in any case, he is just one of the authors.

Who are the others? The creator of the Laurentian Chronicle is listed as the monk Lavrenty, the Trinity Chronicle is attributed to the monk of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Epiphanius the Wise. And in general, judging by the fact that almost all the chronicles were kept in monasteries, they owe their origin to church people.

However, the style of writing some texts gives reason to look for authors in a secular environment. For example, in the Kyiv Chronicle, very little attention is paid to church issues, and the language is as close as possible to the folk language: common vocabulary, the use of dialogues, proverbs, quotes, pictorial descriptions. The Galician-Volyn Chronicle contains many special military words and is clearly aimed at expressing certain political ideas.

Where is the original?

The fact that all chronicles are known to us in lists (copies) and editions (editions) does not simplify the search for authors. In no collection in the world will you find “The Tale of Bygone Years,” written by Nestor’s hand at the turn of the 11th-12th centuries. There is only the Laurentian list of the 14th century, Ipatievsky - of the 15th century, Khlebnikovsky - of the 16th century, etc.

According to the philologist and historian A. A. Shakhmatov, he merely revised the Initial Code of 1093 of the abbot of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery John and supplemented it with the texts of Russian-Byzantine treaties and legends that came to him in the oral tradition.

John, in turn, supplemented the arch of the monk Nikon. And that version had its predecessor - the Most Ancient Code of the mid-11th century. But no one can give one hundred percent guarantee that it is not based on another, more ancient text.

This is the essence of the Russian tradition of chronicle writing. Each subsequent scribe uses old manuscripts, oral traditions, songs, eyewitness accounts and compiles a new, more complete, from his point of view, collection of historical information. This is clearly visible in the “uneven” Kyiv Chronicle, in which the abbot of the Vydubitsky Monastery, Moses, melted down the texts of authors of very different levels of education and talent.

Why do the chronicles contradict each other?

The answer to this question flows smoothly from the previous one. Since there are a lot of chronicles, their lists and editions (according to some sources, about five thousand), their authors lived at different times and in different cities, did not have modern methods of transmitting information and used sources available to them, it was difficult even unintentionally to avoid some inaccuracies.

What can we say about the desire to “pull the blanket over yourself” and present this or that event, city, ruler in a favorable light...

Before this, we touched on issues related to the history of the chronicles themselves, but there are many mysteries in their content.

Where did the Russian land come from?

The Tale of Bygone Years begins with this question. However, even here there are reasons for interpretation and scientists still cannot come to a consensus.

On the one hand, it seems to be said quite clearly: “And they went overseas to the Varangians, to Rus'.<...>The Chud, the Slovenians, the Krivichi and all said to the Russians: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it. Come reign and rule over us.” And three brothers were chosen with their clans, and took with them all of Rus', and came<...>And from those Varangians the Russian land was nicknamed.”

The Norman theory of the origin of the state of Rus' - from the Varangians - is based on this passage.

But there is another fragment: “... we, Rus', are from the same Slavs... And the Slavic people and the Russians are one, after all, they were called Russia from the Varangians, and before there were Slavs; although they were called glades, their speech was Slavic,” according to which it turns out that, although we got our name from the Varangians, we were a single people even before them. This - anti-Norman, or Slavic - hypothesis was adhered to by M.V. Lomonosov and V.N. Tatishchev.

To whom did Vladimir Monomakh write his “Teaching”?

“The Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh” is part of the “Tale of Bygone Years” and contains three parts: a teaching to children, an autobiographical story and a letter, the addressee of which is usually the prince’s brother, Oleg Svyatoslavovich. But why include personal correspondence in a historical document?

It is worth noting that Oleg’s name is not mentioned anywhere in the letter, and the content of the text is of a penitential nature.

Perhaps by retelling this complex story with the brother who killed his son, Monomakh wanted to show a public example of humility and forgiveness, rhyming with the first part. But on the other hand, this text is included only in one of the lists of the “Tale” and was clearly not intended for a large number of eyes, so some scientists consider this a personal written confession, preparation for the Last Judgment.

Who wrote “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” and when?

Disputes about the origin of the “Word” began immediately after its discovery by Count A. I. Musin-Pushkin at the end of the 18th century. The text of this literary monument is so unusual and complex that its authorship has not been attributed to anyone: Igor himself, Yaroslavna, Vladimir Igorevich and other princes or non-princes; fans of this campaign and, conversely, those who condemned Igor’s adventure; the name of the author was “deciphered” and isolated from the acrostics. So far - to no avail.

The same goes for writing time. Did the time of the events described coincide with the time when they were described? Historiographer B. A. Rybakov considered “The Lay” almost a report from the scene of action, and B. I. Yatsenko moved the date of its creation ten years further, since the text mentions events that were not known in the year of the campaign - 1185 th. There are also many intermediate versions.

Where is Kitezh-grad located?

The legend of Kitezh, the “Russian Atlantis,” has come to us in the literary adaptation of the Old Believers - in a monument called “The Book of the Verb Chronicler.” According to it, this city was built by Prince Georgy Vsevolodovich, and then, during the attack of Batu Khan, it went under water. Most agree that this “earthly paradise” is hidden in Lake Svetloyar in the Nizhny Novgorod region, but some researchers move the desired point on the map either closer to Suzdal (after the name of the village of Kidekshi that was located here), or to Yaroslavl.