Russian chronicles are the main written historical source on the history of Russia before Peter the Great. For the first time, historical records began to be kept in Kyiv in the 1st half. XI century, then for many centuries they were conducted continuously, periodically taking shape in separate annals (while only the centers of their creation changed). The only center of Russian chronicle writing that has existed throughout its history is Veliky Novgorod. Chronicles were kept in the form of weather records, each of which began with the words “In summer”. A large number of various annalistic monuments have survived to our time. In the literature, the number 5000 was called, but it is clearly arbitrary, since not all works have yet been taken into account.

Russian chronicle writing at the very first stage of history reached one of its peaks due to the fact that such authors as Metropolitan Hilarion and monk Nestor took part in the creation of chronicles, who laid the foundations of Russian history, literature and philosophy. At the initial stage, the most significant annalistic code was created - the Tale of Bygone Years. A type of Russian chronicle was formed with its obligatory element - a weather record. And most importantly, the concept of the Russian land, the homeland of all Eastern Slavs, has received a clear definition.

Chronicles as a historical source are very complex objects of research because of their volume (manuscripts in folio of 300 or more sheets), composition (they include teachings, words, lives, stories, letters, legislative acts, etc.) and the form in which they have come down to us (all stages of chronicle writing in the 11th-13th centuries are represented by manuscripts that originate no earlier than the 14th century).

When using chronicle material for various characteristics and constructions, it must be remembered that any chronicle news requires a preliminary analysis based on modern textual criticism. The practice of analysis shows that chronicle news can be both a reflection of reality recorded in writing, and an idea of ​​​​this reality, a product of fantasy or a mistake of one or another chronicler, or a deliberate distortion of events, which occurs quite often. Chronicle monuments were created on the basis of various ideological attitudes and views. The outlook and recording of events completely depended on the social position of the chronicler, his worldview and education.

The main thing in the analysis of chronicle news is knowledge of the history of the text of the chronicle, which allows you to have a clear idea of ​​the time and circumstances of the appearance of this news. Not all researchers have to perform preliminary painstaking work on the analysis of each annalistic news, but it is necessary to know and be able to use the work of specialists on this topic. First of all, the works of the brilliant Russian scientist A.A. Shakhmatov, who, on the basis of various methods of analyzing the chronicle text, restored in in general terms history of Russian chronicle writing in the 11th-16th centuries. and showed the complexity of chronicle material as a historical source. Thanks to A.A. Shakhmatov and many generations of domestic researchers, the grandiose picture of the history of Russian chronicle writing became clear. Following the works of A.A. Shakhmatov and, thus, behind the Russian chroniclers, you become a witness to the development of the Russian worldview, ideology and national identity.

Each of the chroniclers of the 11th-18th centuries, introducing weather news into the chronicle he created, thereby contributed to the formation of Russian self-consciousness. The role of church representatives in this centuries-old process is indisputable: monks and priests, abbots and sexton, often without indicating their names, created the rules for the earthly life of Russian people, sometimes embodied in refined ideological postulates that remain relevant in our time. The phrase "Russian land", which appeared for the first time under the pen of the Kiev chronicler of the 11th century, is a sacred concept for every Russian person. We perceive our past and present, everything that happens around us and in the world through the prism of our written history, which is based on chronicles. Russian chronicles are our sacred books, knowledge of them is obligatory for every citizen of Russia.

Historiography. Russian chronicle writing has been studied since the 18th century; several thousand special studies have been devoted to it. Briefly, the history of the study of chronicles can be presented as follows. In the XVIII century. the first small-scale studies of such scientists as G.F. Miller, M.V. Lomonosov, V.N. Tatishchev. From the same time, individual chronicles began to be published, the choice of which was most often random. The main issue of the history of Russian chronicle writing, developed by researchers of the XVIII - first half of XIX centuries, there was a question about Nestor the chronicler. IN this time the work of many "decades" of A.-L. Schlozer "Nestor" (translation into Russian: Ch. I-III. St. Petersburg, 1809-1819). In 1820 P.M. Stroev, in the Preface to the publication of the Sophia Timepiece, made an observation that is very important for characterizing Russian chronicles: any Russian chronicle is not the fruit of the work of one author, but a compilation (mechanical combination of different texts). In the middle of the 19th century, in connection with the publication of the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles (published since 1841), work on the study of chronicles was intensified. At this time, monographs and articles by I.I. Sreznevsky, K.N. Bestuzheva-Ryumin, N.N. Yanisha, I.A. Tikhomirova and others. The scale of Russian chronicle writing and the complexity of the analysis of chronicle texts became obvious, general preliminary observations were made. But there was no main thing - a method that would make it possible to effectively cope with complex chronicle material. This method - comparative textological - was first widely used in the analysis of the chronicles of A.A. Chess. Aleksey Alexandrovich Shakhmatov (1864-1920) is a Russian philologist who devoted his whole life to studying the history of Russian chronicle writing along with other historical and philological topics. For the first time, he turned to chronicle writing, or rather, to the literary activity of the monk Nestor, while still a high school student. From that time until the end of his life, the theme of Nestor and Russian chronicle writing remained the main one for him. scientific topic. On the example of A.A. Shakhmatov, it becomes obvious that the most significant results in the analysis of chronicles can be obtained only on the basis of their long (lifelong) study. Applying the comparative textological method, A.A. Shakhmatov restored the history of the text of almost all the most significant chronicles and, on this basis, recreated a picture of the development of Russian chronicle writing in the 11th-16th centuries. It is safe to say that the works of A.A. Shakhmatova are the foundation of our knowledge of Russian chronicle writing. His work has shown convincingly that the basis of text analysis of any chronicle is the comparison of two or more chronicles throughout their texts, and not fragmentary random observations. When there is no material for comparison, then the task facing the researcher becomes much more complicated, and only those who have mastered the comparative textological method can cope with it. Unfortunately, the creative heritage of the brilliant scientist has not yet been fully published, and this despite the fact that there are no equals to him in historical and philological science. Of his numerous works, first of all, it is necessary to familiarize yourself with two monographs: "Investigations about the most ancient Russian chronicle codes" (St. Petersburg, 1908) and "Review of Russian chronicle codes of the XIV-XVI centuries." (M.; L., 1938. Here is a description of all the most significant Russian chronicles). Any publication of this scientist always contains a detailed and in-depth analysis of the issue to which it is devoted; when referring to his works, one can always find the right direction for further research. In the face of M.D. Priselkov and A.N. Nasonov, laid down by A.A. Shakhmatov, the scientific school for the study of chronicle found worthy successors. M.D. Priselkov published the first course of lectures on the history of Russian chronicle writing in the 11th-15th centuries. (1940, reprinted 1996). Pupil M.D. Priselkova - A.N. Nasonov, more actively than his teacher, conducted archaeographic research in domestic ancient repositories, which allowed him to introduce many new chronicle monuments into scientific circulation. One of the important achievements of A.N. Nasonov was his reasoned statement, which runs counter to the opinion of A.A. Shakhmatov, that Russian chronicle writing did not stop in the 16th century, but continued and developed in the 17th century. and only in the 18th century, having completely completed its history, did it smoothly move into the initial stage of its study. Works of domestic researchers of the 60-90s. XX century fully confirmed the correctness of A.N. Nasonov. The resumption of the activities of the Archaeographic Commission and the publication of the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles on the initiative of M.N. Tikhomirov led to the intensification of research in the field of chronicle writing. Among the researchers of the second half of the 20th century, the works of M.N. Tikhomirova, B.A. Rybakova, D.S. Likhachev, Ya.S. Lurie, V.I. Koretsky, V.I. Buganova and others.

If we summarize the results of almost 300 years of studying the history of Russian chronicle writing, we get the following picture: the activities of numerous chronicle centers are outlined in general terms, a large amount of factual material has been collected and published, and the preliminary history of chronicle writing for the entire period has been recreated. At the same time, almost all the main and even minor provisions of the history of chronicle writing remain controversial. We can say with confidence about the great work ahead, in which as many young researchers as possible should take part.

The monograph by V.I. Buganov "Domestic historiography of Russian chronicles. Review of Soviet Literature” (Moscow, 1975), where, as the title suggests, the focus is on the modern period, but the introduction gives a brief description of the studies of the 18th-19th centuries. Historiographic reviews are presented in various textbooks and manuals, for example: A.P. Prostein. Source Studies in Russia: The Epoch of Capitalism, Rostov-on-Don. 1991; Part I. Ch. 3. Historical source studies in the works of K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin; Part II. Ch. 3. A.A. Chess and the development of annalistic source studies in Russia; Part III. Ch. 1. Development of Russian chronicles (before A.A. Shakhmatov); A.L. Shapiro Historiography from ancient times to 1917. SPb., 1993. (Lecture 4. Historiography Kievan Rus. "The Tale of Bygone Years"; Lecture 5 Lecture 38 A.A. Chess). A particularly important place, as already noted, in the study of chronicles is occupied by the works of Academician A.A. Shakhmatova. After his death, colleagues and admirers published a whole volume dedicated to his activities: Izvestiya Otdeleniya russkoi yazyka i literatury: 1920. T. XXV. Petrograd, 1922. (special attention should be paid to the articles by M.D. Priselkov “Russian Chronicle in the Works of A.A. Shakhmatov” and A.E. Presnyakov “A.A. Shakhmatov in the Study of Russian Chronicles”).

Bibliography. There are several publications that provide an almost exhaustive bibliography. First of all: Bibliography of Russian Chronicle / Comp. R.P. Dmitrieva (M.; L-., 1962). This publication for the first time takes into account all the works on the annals (beginning with the publication of the Synopsis in 1674) up to 1958 inclusive. The book is accompanied by name and subject indexes, which should be actively used. The bibliography of selected foreign works according to Russian chronicle, compiled by Yu.K. Begunov, which takes into account works from 1549 to 1959 inclusive. In another edition of Yu.K. Begunov published a short continuation to his bibliography: Foreign Literature on Russian Chronicles for 1960-1962. // Chronicles and chronicles. 1980 V.N. Tatishchev and the study of Russian chronicles (M., 1981. S. 244-253). The work of R.P. Dmitrieva in compiling the bibliography was continued by A.N. Kazakevich: Soviet Literature on Chronicles (1960-1972) // Chronicles and Chronicles. 1976 M.N. Tikhomirov and chronicle studies (M., 1976, pp. 294-356). Two latest publications do not have pointers, which complicates their use. You can refer to broader thematic indexes, for example: Bibliography of works on Old Russian literature published in the USSR: 1958-1967. / Comp. N.F. Droblenkov. (Part 1. (1958-1962). L., 1978.; Part 2. (1963-1967) L., 1979). This bibliography has successive editions, all accompanied by excellent indexes.

Thus, a researcher of Russian chronicles, having at hand the above books, is in very favorable conditions for work. The only fundamental clarification needs to be made in relation to the first position of the bibliography of R.P. Dmitrieva: it should begin not with the edition of the Synopsis, but with the 1661 edition of the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon, where the Life of Nestor was first published, written especially for this edition. It was from this book that all biographical information about Nestor was taken.

Editions of annals, special and periodicals. Chronicles began to be published from the 18th century, while the choice of published texts was random, and the rules for publication are imperfect, so it is not possible to use editions of the 18th century. needed with caution. Equally imperfect were the rules for publishing texts when publishing the first volumes of a fundamental series called the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles - PSRL (publication began in 1841), so these volumes were at the beginning of the 20th century. reprinted. The publication continues to be published in our time, in total 41 volumes have been published (the list of the contents of the volumes is given at the end of the textbook).

A special edition (suspended) is dedicated to the Russian Chronicles: Chronicles and Chronicles. It has been published in Moscow since 1974 (first issue), there were four issues in total (1976, 1981, 1984). These collections contain various articles on the history of Russian chronicle writing, as well as small chronicle texts.

Among periodicals, the main one is a unique publication entirely devoted to the study of Old Russian literature - Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature (TODRL). Since the publication (at the initiative of A.S. Orlov) of the first volume in 1934, 52 volumes have been published. This publication is, to some extent, the successor to the magnificent pre-revolutionary publication - Izvestia of the Department of the Russian Language and Literature (IORYAS). Almost every volume of TODRL contains articles on chronicle writing, texts are published quite often (the indexes of articles and materials for the past decade are placed in tenfold numbers). In two more periodicals, considerable attention is paid to the study of chronicles - this is the Archeographic Yearbook (AE) and Auxiliary Historical Disciplines (VID).

Dictionaries. Every historian and philologist dealing with ancient Russian written culture should have a multi-volume dictionary prepared by the staff of the Sector of Old Russian Literature of the Institute of Russian Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Pushkin House), in three editions of which (letter L) characterizes almost all chronicles of Ancient Russia: Dictionary of Scribes and bookishness of Ancient Russia (Issue 1. XI - the first half of the XIV century. L., 1987; Issue 2. The second half of the XIV-XVI centuries. Part 2. L., 1989; Issue 3. XVII century. Ch. 2. St. Petersburg, 1993). This Dictionary (hereinafter: Dictionary of the Scribes) provides comprehensive information on almost all Old Russian works, including about the authors who, to one degree or another, took part in the creation of Russian chronicles. Each dictionary entry is accompanied by a bibliographic reference.

It is impossible to analyze chronicle texts without referring to linguistic dictionaries. Despite the superficial intelligibility of the texts of ancient Russian chronicles, the meaning or shade of a word and expression very often eludes the researcher, since over the centuries the semantic content of words has changed, and some words have fallen out of use. For example, modern man the expression "the chronicler wrote" is perceived unambiguously - he created an original work, which implies creativity on the part of the author. And in ancient times, the work of a scribe could also be called this expression.

The dictionary collected in the 19th century remains relevant: I.I. Sreznevsky. Materials for the dictionary of the Old Russian language. (T. I-III. St. Petersburg, 1893-1903 - republished in 1989). Two new dictionaries have been published: Dictionary of the Russian language of the XI-XVII centuries. (Issue 1. M., 1975 - edition not completed) and Dictionary of the Old Russian language of the XI-XIV centuries. (T. 1. M., 1988 - edition completed). In addition to these dictionaries, when working with Old Russian texts, one more edition should be consulted: Etymological dictionary Slavic languages: Proto-Slavic lexical fund. (Issue 1. M., 1974 - edition not completed). You can get acquainted with the complex issues of lexical analysis of chronicle texts from the books: A.S. Lvov Lexicon "The Tale of Bygone Years". (M., 1975); O.V. Curds The lexical composition of The Tale of Bygone Years (Kyiv, 1984).

Terminology. chronicle- a historical work with a weather account of events, covering in its presentation the entire history of Russia, represented by a manuscript (the volume is significant - more than 100 sheets). Chronicler- a small in volume (several tens of sheets) chronicle work, as well as the chronicle, covering in its presentation the entire history of Russia. To some extent, the chronicler is a brief synopsis of the chronicle that has not come down to us. Chronicler in ancient Russia was also called the author of the chronicle. chronicler- a very small (up to 10 sheets) chronicle work, dedicated either to the person who compiled it, or to the place of its compilation, while the weather of the presentation is preserved. chronicle fragment- part of any chronicle work (often found in ancient Russian collections). The significance of chroniclers and chronicle fragments for the history of Russian chronicle writing is significant, since they brought to us information about non-preserved chronicle works. The ancient Russian chroniclers themselves called their works differently: in the 11th century. Chronicler (for example, Chronicler of the Russian Land) or Vremennik, later the Tale of Bygone Years, Sofia Vremennik, Chronograph, sometimes chronicles did not have any name.

Any historiographic monument is created on the basis of the previous chronicle, and that, in turn, also on the basis of the previous one, thus, in the text of any chronicle, for example, the 15th century, more than a dozen stages of work are presented. The history of the chronicle text can be represented as a chain of such stages. The stages identified by researchers by analyzing the chronicle text are called chronicles. Annalistic code is a hypothetical stage of annalistic work. The most famous chronicle code - the Tale of Bygone Years (PVL), according to researchers, was compiled at the beginning of the 12th century. It should be referred to as follows: PVL according to the Laurentian Chronicle or the Ipatiev Chronicle, etc. In the literature there is no clear distinction between the concepts of chronicle and chronicle code, they are often mixed up. A.A. Shakhmatov, the best connoisseur of Russian chronicle writing, believed that such a distinction is necessary, it brings clarity and unambiguity. Chronicles and chronicles in the research literature are often given various definitions: episcopal, princely, metropolitan, grand ducal, official, oppositional, provincial, etc. All these definitions are conditional, they appeared as a result of a preliminary, often initial and incorrect, analysis of chronicle texts.

Each chronicle has its own individual name given to it on the basis of random signs: by the name of the owner or scribe of the chronicle, its location, etc. The names are simply incorrect and thus can be misleading, for example: the Nikon Chronicle is named after Patriarch Nikon, which was one of the lists of this chronicle, but Patriarch Nikon (years of life 1605-1681) had nothing to do with compiling this chronicle, since it was compiled in the 20s. 16th century Some chronicles have several names, for example, the most ancient Russian chronicle is called Novgorod (written in Novgorod), Haratein (according to the material on which it is written - on leather, on parchment), Novgorod Synodal (according to the place of storage in the Synodal Assembly), Novgorod the first senior edition (the title reflected the systematization of the Novgorod chronicles).

chronicle writing called the whole process of keeping annals, covering the period from the XI-XVIII centuries. Hence, the chronicle can be early, late, Kiev, Novgorod, etc. There were attempts to introduce the term "chronicle studies" - a part of source studies that studies chronicles, but this term was not widely used.

Techniques for identifying chronicles. Any chronicle is a collection of weather records; year after year, events that took place in Russia are recorded in it. How can you tell where one chronicler left off and another began? After all, there are very rare cases when the author indicates the end of his manuscript. Over a three-century period of studying the history of Russian chronicle writing, several methods have been found to resolve this issue. The main technique borrowed from classical philology and fully recognized after the works of A.A. Shakhmatova is a comparison of the texts of two chronicles with each other. When, for example, two or more chronicles, when compared, have the same text before 1110, and after that year each of them represents an individual text, then the researcher has the right to assert that all these chronicles reflected the annalistic code, which brought the presentation of events to 1110.

In addition to this, the main method, there are several more. At the end of the work of the chronicler and, thereby, chronicle may indicate the word "amen" at the end of the weather entry; "Amen" in ancient Russian written practice was placed at the end of a large literary work. For example, this word completed the weather record of 1093 in the chronicle, which was in the hands of V.N. Tatishchev and now lost. The scientist believed that one of the ancient Russian chroniclers finished his work here. In the works of A.A. Shakhmatov, this annalistic code of 1093 received a multivariate substantiation on the basis of a wide variety of data and firmly entered the history of early chronicle writing.

Sometimes the author or compiler of the annals informs in the form of a postscript about his participation in the work on the annals, but such cases are rare. For example, the earliest postscript belongs to the abbot of the Vydubitsky monastery (not far from Kyiv) Sylvester, it is dated 6624 (1116). Such postscripts require careful verification.

The chronicler, compiling his weather records, sometimes drew on non-chronicle sources for work, for example, the Chronicle of Georgy Amartol or Paremiynik, from which he very often borrowed various material in verbatim quotations to characterize persons or events. If such a source is identified and all borrowings from it are identified, then the last weather record with a quotation from there can serve as an indication of the approximate time the chronicle was compiled. In addition, the absence of borrowings from an extra-chronicle source in any chronicle serves as a serious and weighty argument in favor of its primacy in relation to the chronicle, where such borrowings are present. For example, A.A. Shakhmatov considered one of the arguments for the primacy of the Novgorod First Chronicle of the junior edition (N1LM) within the framework of the PVL in relation to the annals of Lavrentievskaya and Ipatievskaya considered the absence in N1LM of borrowings from the Chronicle of Georgy Amartol, which are in the last two chronicles.

In the chronicle text itself, there are also other direct or indirect indications of the end time of the work of one or another chronicler. For example, chronicles often contain various lists of the names of princes or metropolitans and calculations of years, which can be located anywhere in the text and can serve as an indication of the end time of the work of one or another chronicler. For example, under 6360 (852) there is a list of princes brought to the death of Prince Svyatopolk: “... and from the first year of Svyatoslav to the first year of Yaropolch, 28 years; and Yaropolk princes years ѣt 8; and Volodimer princes 37 years old; and Yaroslav the princes are 40 years old. The same from the death of Yaroslavl to the death of Svyatopolchi, 60 years. Consequently, this list indicates the year of the death of Prince Svyatopolk - 1113, as the year in which the chronicler worked or to which he brought his work, since the successor of Prince Svyatopolk on the Kiev table, Prince Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1125) is not mentioned in this list.

Often in chronicle texts there is an expression "to this day", which must be treated with increased attention, since under favorable conditions it can serve as an indirect indication of the time of the chronicler's work. For example, under 6552 (1044) we read: “In this summer, Bryachislav, the son of Izyaslavl, the grandson Volodymyr, the father of Vseslavl, and Vseslavl, his son, sat on his table, his mother gave birth from vlhvovanya. Mothers who gave birth to him, be stung to him on his head, saying to the wolf of his mother: “Behold the stung on him, but wear it to your belly”, even wear Vseslav to this day on yourself; for this sake of mercilessness there is shedding of blood. For the chronicler, judging by the expression “to this day”, Prince Vseslav is alive, therefore, knowing the date of the death of this prince, it can be argued that the chronicler worked until this year. The Laurentian Chronicle, from which the quote about the birth of Prince Vseslav was quoted, also reports the time of his death: “In the summer of 6609. Vseslav, prince of Polotsk, reposed, the month of April on the 14th day, at 9 o’clock in the afternoon, on Wednesday.” It turns out that this chronicler worked until 6609 (1101).

When a weather record (from the second half of the 11th century) begins with an indication not only of the year, but also of its indict, then such a double dating in the chronicle text formally indicates the end time of the chronicler's work. For example, the already mentioned year 1093, the presentation of the events of which ended in the list of V.N. Tatishchev with the word “amen”, begins as follows: “In the summer of 6601, indiction 1 summer ...” Such a double dating at the beginning of the weather record, as a method of determining the end time of the annalistic code, requires additional checks.

Sometimes the chronicler narrates in the first person, in such cases, especially on late material (XVI-XVII centuries), it becomes possible to determine the name of the author and, knowing his biography, find out the time of his work on the chronicle.

Quite often, researchers use the original style of writing to solve the problem of the time of the chronicler's work, but this method is one of the most unreliable, for all its outward persuasiveness.

The justification for the existence of one or another chronicle code and the time of its compilation should always be multivariate, only in this case the assumption will be convincing.

Determining the time of compiling the annalistic code is not an end in itself, but the foundation of a source analysis of the news that appeared at the stage of creating this annalistic code. A clear knowledge of the time of creation of the code and the range of news included by the author in the text is the first stage in the critical comprehension of the news. Let me explain this using the example of the news about the calling of the Varangians, headed by Prince Rurik (6372). A.A. Shakhmatov proved that it appears in Russian chronicles in the first decades of the 12th century, that is, at the stage of the creation of the PVL. In earlier chronicles, and them in the XI century. there were at least four, no mention of Rurik existed. Having found out the time of the appearance of the news about Rurik, we can thereby determine the circumstances of the appearance of such news, which will be discussed when characterizing the PVL.

You can get acquainted with various methods of analyzing the Old Russian text in the book: D.S. Likhachev. Textology. On the material of Russian literature of the X-XVII centuries. (2nd ed. L., 1987 - or any other edition). This book should be on the desk of every source historian.

Chronology. The basis of any historical work, as well as all historical science in general, is a chronology. There is no event outside of time, but if the time is determined incorrectly, then the characteristic of the event will also be distorted. In the Russian chronicles, chronological indications occupy a prominent place in the full sense, since each weather record begins with a date, the first letter of this indication - "B" is very often written in vermilion.

The chronology in Russia was Byzantine, the reference point was the conditional date of the creation of the world. For example, the year of publication of this manual is 2002 from the Nativity of Christ, in order to translate it into the chronology from the creation of the world, it is necessary to add 5508 years to the figure of this year, it will turn out 7510 from the creation of the world. Before the Peter the Great calendar reform, Russia used the Byzantine chronology, so one should not abuse the translation of ancient Russian chronology into modern one, since there are a number of nuances that must be followed in such translations. If the object of research is a written source of pre-Petrine Russia, then a double date must be indicated, for example: 6898 (1390)

New Year began in Ancient Russia in March, the so-called March year. The beginning of the year in March is often associated with the remnants of paganism in Russia, but the March year was widespread throughout Western Europe, since this month most often falls on the main Christian holiday - Easter. In addition, the March year does not have a clearly fixed beginning, unlike September and January, where the year begins on the 1st. In Byzantium, from where we borrowed the chronology, in the XI century. the September year, which began on September 1, was generally recognized, which was preserved in the school tradition of the beginning of the new academic year. In Russia, they began to switch to the September year in the first quarter of the 15th century. There was no decree or letter in this regard, in different centers written culture moved into different time, this process stretched for a quarter of a century. The simultaneous existence of different chronology systems led to confusion and errors in our chronology of the 11th-14th centuries.

In ancient Russia, in accordance with the Byzantine tradition, the year very often had a double designation: the year from the creation of the world was accompanied by an indication of the indict of this year. indict- the ordinal place of a given year in a 15-year cycle, the starting point of the indicts is the creation of the world, the indict begins with the beginning of the new year - September 1. In the Byzantine chronicles, the reckoning was quite often carried out only according to indicts; we have never had such a tradition. Finding out the indict of any year from the creation of the world is very simple: the number of the year must be divided by 15, the remainder obtained by separation will be the indict of this year. If the remainder is equal to 0, then the indict of the year will be - 15. In the Old Russian chronology, the year 2002 is designated as follows - 7510 of the indict of 10 years. Such a double dating of the year makes it possible to verify the correspondence of the year to its indict, inconsistencies of such indications are often found in the sources. It is sometimes quite difficult to find an explanation for such a mistake, since this requires the researcher to have deep and varied knowledge, most often from the field of auxiliary historical disciplines. Indictions disappear from use in the annals, at least by the end of the 15th century, but in the written tradition, most often monastic, the indication of indicts is also found in the 16th-17th centuries.

Each date of a written historical source must first of all be checked, since very often they are erroneous. For example, the first date of Russian history in the annals, 6360, contains an error: “In the summer of 6360, indiction 15, I will begin to reign for Michael, beginning to call Ruska the land ...” The indiction is indicated correctly, but Tsar Michael began to reign 10 years before this year. There are several explanations for this discrepancy, but they are unlikely to be definitive.

The names of the days of the week in ancient times were somewhat different, the main feature is associated with the name of Sunday: until the 16th century. Sunday was called a week (that is, to do nothing), hence - Monday, that is, the day after the week. In those days there was only one Sunday in the year - the day of Easter. The numerical designation of the day was often accompanied by an indication of the name of the saint whose memory was honored on this day. Double date designation allows you to check one indication through another. The saint's day is taken from the Saints. It should be remembered that the text of the Saints, like the text of any written monument, changed over time, for example, the circle of saints known to a Russian person in the 11th century was less complete than the circle of saints in the 15th century, and had some differences.

The dating of secular events up to the day appears in the annals from the 60s. XI century, accurate to the hour since the 90s. 11th century

More detailed information about Russian chronology can be found in the books: L.V. Cherepnin. Russian chronology. (M., 1944); N.G. Berezhkov. Chronology of Russian annals. (M., 1963); S.V. Tsyb. Old Russian chronology in The Tale of Bygone Years. (Barnaul, 1995).

In the annals there are references to various natural phenomena. All these references make it possible to check the Old Russian chronology, comparing it with the data of others. European countries or with astronomical data. Two books can be recommended on these issues: D.O. Svyatsky. Astronomical phenomena in Russian chronicles from a scientific-critical point of view. (St. Petersburg, 1915); E.P. Borisenkov, V.M. Pasetsky. extreme natural phenomena in Russian chronicles of the XI-XVII centuries. (L., 1983).

Manuscript. Any Russian chronicle, like most other written historical sources, has come down to us in manuscript, so it is necessary to get to know the following special disciplines as deeply as possible: archeography, codicology and paleography. At the same time, it is necessary to remember that it is necessary to hone the skill of working with a manuscript throughout one’s scientific activity, and in student years one should visit the Manuscript Departments of libraries as often as possible in order to create a so-called creative dialogue between a researcher and a manuscript. Without working with the original (in this case, with the manuscript), one cannot become a professional historian. The manuscript is the only reality for the historian; only through it can he enter the past. Depending on how deeply and carefully you analyze the written information of the original source, your scientific contribution to the question you are developing will be so well-reasoned. For a researcher, when analyzing a written historical source, everything speaks, in addition to the main thing - the content of the text: the color of the ink, the shade and arrangement of cinnabar letters and headings, erasures, density and layout of paper or parchment, format, binding, marks and corrections, lettering, handwriting and skill of the writer. For a historian, all knowledge about the manuscript is necessary, first of all, to solve the main issue - the dating of the manuscript, on the basis of which the entire subsequent analysis of its content unfolds. Chronicles, in the main, have come down to us in manuscripts written on paper, not parchment. Ever since the invention of paper in Europe in the 14th century. and until the middle of the XIX century. the paper was made by hand, which is why there are filigrees (watermarks) on the paper. Filigree dating of a manuscript is the most reliable method to date, but it requires thoroughness and thoroughness from the researcher: all the watermarks of the manuscript are taken into account, which are analyzed using all the albums published both here and in Europe. Modern Requirements to date, the filigree manuscripts are so large that it is proposed to create a new special discipline- filigree. Recommended literature: V.N. Shchepkin. Russian paleography. (M., 1967); History and paleography. (Sat: Issue 1 and 2. M., 1993).

Scheme of the ratio of the main chronicles according to M.D. Priselkov

stemma. The history of the text of the chronicle can be depicted graphically, in the form of a diagram, with the earlier stages of the history of the text most often at the top of the diagram, and the later ones below. These schemes are called stems. Examples of such schemes are presented in the manual, all of them are taken from various books on annals. Abbreviations in stems are partially disclosed in the list of abbreviations at the end of the manual.

periodization. The creation of any chronicle, the activity of any chronicle center is directly related to the political and partly economic life of Russia, therefore, the periodization of the history of Russian chronicle writing generally coincides with the periodization of Russian history from the 11th century to the 11th century. by the 18th century So, for example, the first stage in the history of Russian chronicle writing, which ended with the creation of a chronicle code - PVL, corresponds to the time of the formation of the Old Russian state with its center in Kyiv and its heyday, which it reached by the beginning of the 12th century. In the XIII century. in connection with the invasion of the Tatar-Mongol, chronicle centers in Kyiv, Pereyaslavl South, Chernigov cease their activities. In the XIII-XV centuries. chronicle centers arise in those principalities, more precisely, in the main cities of principalities that occupy or seek to occupy a leading place in political life country. From the end of the XV century. the position of Moscow as the capital of the new state determined its main place in the history of Russian chronicle writing, since that time all significant chronicle works have been created in Moscow. Each of the three periods in the history of Russian chronicle writing is devoted to a chapter of this manual.

Editions : The complete collection of Russian chronicles has been published since 1841, since then 41 volumes have been published, the list of all volumes is given at the end of the manual (pp. 504-505).

Literature: Kloss B.M., Lurie Ya.S. Russian chronicles of the XI-XV centuries. (Materials for description) // Guidelines for the description of Slavic-Russian manuscripts for the Consolidated catalog of manuscripts stored in the USSR. Issue. 2. Part 1. M., 1976. S. 78-139; Likhachev D.S. Russian chronicles and their cultural and historical significance. M.; L., 1947; Nasonov A.N. History of Russian Chronicle XI - early 18th century. Essays and research. M., 1969; Priselkov M.D. History of Russian Chronicle XI-XV centuries. 2nd ed. SPb., 1996; Tikhomirov M.N. Russian chronicle. M., 1979; Shakhmatov A.A. Review of Russian chronicles of the XIV-XVI centuries. M.; L., 1938.

Notes

. Priselkov M.D. History of Russian Chronicle XI-XV centuries. SPb., 1996. S. 22.

Pre-Mongol Rus in chronicles of the 5th-13th centuries. Gudz-Markov Alexey Viktorovich

Old Russian chronicle

Old Russian chronicle

The most important source of information in considering the history of Ancient Russia will be the annalistic code, which was created over several centuries by a galaxy of brilliant chroniclers. The basis of the later known annalistic codes of Russia is the code called "The Tale of Bygone Years".

Academician A. A. Shakhmatov and a number of scientists who studied the ancient Russian chronicle suggested such a sequence of creation and authorship of the Tale.

Around 997, under Vladimir I, possibly at the Tithes Cathedral Church in Kyiv, the oldest chronicle was created. At the same time, epics were born in Russia, singing Ilya of Muromets and Dobrynya.

In the XI century. in Kyiv they continued to keep a chronicle. And in Novgorod in the XI century. Ostromir Chronicle was created. A. A. Shakhmatov wrote about the Novgorod chronicle of 1050. It is believed that the Novgorod posadnik Ostromir was its creator.

In 1073, the hegumen of the Kiev Caves Monastery Nikon continued the chronicle and, apparently, edited it.

In 1093, Ivan, hegumen of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery, added to the vault.

The monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Nestor brought the history of Russia to 1112 and completed the code with the rebellious 1113.

Nestor was succeeded by the abbot of the Kiev Vydubitsky monastery Sylvester. He worked on the annalistic code until 1116, but ended it with the events of February 1111.

After 1136, the once united Russia broke up into a number of practically independent principalities. Along with the episcopal see, each principality wished to have its own chronicle. The chronicles were based on a single ancient code.

The most important for us will be compiled in the XIV century. Ipatiev and Lavrentiev chronicles.

The Ipatiev List is based on the Tale of Bygone Years, the events of which are brought up to 1117. Further, the list includes all-Russian news, while they are more related to the events that took place in 1118–1199. in Southern Russia. chronicler given period, is believed to have been the Kyiv hegumen Moses.

The third part of the Ipatiev List presents a chronicle of events that took place in Galicia and Volhynia up to 1292.

The Laurentian list was rewritten for the Grand Duke Dmitry Konstantinovich of Suzdal in 1377. In addition to the Tale, the events of which were brought to 1110, the list includes a chronicle outlining the history of the Rostov-Suzdal lands.

In addition to the two named lists, we will repeatedly resort to data from other, very numerous lists that make up the pantheon of monuments of ancient Russian chronicle writing. By the way, ancient Russian literature, including chronicles, is the richest and most extensive in Europe of the early Middle Ages.

The texts of the chronicle in Book Two, taken from the Ipatiev list, are given according to the publication: Complete collection of Russian chronicles, 1962, v. 2. If the given chronicle text is not taken from the Ipatiev list, its belonging is indicated specifically.

When presenting the events of ancient Russian history, we will adhere to the chronology adopted by the chroniclers, so as not to confuse the reader in numerical calculations. However, sometimes it will be pointed out that the dates given by the chronicler do not correspond to reality, if such a discrepancy occurs. New Year in Kievan Rus was celebrated in March, with the birth of a new moon.

But let's get down to ancient Russian history.