The most ancient Russian chronicle is called. Origin of the Chronicle

Byzantine chronicles and Russian chronicles The main sources on this topic are the “History” of Leo the Deacon, a Byzantine author of the second half of the 10th century, who described in detail the Russian-Bulgarian and Russian-Byzantine wars, the Byzantine chronicles of Skylitzes (XI century) and Zonara (XII century

The chronicle is a detailed account of specific events. It is worth noting that the chronicles of ancient Rus' are the main written source on the history of Russia in (pre-Petrine time). If we talk about the beginning of Russian chronicles, then it dates back to the 11th century - the period of time when historical records began to be made in the Ukrainian capital. According to historians, the chronicle period dates back to the 9th century.

Preserved lists and chronicles of ancient Rus'

The number of such historical monuments reaches about 5,000. The bulk of the chronicles, unfortunately, has not been preserved in the form of the original. Many good copies have survived, which are also important and tell interesting historical facts and stories. Also preserved are lists that represent certain narratives from other sources. According to historians, the lists were created in certain places, describing this or that historical event.

The first chronicles appeared in Rus' approximately from the 11th to the 18th centuries during the reign of Ivan the Terrible. It is worth noting that at that time the chronicle was the main type of historical narrative. The people who compiled the chronicles were not private figures. This work was carried out exclusively by order of secular or spiritual rulers, who reflected the interests of a certain circle of people.

History of Russian chronicles

More precisely, Russian chronicle writing has a complicated history. Everyone knows the chronicle “The Tale of Bygone Years,” where various treaties were highlighted, including treaties with Byzantium, stories about princes, the Christian faith, etc. Particularly interesting are chronicle stories, which are plot stories about the most significant events in the history of the fatherland. It is worth noting that the first mention of the chronicle about Moscow can also be attributed to the Tale of Bygone Years.

In general, the main source of any knowledge in Ancient Rus' is medieval chronicles. Today, in many Russian libraries, as well as in archives, you can see a large number of such creations. It is surprising that almost every chronicle was written by a different author. Chronicle writing has been in demand for almost seven centuries.

In addition, chronicle writing is a favorite pastime of many scribes. This work was considered godly, as well as spiritually beneficial. Chronicle writing can easily be called an integral element of ancient Russian culture. Historians claim that some of the first chronicles were written thanks to the new Rurik dynasty. If we talk about the first chronicle, it ideally reflected the history of Rus', starting from the reign of the Rurikovichs.

The most competent chroniclers can be called specially trained priests and monks. These people had a fairly rich book heritage, owned various literature, records of ancient stories, legends, etc. Also, these priests had almost all the grand ducal archives at their disposal.

Among the main tasks of such people were the following:

1. Creation of a written historical monument of the era;
2. Comparison of historical events;
3. Working with old books, etc.

It is worth noting that the annals of ancient Rus' are a unique historical monument containing a lot of interesting facts about specific events. Among the widespread chronicles, one can highlight those that told about the campaigns of Kiy - the founder of Kyiv, the travels of Princess Olga, the campaigns of the equally famous Svyatoslav, etc. The Chronicles of Ancient Rus' are the historical basis thanks to which many historical books have been written.

Video: SLAVIC CHRONICLE in CHARTERS

Read also:

• 

  The question of the origin of the state of Ancient Rus' worries many scientists to this day. On this subject, you can find a large number of scientifically based discussions, disagreements, and opinions. One of the most popular in our time is the Norman theory of the origin of Old Russian

• 

  Traditionally, petroglyphs are images on stone that were made in ancient times. It is worth noting that such images are distinguished by the presence of a special system of signs. In general, the petroglyphs of Karelia are a real mystery for many scientists and archaeologists. Unfortunately, scientists have not yet given

• 

  The origin of money is a very important and difficult issue that entails a lot of disagreement. It is worth noting that in Ancient Rus', at a certain stage of development, people used ordinary cattle as money. According to the oldest lists, in those years very often local residents

Great philosophers have often repeated that people who do not know their past have no future. You should know the history of your family, your people, your country, if only so that you don’t have to make the same discoveries and make the same mistakes.

Sources of information about past events include official state documents, records of religious, social, and educational institutions, preserved eyewitness accounts, and much more. Chronicles are considered the most ancient documentary source.

Chronicle is one of the genres of Old Russian literature, which existed from the 11th to the 17th centuries. At its core, it is a sequential presentation of significant events in history. The records were kept by year; in terms of volume and details of the presentation of the material, they could vary greatly.

What events deserved mention in the chronicles?

Firstly, these are turning points in the biography of Russian princes: marriage, the birth of heirs, the beginning of a reign, military exploits, death. Sometimes Russian chronicles described miracles occurring from the relics of deceased princes, such as Boris and Gleb, the first Russian saints.

Secondly, chroniclers paid attention to describing celestial eclipses, solar and lunar, epidemics of serious diseases, earthquakes, etc. Chroniclers often tried to establish a relationship between natural phenomena and historical events. For example, defeat in a battle could be explained by the special position of the stars in the sky.

Thirdly, ancient chronicles told about events of national importance: military campaigns, attacks by enemies, the construction of religious or administrative buildings, church affairs, etc.

Common features of famous chronicles

1) If you remember what a chronicle is, you can guess why this genre of literature received such a name. The fact is that instead of the word “year” the authors used the word “summer”. Each entry began with the words “In the summer,” followed by the year and a description of the event. If, from the chronicler’s point of view, nothing significant happened, then a note was written: “There was silence in the summer of XXXX.” The chronicler had no right to completely omit the description of a particular year.

2) Some Russian chronicles begin not with the emergence of the Russian state, which would be logical, but with the creation of the world. In this way, the chronicler sought to fit the history of his country into universal human history, to show the place and role of his homeland in his modern world. Dating was also carried out from the creation of the world, and not from the Nativity of Christ, as we do now. The interval between these dates is 5508 years. Therefore, the entry “In the summer of 6496” contains a description of the events of 988 - the Baptism of Rus'.

3) For work, the chronicler could use the works of his predecessors. But he not only included the materials they left behind in his narrative, but also gave them his own political and ideological assessment.

4) The chronicle differs from other genres of literature in its special style. The authors did not use any artistic devices to decorate their speech. The main thing for them was documentation and information content.

The connection between the chronicle and literary and folklore genres

The special style mentioned above, however, did not prevent chroniclers from periodically resorting to oral folk art or other literary genres. Ancient chronicles contain elements of legends, traditions, heroic epics, as well as hagiographic and secular literature.

Turning to the toponymic legend, the author sought to explain where the names of the Slavic tribes, ancient cities and the entire country came from. Echoes of ritual poetry are present in the description of weddings and funerals. Epic techniques could be used to depict the glorious Russian princes and their heroic deeds. And to illustrate the life of rulers, for example, the feasts they organize, there are elements of folk tales.

Hagiographic literature, with its clear structure and symbolism, provided chroniclers with both material and a method for describing miraculous phenomena. They believed in the intervention of divine forces in human history and reflected this in their writings. The authors used elements of secular literature (teachings, stories, etc.) to reflect and illustrate their views.

Texts of legislative acts, princely and church archives, and other official documents were also woven into the fabric of the narrative. This helped the chronicler to give the most complete picture of important events. What is a chronicle if not a comprehensive historical description?

The most famous chronicles

It should be noted that chronicles are divided into local, which became widespread during the times of feudal fragmentation, and all-Russian, describing the history of the entire state. The list of the most famous is presented in the table:

Until the 19th century, it was believed that “The Tale of Bygone Years” was the first chronicle in Rus', and its creator, monk Nestor, was the first Russian historiographer. This assumption was refuted by A.A. Shkhmatov, D.S. Likhachev and other scientists. “The Tale of Bygone Years” has not survived, but its individual editions are known from lists in later works - the Laurentian and Ipatiev Chronicles.

Chronicle in the modern world

By the end of the 17th century, the chronicles had lost their historical significance. More accurate and objective ways of recording events have emerged. History began to be studied from the standpoint of official science. And the word “chronicle” acquired additional meanings. We no longer remember what a chronicle is when we read the headings “Chronicles of life and work N”, “Chronicle of a museum” (theater or any other institution).

There is a magazine, a film studio, a radio program called “Chronicles,” and fans of computer games are probably familiar with the game “Arkham Chronicles.”

Most of the chronicles have not survived in the form of originals, but their copies and partial revisions have been preserved - the so-called lists, created in the 14th-18th centuries. By list is meant a “rewriting” (“copying”) from another source. These lists, based on the place of compilation or the place of the events depicted, are exclusively or predominantly divided into categories (original Kiev, Novgorod, Pskov, etc.). Lists of the same category differ from each other not only in expressions, but even in the selection of news, as a result of which the lists are divided into editions (editions). So, we can say: The original Chronicle of the southern edition (the Ipatievsky list and similar ones), the initial Chronicle of the Suzdal edition (the Lavrentievsky list and similar ones). Such differences in the lists suggest that the chronicles are collections and that their original sources have not reached us. This idea, first expressed by P. M. Stroev, now constitutes a general opinion. The existence in a separate form of many detailed chronicle legends, as well as the possibility of pointing out that in the same story stitchings from different sources are clearly indicated (bias mainly manifests itself in sympathy for one or the other of the warring parties) - further confirm this is an opinion.

Basic chronicles

Nestorov's list

There are also separate legends: “The Tale of the Murder of Andrei Bogolyubsky,” written by his follower (probably mentioned in it by Kuzmishch Kiyanin). The same separate legend should have been the story of the exploits of Izyaslav Mstislavich; at one point in this story we read: “I spoke the same word as before I heard it; the place does not go to the head, but the head to the place" From this we can conclude that the story about this prince was borrowed from the notes of his comrade-in-arms and interspersed with news from other sources; fortunately, the stitching is so clumsy that the parts can be easily separated. The part that follows the death of Izyaslav is dedicated mainly to the princes from the Smolensk family who reigned in Kyiv; Perhaps the source that the compiler mainly used is not devoid of connections with this family. The presentation is very close to “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” - as if a whole literary school had developed then. News from Kyiv later than 1199 are found in other chronicle collections (mainly from north-eastern Rus'), as well as in the so-called “Gustyn Chronicle” (latest compilation). In the “Suprasl Manuscript” (published by Prince Obolensky) there is a brief Kiev chronicle dating back to the 14th century.

Galician-Volyn chronicles

Closely connected with “Kievskaya” is “Volynskaya” (or Galician-Volynskaya), which is even more distinguished by its poetic flavor. It, as one might assume, was written at first without years, and the years were placed later and arranged very unskillfully. So, we read: “When Danilov came from Volodymyr, there was silence in the summer of 6722. In the summer of 6723, by God’s command, the princes of Lithuania were sent.” It is clear that the last sentence must be connected to the first, as indicated by the form of the dative independent and the absence in some lists of the sentence “there was silence”; therefore, two years, and this sentence are inserted after. The chronology is mixed up and applied to the chronology of the Kyiv Chronicle. Roman was killed in 1205, and the Volyn chronicle dates his death to 1200, since the Kiev chronicle ends in 1199. These chronicles were connected by the last compiler; was it not he who arranged the years? In some places there is a promise to tell this or that, but nothing is told; therefore, there are gaps. The chronicle begins with vague hints about the exploits of Roman Mstislavich - obviously, these are fragments of a poetic legend about him. It ends at the beginning of the 14th century and does not lead to the fall of the independence of Galich. For a researcher, this chronicle, due to its inconsistency, presents serious difficulties, but due to the detail of its presentation, it serves as precious material for studying the life of Galich. It is curious in the Volyn chronicle that there is an indication of the existence of an official chronicle: Mstislav Danilovich, having defeated the rebellious Brest, imposed a heavy fine on the inhabitants and in the letter adds: “and the chronicler described their king.”

Chronicles of North-Eastern Rus'

The chronicles of northeastern Rus' probably began quite early: from the 13th century. In the “Epistle of Simon to Polycarp” (one of the components of the Patericon of Pechersk), we have evidence of the “old chronicler of Rostov”. The first collection of the northeastern (Suzdal) edition that has survived to us dates back to the same time. His lists before the beginning of the 13th century are Radziwill, Pereyaslav-Suzdal, Lavrentievsky and Troitsky. At the beginning of the 13th century, the first two ceased, the rest differed from each other. The similarity up to a certain point and the difference further indicate a common source, which, therefore, extended to the beginning of the 13th century. News from Suzdal can be found earlier (especially in the Tale of Bygone Years); Therefore, it should be recognized that the recording of events in the land of Suzdal began early. We do not have purely Suzdal chronicles before the Tatars, just as we do not have purely Kyiv ones. The collections that have come down to us are of a mixed nature and are designated by the predominance of events in one or another area.

Chronicles were kept in many cities of the Suzdal land (Vladimir, Rostov, Pereyaslavl); but by many signs it should be recognized that most of the news was recorded in Rostov, which for a long time was the center of education in northeastern Rus'. After the invasion of the Tatars, the Trinity List became almost exclusively Rostov. After the Tatars, in general, the traces of local chronicles become clearer: in the Laurentian list we find a lot of Tver news, in the so-called Tver Chronicle - Tver and Ryazan, in the Sophia Vremennik and Resurrection Chronicle - Novgorod and Tver, in the Nikon Chronicle - Tver, Ryazan, Nizhny Novgorod, etc. All these collections are of Moscow origin (or at least for the most part); original sources - local chronicles - have not survived. Regarding the transition of news in the Tatar era from one area to another, I. I. Sreznevsky made an interesting discovery: in the manuscript of Ephraim the Syrian in 1377, he came across a note from a scribe who talks about the attack of Arapsha (Arab Shah), which took place in the year of writing. The story is not finished, but its beginning is literally similar to the beginning of the chronicle story, from which I. I. Sreznevsky correctly concludes that the scribe had the same legend in front of him, which served as material for the chronicler. From fragments partially preserved in Russian and Belarusian chronicles of the 15th-16th centuries, the Smolensk Chronicle is known.

Moscow Chronicles

The chronicles of northeastern Rus' are distinguished by the absence of poetic elements and rarely borrow from poetic legends. “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev” is a special work, only included in some collections. From the first half of the 14th century. in most of the northern Russian arches, Moscow news begins to predominate. According to I. A. Tikhomirov, the beginning of the Moscow Chronicle itself, which formed the basis of the vaults, should be considered the news of the construction of the Church of the Assumption in Moscow. The main vaults containing Moscow news are the “Sofia Vremennik” (in its last part), the Resurrection and Nikon Chronicles (also beginning with vaults based on ancient vaults). There is the so-called Lvov Chronicle, a chronicle published under the title: “Continuation of the Nestor Chronicle”, as well as “Russian Time” or the Kostroma Chronicle. The chronicle in the Moscow state increasingly acquired the significance of an official document: already at the beginning of the 15th century. the chronicler, praising the times of “that great Seliverst of Vydobuzhsky, who wrote unadornedly,” says: “our first rulers without anger commanded all the good and bad things that happened to be written.” Prince Yuri Dimitrievich, in his quest for the grand-ducal table, relied on old chronicles in the Horde; Grand Duke John Vasilyevich sent clerk Bradaty to Novgorod to prove to the Novgorodians their lies with the old chroniclers; in the inventory of the royal archive from the times of Ivan the Terrible we read: “black lists and what to write for the chronicler of modern times”; in the negotiations between the boyars and the Poles under Tsar Mikhail it is said: “and we will write this in the chronicler for future generations.” The best example of how carefully one must treat the legends of the chronicle of that time is the news of the tonsure of Solomonia, the first wife of Grand Duke Vasily Ioanovich, preserved in one of the chronicles. Based on this news, Solomonia herself wanted to take a haircut, but the Grand Duke did not agree; in another story, also judging by the solemn, official tone, we read that the Grand Duke, seeing the birds in pairs, thought about Solomonia’s infertility and, after consulting with the boyars, divorced her. According to Herberstein, the divorce was initiated by Vasily.

Evolution of chronicles

Not all chronicles, however, represent the types of official chronicle. In many, there is occasionally a mixture of official narration and private notes. Such a mixture is found in the story about the campaign of Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich to the Ugra, combined with the famous letter of Vasian. Becoming more and more official, the chronicles finally moved into category books. The same facts were entered into the chronicles, only with the omission of small details: for example, stories about the campaigns of the 16th century. taken from grade books; only news of miracles, signs, etc. were added, documents, speeches, and letters were inserted. There were private rank books in which well-born people noted the service of their ancestors for the purposes of localism. Such chronicles also appeared, an example of which we have in the “Norman Chronicles”. The number of individual tales that turn into private notes has also increased. Another way of transmission is to supplement the chronographs with Russian events. This is, for example, the legend of Prince Katyrev-Rostov, placed in a chronograph; in several chronographs we find additional articles written by supporters of different parties. Thus, in one of the chronographs of the Rumyantsev Museum there are voices dissatisfied with Patriarch Filaret. In the chronicles of Novgorod and Pskov there are curious expressions of displeasure with Moscow. From the first years of Peter the Great there is an interesting protest against his innovations under the title “Chronicle of 1700”.

Degree book

Already in the 16th century, attempts to pragmatize appeared: this included the Degree Book and partly the Nikon Chronicle. Along with the general chronicles, local ones were kept: Arkhangelsk, Dvina, Vologda, Ustyug, Nizhny Novgorod, etc., especially monastic ones, into which local news was entered in a brief form. Of these chronicles, the Siberian ones stand out the most.

Facial chronicle vault

The front chronicle collection is a chronicle collection of events in world and especially Russian history, created in the 40-60s. 16th century (probably in 1568-1576) especially for the royal library of Ivan the Terrible in a single copy.

Siberian Chronicles

Main article: Siberian Chronicles

The beginning of the Siberian chronicle is attributed to Cyprian, Metropolitan of Tobolsk. Several Siberian chronicles have reached us, more or less deviating from one another:

• Kungurskaya (late 16th century), written by one of the participants in Ermak’s campaign;
• Stroganovskaya (“On the capture of the Siberian land”; 1620-30 or 1668-83), based on unsurvived materials from the patrimonial archive of the Stroganovs, their correspondence with Ermak;
• Esipovskaya (1636), compiled by Savva Esipov, clerk of Archbishop Nektary in memory of Ermak;
• Remezovskaya (late 17th century), owned by S. U. Remezov, Russian cartographer, geographer and historian of Siberia.

Belarusian-Lithuanian chronicles

An important place in Russian chronicles is occupied by the so-called Lithuanian (rather Western Russian or Belarusian, since until the 16th century there was no Lithuanian writing and historiography; the official language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was Old Belarusian) chronicles, existing in two editions: “Brief”, starting with the death of Gediminas or, rather, , Olgerd and ending in 1446 and “Detailed”, from fabulous times to 1505. The source of the “Brief” chronicle is the tales of contemporaries. So, on the occasion of Skirgaila’s death, the author speaks for himself: “I don’t know that I was so small then.” Kyiv and Smolensk can be considered the place where news was recorded; There is no noticeable bias in their presentation. The “detailed” chronicle (the so-called Bykhovets Chronicle) presents a number of fabulous tales at the beginning, then repeats the “Brief” one and, finally, concludes with memoirs of the early 16th century. Its text contains many tendentious stories about various noble Lithuanian families. The Belarusian-Lithuanian Chronicle of 1446 is noteworthy, telling about the events of Rus', the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ukraine from the mid-9th to the mid-15th centuries.

Ukrainian chronicles

Ukrainian (actually Cossack) chronicles date back to the 17th and 18th centuries. V.B. Antonovich explains their late appearance by the fact that these are rather private notes or sometimes even attempts at pragmatic history, and not what we now mean by a chronicle. Cossack chronicles, according to the same scientist, contain mainly the affairs of Bohdan Khmelnytsky and his contemporaries.
Of the chronicles, the most significant are: Lvov, begun in the middle of the 16th century, completed until 1649 and setting out the events of Chervonnaya Rus; the chronicle of Samovidets (from 1648 to 1702), according to the conclusion of Professor Antonovich, is the first Cossack chronicle, distinguished by the completeness and vividness of the story, as well as reliability; an extensive chronicle of Samuil Velichko, who, serving in the military chancellery, could know a lot; Although his work is arranged by year, it partly has the appearance of a scholarly work; Its disadvantage is considered to be the lack of criticism and florid presentation. The chronicle of the Gadyach colonel Grabyanka begins in 1648 and extends to 1709; It is preceded by a study about the Cossacks, whom the author derives from the Khazars.
The sources were partly the chronicle, and partly, it is assumed, foreigners. In addition to these detailed compilations, there are many short, mainly local chronicles (Chernigov, etc.); there are attempts at pragmatic history (for example, “History of the Russians”) and there are all-Russian compilations: the Gustyn Chronicle, based on the Ipatiev Chronicle and continued until the 16th century, Safonovich’s “Chronicle,” “Synopsis.” All this literature ends with the “History of the Russians,” the author of which is unknown. This work more clearly expressed the views of the Ukrainian intelligentsia of the 18th century than others.

see also

Notes

Bibliography

See Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles

Other editions of Russian chronicles

• Buganov V.I. Brief Moscow chronicler of the late 17th century. from the Ivanovo Regional Museum of Local Lore. // Chronicles and Chronicles - 1976. - M.: Nauka, 1976. - P. 283.
• Zimin A. A. Brief chroniclers of the XV-XVI centuries. // Historical archive. - M., 1950. - T. 5.
• Chronicle of Joasaph. - M.: ed. USSR Academy of Sciences, 1957.
• Kyiv Chronicle of the first quarter of the 17th century. // Ukrainian Historical Journal, 1989. No. 2, p. 107; No. 5, p. 103.
• Koretsky V.I. Solovetsky chronicler of the late 16th century. // Chronicles and Chronicles - 1980. - M.: Nauka, 1981. - P. 223.
• Koretsky V.I., Morozov B. N. Chronicler with new news from the 16th - early 17th centuries. // Chronicles and Chronicles - 1984. - M.: Nauka, 1984. - P. 187.
• Chronicle of a self-witness based on newly discovered copies with the appendix of three Little Russian chronicles: Khmelnitsky, “A Brief Description of Little Russia” and “Historical Collection”. - K., 1878.
• Lurie Ya. S. A brief chronicler of the Pogodin collection. // Archaeographic Yearbook - 1962. - M.: ed. USSR Academy of Sciences, 1963. - P. 431.
• Nasonov A. N. Chronicle collection of the 15th century. // Materials on the history of the USSR. - M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1955. - T. 2. - P. 273.
• Petrushevich A. S. Consolidated Galician-Russian chronicle from 1600 to 1700. - Lvov, 1874.