Is it possible today to imagine a life in which there are no books, newspapers, magazines, or notebooks? Modern man is so accustomed to the fact that everything important and requiring organization should be written down, that without this knowledge would be unsystematized and fragmentary. But this was preceded by a very difficult period that lasted for millennia. Literature consisted of chronicles, chronicles and lives of saints. Works of fiction began to be written much later.
When did ancient Russian literature emerge?
The prerequisite for the emergence of Old Russian literature was various forms of oral folklore and pagan legends. Slavic writing originated only in the 9th century AD. Until this time, knowledge and epics were passed on from mouth to mouth. But the baptism of Rus' and the creation of the alphabet by Byzantine missionaries Cyril and Methodius in 863 opened the way for books from Byzantium, Greece, and Bulgaria. Christian teaching was transmitted through the first books. Since there were few written sources in ancient times, the need arose to rewrite books.
ABC contributed cultural development Eastern Slavs. Since the Old Russian language is similar to the Old Bulgarian, the Slavic alphabet, which was used in Bulgaria and Serbia, could be used in Rus'. East Slavs gradually adopted the new writing. In ancient Bulgaria, by the 10th century, culture had reached its peak of development. Works by writers John the Exarch of Bulgaria, Clement, and Tsar Simeon began to appear. Their works also influenced ancient Russian culture.
Christianization ancient Russian state made writing a necessity, because without it state life, social life, and international relations are impossible. The Christian religion is not able to exist without teachings, solemn words, lives, and the life of the prince and his court, relations with neighbors and enemies were reflected in the chronicles. Translators and copyists appeared. They were all church people: priests, deacons, monks. Rewriting took a lot of time, and there were still few books.
Old Russian books were written mainly on parchment, which was obtained after special processing of pork, calf, and lamb skin. In the ancient Russian state, handwritten books were called “harateynye”, “harati” or “veal books”. The durable but expensive material also made books expensive, which is why it was so important to find a replacement for pet leather. Foreign paper, called “overseas”, appeared only in the 14th century. But until the 17th century, to write valuable state documents used parchment.
Ink was made by combining old iron (nails) and tannin (growths on oak leaves called “ink nuts”). To make the ink thick and shiny, cherry and molasses glue was poured into it. Ferrous ink having brown tint, were distinguished by increased durability. To add originality and decorativeness, colored ink, gold or silver sheets were used. Used for writing goose feathers, the tip of which was cut off, and a cut was made in the middle of the tip.
What century does ancient Russian literature belong to?
The first ancient Russian written sources date back to the 9th century. The ancient Russian state of Kievan Rus occupied an honorable place among other European states. Written sources contributed to the strengthening of the state and its development. Ends Old Russian period in the 17th century.
Periodization of Old Russian literature.
- Written sources of Kievan Rus: the period covers the 11th century and beginning of XIII century. At this time, the main written source was the chronicle.
- Literature of the second third of the 13th century and the end of the 14th century. The Old Russian state is going through a period of fragmentation. Dependence on the Golden Horde set back the development of culture many centuries ago.
- The end of the 14th century, which is characterized by the unification of the principalities of the northeast into one Moscow principality, the emergence of appanage principalities, and the beginning of the 15th century.
- XV - XVI centuries: this is the period of centralization of the Russian state and the emergence of journalistic literature.
- The 16th - end of the 17th century is the New Age, which marks the emergence of poetry. Now works are released with an indication of the author.
The oldest of famous works Russian literature is the Ostromir Gospel. It received its name from the name of the Novgorod mayor Ostromir, who ordered the scribe Deacon Gregory to translate it. During 1056 - 1057 the translation has been completed. This was the mayor's contribution to the St. Sophia Cathedral, erected in Novgorod.
The second gospel is the Arkhangelsk Gospel, which was written in 1092. From the literature of this period, a lot of hidden and philosophical meaning is hidden in the Izbornik of Grand Duke Svyatoslav of 1073. The Izbornik reveals the meaning and idea of mercy, the principles of morality. The basis of the philosophical thought of Kievan Rus was the gospels and apostolic epistles. They described the earthly life of Jesus and also described his miraculous resurrection.
Books have always been the source of philosophical thought. Translations from Syriac, Greek, and Georgian penetrated into Rus'. There were also translations from European countries: England, France, Norway, Denmark, Sweden. Their works were revised and rewritten by ancient Russian scribes. Old Russian philosophical culture is a reflection of mythology and has Christian roots. Among the monuments of ancient Russian writing, the “Messages of Vladimir Monomakh” and “Prayers of Daniil the Zatochnik” stand out.
The first ancient Russian literature is characterized by high expressiveness and richness of language. To enrich the Old Church Slavonic language, they used the language of folklore and the performances of orators. There were two literary style, one of which is “High” for ceremonial purposes, the other is “Low”, which was used in everyday life.
Genres of literature
- lives of saints, include biographies of bishops, patriarchs, founders of monasteries, saints (created in compliance with special rules and required a special style of presentation) - patericon (life of the first saints Boris and Gleb, Abbess Feodosia),
- lives of saints, which are presented from a different point of view - apocrypha,
- historical works or chronicles (chronographs) - brief records of the history of ancient Rus', Russian chronograph of the second half of the 15th century,
- works about fictional travels and adventures - walking.
Genres of Old Russian literature table
The central place among the genres of ancient Russian literature is occupied by chronicle writing, which developed over the centuries. These are weather records of the history and events of Ancient Rus'. The chronicle is a preserved written chronicle (from the word - summer, records begin “in the summer”) monument from one or several lists. The names of the chronicles are random. This may be the name of the scribe or the name of the area where the chronicle was written. For example, Lavrentyevskaya - on behalf of the scribe Lavrenty, Ipatyevskaya - after the name of the monastery where the chronicle was found. Often chronicles are collections that combine several chronicles at once. The source for such vaults were protographs.
The chronicle that served as the basis for the vast majority of ancient Russian written sources is the Tale of Bygone Years of 1068. A common feature chronicles of the XII - XV centuries is that the chroniclers no longer consider political events in their chronicles, but focus on the needs and interests of “their principality” (Chronicle of Veliky Novgorod, Pskov chronicle, chronicle of the Vladimir-Suzdal land, Moscow chronicle), and not events of the Russian land as a whole, as it was before
What work do we call a monument of ancient Russian literature?
“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” of 1185-1188 is considered the main monument of ancient Russian literature, describing not so much an episode from the Russian-Polovtsian wars, but rather reflecting events on an all-Russian scale. The author connects Igor’s failed campaign of 1185 with strife and calls for unification for the sake of saving his people.
Sources of personal origin are heterogeneous verbal sources that are united by a common origin: private correspondence, autobiographies, travel descriptions. They reflect the author’s direct perception of historical events. Such sources first appeared in the princely period. These are the memoirs of Nestor the chronicler, for example.
In the 15th century, the heyday of chronicle writing began, when voluminous chronicles and short chroniclers coexisted, telling about the activities of one princely family. Two parallel directions emerge: the official and oppositional point of view (the church and princely descriptions).
Here we should talk about the problem of falsifying historical sources or creating documents that never existed before, making amendments to original documents. For this purpose, entire systems of methods were developed. In the 18th century, interest in historical science was universal. This resulted in the appearance of a large number of counterfeits, presented in an epic form and passed off as the original. A whole industry is emerging in Russia for falsifying ancient sources. We study burned or lost chronicles, for example the Lay, from surviving copies. This is how copies were made by Musin-Pushkin, A. Bardin, A. Surakadzev. Among the most mysterious sources is the “Book of Veles,” found on the Zadonsky estate in the form of wooden tablets with text scratched on them.
Old Russian literature of the 11th – 14th centuries is not only teachings, but also rewriting from Bulgarian originals or translation from Greek of a huge amount of literature. The large-scale work done allowed ancient Russian scribes to become acquainted with the main genres and literary monuments of Byzantium over two centuries.
LITERATURE OF KIEVAN Rus' (XI-XII centuries)
While mastering pan-Slavic intermediary literature and translating from Greek, Old Russian scribes simultaneously turned to creating original works of various genres. We cannot indicate with precision when the first records of historical legends appeared, when they began to be united into a coherent historical narrative, but there is no doubt that already in the middle of the 11th century, if not earlier, the first Russian chronicles were compiled.
At the same time, the Kiev priest Hilarion (future metropolitan) writes “The Sermon on Law and Grace” - a theological treatise in which, however, from dogmatic reasoning about the superiority of “grace” (New Testament) over “law” (Old Testament) clearly emerges a pronounced church-political and patriotic theme: Rus', which adopted Christianity, is a country no less authoritative and worthy of respect than Byzantium itself. The Russian princes Igor and Svyatoslav became famous for their victories and “fortress”; Vladimir, who baptized Rus', in terms of the significance of his act, is worthy of comparison with the apostles, and the Kiev prince Yaroslav Vladimirovich (under whom Hilarion wrote his “Tale”) does not “destroy”, but “affirms” his father’s undertakings. He created the Church of St. Sophia (St. Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv), the like of which is not found in the “surrounding” countries, decorating it with “all beauty, gold and silver and precious stones,” as Hilarion writes. D. S. Likhachev explained why it was so important to emphasize the construction of this temple: “by building the Church of Sophia in Kyiv, Yaroslav “built” the Russian metropolis, the Russian independent church. Calling the newly built temple the same name as main temple Greek Church, Yaroslav claimed equality of the Russian Church with the Greek." It was in this awareness of the equality of Rus' and Byzantium that the main idea of Hilarion’s “Lay” lay. These same patriotic ideas formed the basis of the oldest Russian chronicles.
Russian scribes also act in the hagiographic genre: in the 11th - early 12th centuries. the lives of Anthony of Pechersk (it has not survived), Theodosius of Pechersk, and two versions of the lives of Boris and Gleb were written. In these lives, Russian authors, undoubtedly familiar with the hagiographic canon and with the best examples of Byzantine hagiography, show, as we will see later, enviable independence and display high literary skill.
At the beginning of the 12th century. (apparently around 1117) the Kiev prince Vladimir Monomakh writes a “Teaching” addressed to his sons, but at the same time to those Russian princes who would like to listen to his advice. “Instruction” is surprising both in that it completely falls out of the strict system of genres, having no analogue in ancient Russian literature, and in that Monomakh reveals in it not only a political outlook and rich life experience, but also high literary education and unconditional writing talent. Both the “Instruction” and the surviving letter from Monomakh to Oleg Svyatoslavich are not only literary monuments, but also important monuments of social thought: one of the most authoritative Kyiv princes is trying to convince his contemporaries of the harmfulness of feudal strife - Rus', weakened by strife, will not be able to actively resist external enemies. This basic idea of Monomakh’s works echoes “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.”
A decade earlier than the “Teaching” of Monomakh was written, the abbot of one of the Russian monasteries, Daniel, visited the Kingdom of Jerusalem (founded by the crusaders in Palestine conquered from the Arabs) and compiled a detailed account of his journey, which is known as “Daniel’s Walking in the Russian Land of the Abbot.” The traveler describes in detail the sights he saw, while retelling the stories associated with them biblical stories and apocryphal legends. Daniel acts as a patriot of his native land, not forgetting about its interests in distant countries, caring about its prestige.
Second half of the 12th century. marked by the rapid development of chronicle writing. The South Russian code of the early 15th century allows us to judge this. (Ipatiev Chronicle), which contains fragments from chronicle vaults of an earlier time.
At the end of the 12th century. The bishop of the city of Turov, Kirill, one of the most brilliant ancient Russian writers, created his works. Especially significant place His work is dominated by words for church holidays, designed to be uttered in church during a solemn service. The thoughtfulness of the composition, the richness of the language, the courage and brightness of metaphors and comparisons, the skill in constructing phrases and periods with all the tricks of rhetorical art (syntactic parallelism, appeals, expressive antitheses, etc.) - all these advantages of Kirill’s works put him on the same level with famous Byzantine writers.
The literary development of this era is crowned by “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.”
The brevity of the list of monuments of the original Russian literature XI-XII centuries - and almost all the most significant works are named here - makes us think about how incomplete our information about the literature of Kievan Rus seems to be. We know only a small fraction of the works created then, only those of them that were lucky enough to survive the terrible years of the Mongol-Tatar invasion.
This comparison involuntarily suggests itself. Artists of the era of classicism loved to depict a romantic landscape: among fields overgrown with bushes, where flocks of sheep graze and colorfully dressed shepherdesses play pipes, rise the ruins of a beautiful and majestic temple, which, it would seem, should stand not here, in the wilderness of the countryside, but in the square lively ancient city...
The literature of Kievan Rus represents something similar for us: several masterpieces that would make the glory of any literature rich in monuments - “The Tale of Bygone Years”, “The Life of Boris and Gleb”, “The Life of Theodosius of Pechersk”, “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, the works of Cyril Turovsky... But where are the links connecting them, the environment in which these masterpieces were created? It was precisely these feelings that once possessed A.S. Pushkin, who wrote with bitterness: “Unfortunately, ancient literature does not exist among us. Behind us is the dark steppe - and on it rises the only monument - “The Song of Igor’s Campaign”. In those years, ancient Russian literature was not yet “discovered”; Russian researchers would become more familiar with it two or three decades later. But the same feeling of “loneliness” of masterpieces does not leave us to this day. What is the reason for this strange phenomenon?
Of course, these monuments that have reached us were not alone, they simply could not be alone, since they testify to the existence of literary schools, about high level and literary mastery, and the literature itself that gave birth to them.
Before approaching the answer to our puzzling question, let us give one sufficient shining example. In the Ipatiev Chronicle we read in an article from 1147 about Metropolitan Clement Smolyatich (that is, who came from the Smolensk land) - “he was a scribe and a philosopher, as one would not speak in the Russian land.” But what do we know about the work of this “scribe and philosopher,” who, according to the chronicler, had no equal in the Russian land? We know only the beginning of his “Epistle to Thomas the Prosperer.” This is very little, but also quite a lot: the fact is that from the letter we learn about an extremely interesting and significant fact of the literary life of Kievan Rus: Clement defends to his opponent the legitimacy of the “influential” interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, that is, interpretation with the help of allegorical stories - parable So, on the one hand, both the chronicle and the reason known to us that caused the dispute between Clement and Thomas speak about the same thing - Clement Smolyatich was undoubtedly an educated and well-read writer (Thomas even reproached him for writing “from Omir ( Homer), and from Aristotle (Aristotle), and from Plato") and, probably, quite prolific if he enjoyed such fame and authority. On the other hand, if it weren’t for the chance that it survived in the only list of the 15th century. "Epistle", we would have learned absolutely nothing about Clement, except for the above description in the chronicle. One more example. In the 12th century. In Kievan Rus there were several chronicle centers; “ancestral” chroniclers were compiled at the princely courts. Both these chroniclers and local chronicles were lost, and if it were not for the South Russian code of the end of the 12th century, which included fragments from these sources, and not the Ipatiev Chronicle of the beginning of the 15th century, which preserved this code, we would not know anything about chronicle writing in Rus' of the 12th century, nor about the events of this time themselves - in other chronicles events in Southern Rus' are mentioned extremely sparingly.
If the Laurentian Chronicle of 1377 had not been preserved, we would have moved away from the time of creation of the “Tale of Bygone Years” by three centuries, for the next oldest lists of the “Tale” date back to the 15th century.
In a word, we know very little about the literature and bookishness of Kievan Rus. The Mongol-Tatar invasion led not only to the death of tens or hundreds of thousands of people, not only to the desolation of cities, including the largest centers of writing, it most cruelly destroyed ancient Russian literature itself. Only those works whose copies managed to survive and attract the attention of scribes of the 14th or 15th centuries became known to researchers of modern times. Thus, Abbot Daniel’s journey took place at the beginning of the 12th century, at which time he wrote his “Walk,” however, the older copies of the monument date only to the 15th century.
The oldest copy of the “History of the Jewish War,” translated in the 12th century, dates back to the end of the 15th century. At the same time, as N.A. Meshchersky believes, the copies of the ancient translation were lost in Rus'. But in 1399 in Constantinople, the Russian scribe John rewrote the Russian list that was there; From this manuscript of John, which returned again to Rus', the handwritten tradition of the monument was revived.
So, the literary monuments of the 11th-12th centuries that have survived to modern times. - these are only by a happy coincidence the surviving remnants of literature, which was in its heyday on the eve of the Mongol-Tatar invasion. The high level of this literature is evidenced, in particular, by those works to the analysis of which we now turn.
"The Tale of Bygone Years." Every nation remembers and knows its history. In stories, legends, and songs, information and memories of the past were preserved and passed on from generation to generation. The chronicle - a systematic chronicle kept year after year - grew to a large extent on the basis of the oral historical epic.
Chronicle of how literary genre(and not historical records in general!) appears, apparently, in the middle of the 11th century. However ancient lists Chronicles date back to a later time: the 13th and 14th centuries. dates back to the Synodal list of the First Novgorod Chronicle.
The Laurentian list dates back to 1377, the Ipatiev list of the Ipatiev Chronicle - to the first quarter of the 15th century. The remaining lists of chronicles are from a later time. Therefore history ancient period Scientists have to reconstruct the development of Russian chronicles based on the texts of the lists mentioned above, separated from the time of compilation of the chronicles themselves by a significant period of time.
The study of chronicles is further complicated by the following circumstance. Almost every chronicle is a vault. This means that the chronicler, as a rule, not only recorded contemporary events, but supplemented with his notes the text of an earlier chronicle that told about the previous period. Therefore, it turns out that in almost every chronicle the history of Rus' is set out “from the very beginning” - the text of the “Tale of Bygone Years” is given in full or in an abbreviation, sometimes very significant, telling “where the Russian land came from.” When compiling a new chronicle, the chronicler did not treat his sources formally, mechanically “folding” them: he edited the text of his predecessor, shortened it or supplemented it from other sources, and sometimes, in accordance with his historiographical views, changed the assessment of events or reinterpreted individual data. All these features of the work of ancient Russian historiographers significantly complicate the study of chronicles. However, science has developed a fairly advanced methodology for studying chronicle texts: by comparing them, similarities or differences between fragments telling about the same events are established, the sources of the corpus under study, the degree and nature of their processing in it, and the estimated time of its compilation are determined.
“The Tale of Bygone Years,” which will be discussed below, was created at the beginning of the 12th century. Nestor is traditionally considered to be the compiler of its first edition, although the question of the possibility of identifying Nestor the chronicler and Nestor the hagiographer, the author of “The Life of Boris and Gleb” and “The Life of Theodosius of Pechersk,” remains debatable to this day. In the rich chronicle tradition of Ancient Rus', “The Tale of Bygone Years” occupies a very special place. According to D.S. Likhachev, it was “not just a collection of facts of Russian history and not just a historical and journalistic work related to the urgent but transitory tasks of Russian reality, but an integral, literary history of Rus'.
“We can safely say,” the scientist continues, “that never before or later, until the 16th century, has Russian historical thought risen to such a height of scholarly inquisitiveness and literary skill.”
The oldest edition of the “Tale of Bygone Years” has not reached us, but the second edition of the “Tale” has been preserved as part of the Laurentian and Radzivilov Chronicles, apparently only slightly changing its original text.
The Tale of Bygone Years, like most chronicles, is a collection, a work based on previous chronicle works, which included fragments from various sources, literary, journalistic, folklore, etc. Let us abstract here from the question of the origin of the components of the Tale temporary years" and, in particular, about its relationship with the previous chronicle of the end of the 11th century. (scientists call it the Initial Vault) and look at it as a solid monument.
“This is the Tale of Bygone Years, where the Russian Land came from, who began the first reign in Kyiv, and where the Russian Land began to eat from” - the chronicle begins with these words, and these first words became its traditional name - “The Tale of Bygone Years”.
For monuments of medieval historiography devoted to the problems of general history, that is, for chronicles, it was typical to begin the presentation “from the very beginning,” with the creation of the world, and trace the genealogical lines of the ruling dynasties to mythical heroes or even gods.
“The Tale of Bygone Years” did not remain aloof from this trend - Nestor also begins his narrative from a certain starting point. According to biblical legend, God, angry at the human race, mired in all kinds of sins, decided to destroy it by sending a global flood to the earth. All “antediluvian” humanity perished, and only Noah, his wife, three sons and daughters-in-law managed to escape. From the sons of Noah - Shem, Ham and Japheth - came the people who now inhabit the earth. That's what the Bible said.
Nestor therefore begins the “Tale of Bygone Years” with a story about the division of the land between the sons of Noah, listing in detail, following the Byzantine chronicles, the lands that went to each of them. In these chronicles, Rus', of course, was not mentioned, and the chronicler skillfully introduces the Slavic peoples into the context of world history: in the said list, after mentioning Ilyuric (Illyria - the eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea or the people who lived there), he adds the word “Slavs”. Then, in the description of the lands inherited by the descendants of Japheth, references to Russian rivers appear in the chronicle - the Dnieper, Desna, Pripyat, Dvina, Volkhov, Volga. In the “part” of Japheth, the chronicler reports, “Rus, Chud and all the nations live: Merya, Muroma, all...” And then follows a list of tribes inhabiting the East European Plain.
After this, the chronicler moves on to the history of the Slavs, telling how they settled throughout the land and how they were called depending on the place where they stayed to live: those who settled along the Morava River called themselves marawa, who settled on the banks of the Polot River - “nicknamed Polochans”, and Slovenia, settled on the shores of Lake Ilmen, “nicknamed by their name.” The chronicler tells about the founding of Novgorod and Kyiv, about the customs of the Polyans, who, unlike the Drevlyans, Vyatichi and Northerners, were “men of wisdom and understanding” and kept the custom of their fathers “meek and quiet.” This introductory historiographical part of The Tale of Bygone Years ends with a plot episode. The Khazars demanded tribute from the Polans (the tribe living in and around Kyiv), and they paid them tribute with swords. And the Khazar elders said to their ruler: “This is not a good tribute, prince! ...They will imati (will collect) tribute on us and in other countries.” “Now everything has come true,” the chronicler proudly concludes.
This introductory part of The Tale of Bygone Years has important historiographical significance. It stated that the Slavs, and Rus', among the Slavic peoples, as equals among equals, are mentioned among other peoples - the descendants of the most worthy of the sons of Noah - Japheth. The Slavs, as if fulfilling some destiny from above, populated the lands allotted to them, and the glades, on whose land the future capital of Rus' - Kyiv was located, have long stood out for their wisdom and high morality among other tribes. And finally, the prediction of the wise Khazar elders came true - Rus' now does not obey anyone, it itself collects tribute from the surrounding peoples. This is how Nestor defined the place of the Slavs and Rus' in world history. An equally important task was to justify the rights of the Kyiv princes to own the entire Russian land. The legend about the calling of the Varangians appeared in the Primary Code; it received its final completion from Nestor. According to this legend, strife began among the Slavic tribes, “clan after clan arose,” and it was decided to invite foreign princes from overseas to come to establish order, to “rule and rule” over them. The chronicle tells us that three brothers came to Rus' - Rurik, Sineus and Truvor. Two of them died, and Rurik began to reign in Novgorod. After the death of Rurik, his relative Oleg became the prince, since Rurik’s son Igor was still a “child Velmi”. Oleg, together with the baby Igor, went from Novgorod to the south, by cunning (and at the same time legally, for he acted “on behalf of” the son of Rurik) captured Kyiv and began to reign there. After Oleg’s death, Igor became the prince of Kyiv, that Igor, whose descendants still (during the years of the creation of the “Tale of Bygone Years”) reign in Kyiv and in other appanages of the Russian land.
Researchers without much difficulty revealed the legendary nature of the story about the calling of the Varangians. Suffice it to mention that the oldest Russian monuments trace the dynasty of the Kyiv princes to Igor, and not to Rurik; It’s also strange that Oleg’s “regency” lasted under the “young” Igor for no less than 33 years, and that in the Initial Code Oleg is called not a prince, but a governor... But this legend was one of the cornerstones of ancient Russian historiography . It corresponded primarily to the medieval historiographical tradition, where the ruling clan was often elevated to a foreigner: this eliminated the possibility of rivalry between local clans. “They believed in the origin of French kings from the Trojans even in the 16th century. The Germans derived many of their dynasties from Rome, the Swiss from the Scandinavians, the Italians from the Germans,” D. S. Likhachev illustrates this idea.
Secondly, the statement that the Rurik dynasty was rooted in ancient times was, in the opinion of the chronicler, to raise the prestige of the blood relationship of the Rurik princes, strengthen their consciousness of fraternal ties, and prevent civil strife. However, feudal practice turned out to be stronger than the most convincing historiographical concepts.
The introductory part of The Tale of Bygone Years has no dates. The first date in the chronicle is 6360 (852). From that time, the chronicler claims, “the nickname Ruska land began.” The basis for this was the story of the Byzantine “Chronicle of George Amartol” about the campaign of Rus' against Constantinople, which the chronicler himself identified with the campaign of the Kyiv princes Askold and Dir (who were later killed by Oleg). The same article of 852 contains the calculation of the years that passed from one significant event in world history to another, traditional for Byzantine chronography. It begins, as usual, by counting the years that have passed from Adam to the flood, from the flood to Abraham, etc., but, having mentioned the Byzantine emperor Michael III (842-867), the chronicler moves on to the events of Russian history: “And from the first summer Mikhailov until the first summer of Olgov, a Russian prince, 29 years old...” And in this case, the history of Rus' under the pen of the chronicler naturally merges with world history, continuing it.
The breadth of historical horizons that distinguishes introductory part“The Tale of Bygone Years” is also inherent in its further presentation. Thus, talking about Vladimir’s “choice of faiths,” the chronicler cites a lengthy speech, as if delivered to the prince by a Greek missionary, in which the entire sacred history is briefly recounted (from the “creation of the world” to the crucifixion of Christ), and comments on the decisions of the seven ecumenical church councils, at which controversial dogmatic issues of Christian doctrine were resolved, the “Latins” were exposed, that is, supporters of the Catholic faith, who openly opposed themselves to the Greek Church after 1054. We see that the chronicle in these cases goes beyond the framework of Russian history itself, raising problems of ideological and church-dogmatic character.
But the chronicler, of course, analyzes and comprehends especially deeply the events in Rus'. He evaluates the significance of its Christianization, the activities of Russian translators and book writers under Yaroslav the Wise; talking about the emergence of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, he persistently emphasizes the connection between Russian monasteries and the famous monasteries of Byzantium.
Chroniclers do not simply recount events, but try, of course in the traditions of medieval Christian historiography, to comprehend and explain them. The chronicler interprets the defeat of the Russian princes in the war of 1068 with the Polovtsians as a consequence of “God’s wrath” and even finds a specific reason for the manifestation of divine retribution: in Rus', according to him, there are still many Christians who are like that only in words, they are superstitious, the devil is all sorts of He distracts them from God with temptations, “with trumpets and buffoons, guslmi and rusalya (feasts of remembrance of the dead).” At the games, the chronicler laments, “there are a lot of people,” “and the churches stand, but when there is a year of prayer (the hour of worship), few of them are found in the church.”
The chronicle returns again to the topic of “executions of God” in article 1093, telling about the defeat of the Russian princes in the battle with the Polovtsians at Trepol (south of Kyiv). After abundantly peppered with biblical quotations, discussions about the reasons that brought about divine punishment, the chronicler paints a dramatic picture: the Polovtsians are leading away captured Russian captives, and those, hungry, thirsty, undressed and barefoot, “their feet are gored with thorns (wounded on thorny grasses), with I answered each other with tears, saying: “I am the beg of this city,” and others: “I am sowing all (villages, settlements)”; they ask (question) with tears, telling their family and lifting their eyes up to the sky to the highest, who knows the secret.” It is not difficult to understand the feelings of the people of that time and the complexity of the task of scribes and church preachers: having adopted a new religion, the Russian people, it would seem, placed themselves under the protection of a powerful and just God. So why does this god grant victory to the filthy (pagan) Polovtsy and condemn his faithful Christians to suffering? This is how the constant theme of divine retribution for sins arises in medieval literature.
The chronicle also addresses this topic in an article in 1096, which tells about a new raid by the Polovtsians, during which the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery was also damaged. The chronicler has no choice but to promise that Christians suffering on earth will be rewarded with the kingdom of heaven for their torment. But the thought of the power of the “filthy” does not leave the chronicler, and he cites an extensive extract from the apocryphal word of Methodius of Patara, “explaining” the origin of various nomadic peoples and mentioning, in particular, the legendary “unclean peoples” who were driven by Alexander the Great to the north, imprisoned in the mountains, but who will “come out” from there “by the end of the century” - on the eve of the destruction of the world. Dangers came to the Russian land not only from outside: the country was tormented by internecine wars of princes. Chroniclers passionately oppose fratricidal strife. It is apparently no coincidence that the unnamed (and perhaps formulated by the chronicler himself) speech of the princes at the meeting (congress) in Lyubech is cited: “Why are we destroying the Russian land, on which we ourselves are active? And the Polovtsy carry our land differently, and for the sake of the essence, they also fight between us. Yes, from now on we are in one heart and guard the Russian lands.”
However, Lyubechsky did not put an end to “which”; on the contrary, immediately after its end, a new atrocity was committed: Prince Vasilko Terebovlsky was slandered and blinded. And the chronicler inserts into the text of the chronicle a separate detailed story about the events of this time, a passionate “story of princely crimes” (words by D. S. Likhachev), which should convince not only the mind, but also the heart of readers of the urgent need for sincere and real brotherly love among the Rurikovichs . Only their union and joint actions can protect the country from the devastating raids of the Polovtsians and warn against internal strife.
“The Tale of Bygone Years,” as a monument to historiography, is permeated with a single patriotic idea: the chroniclers strive to present their people as equal among other Christian nations, and proudly recall the glorious past of their country - the valor of the pagan princes, the piety and wisdom of the Christian princes. The chroniclers speak on behalf of all of Rus', rising above petty feudal disputes, strongly condemning strife and conflicts, describing with pain and anxiety the disasters brought by the raids of nomads. In a word, “The Tale of Bygone Years” is not just a description of the first centuries of the existence of Rus', it is a story about great beginnings: the beginning of Russian statehood, the beginning of Russian culture, about the beginnings that, according to the chroniclers, promise future power and glory for their homeland.
But “The Tale of Bygone Years” is not only a monument of historiography, it is also an outstanding monument of literature. In the chronicle text one can distinguish two types of narration, which differ significantly from each other. One type is weather records, i.e. brief information about the events that took place. Thus, article 1020 consists of one message: “A son was born to Yaroslav, and his name was Volodimer.” This is a recording of a historical fact, nothing more. Sometimes a chronicle article includes a number of such recordings, a list various facts, sometimes it is even reported in sufficient detail about an event that is complex in its structure: for example, it is reported who took part in any military action, where the troops gathered, where they moved, how this or that battle ended, what messages were exchanged between enemy princes or princes -allies. There are especially many such detailed (sometimes multi-page) weather records in the Kyiv Chronicle of the 12th century. But the point is not in the brevity or detail of the story, but in its very principle: informs whether the chronicler of the events that took place or tells about them, creating a plot narrative. The Tale of Bygone Years is characterized by the presence of just such plot stories. Let us give one illustrative example of a short chronicle story.
Article 968 talks about the siege of Kyiv by the Pechenegs. Prince Svyatoslav is far from his capital: he is fighting in Bulgaria. His mother, the elderly Princess Olga, and his sons remained in besieged Kyiv. People are “exhausted... with hunger and water (from lack of water).” On the opposite bank of the Dnieper, the Russian governor Pretich is with his retinue. The chronicle tells how a message from Princess Olga from the besieged city was conveyed to the governor. Let us quote this chronicle fragment translated by D.S. Likhachev: “And people in the city began to grieve and said: “Is there anyone who could get to the other side and tell them: if you don’t approach the city in the morning, we will surrender to the Pechenegs.” And one youth said: “I will pass,” and they answered him: “Go.” He left the city, holding a bridle, and ran through the Pecheneg camp, asking them: “Has anyone seen a horse?” For he knew Pecheneg and was accepted as one of their own. And when he approached the river, he threw off his clothes, threw himself into the Dnieper and swam. Seeing this, the Pechenegs rushed after him, shot at him, but could not do anything to him. On the other side they noticed him, drove up to him in a boat, took him into the boat and brought him to the squad. And the youth said to them: “If you don’t approach the city tomorrow, the people will surrender to the Pechenegs.”
The story does not end there: it tells how Governor Pretich cunningly made peace with the Pechenegs and how Svyatoslav rid his capital of his enemies. However, let's return to the episode in question. What we have before us is not just information that a certain youth, having reached Pretich, conveyed to him the princess’s request, but an attempt to describe, how exactly the youth managed to carry out his daring plan. The boy runs through the enemy’s camp with a bridle in his hand, asking in their native language about the supposedly missing horse - all these details make the story visible and convincing; This is an artistically organized plot, and not dry information about what happened. So, in addition to the actual weather records, the chronicle also knows plot stories, and it is they that place the chronicle genre among other genres of ancient Russian literature.
In The Tale of Bygone Years, a special place is occupied by stories that go back to oral historical traditions and legends. These are precisely the stories about the first Russian princes: Oleg, Igor, Princess Olga, about Svyatoslav, about the time of Vladimir. In these stories, the style of chronicle narration that D. S. Likhachev called the epic style was especially evident.
Here it is necessary to emphasize that style in ancient Russian literature is not a narrow linguistic phenomenon, not only syllables and linguistic means themselves. Style is a special vision of the world, a special approach to its depiction, and also, of course, the sum of techniques (including linguistic ones) with the help of which this approach is implemented.
Thus, for a narrative in an epic style, it is typical that the hero is a man of heroic feat, distinguished by some extraordinary quality - cunning, intelligence, courage, strength; such “a hero is closely connected with one or several exploits, his characteristics are single, unchangeable, attached to the hero.”
A story about such a hero is usually a story about his feat, hence the indispensable feature of such a story is the presence of a sharp, entertaining plot. Very often, the shaping force of a plot collision is the hero’s cunning. The Kiev youth, whom we discussed above, outwitted the Pechenegs. Princess Olga is also distinguished by cunning in folk legends: the success of all her “revenge” on the Drevlyans for the murder of her husband is determined by the insidious wisdom of the princess, cunningly deceiving the simple-minded and arrogant Drevlyans. Let's see how these chronicle stories about Olga's revenge are constructed.
An article from 945 says that after the murder of Igor, the Drevlyans sent envoys to his widow with an offer to marry their prince Mal. The Drevlyan ambassadors, sailing on boats to Kyiv, landed near Borichev. And here is an interesting clarification: “before then the water flowed along the side (at the foot) of the Kiev mountain and on the side of the valley there were not gray people, but on the mountain,” then it is explained where exactly Kyiv was then located, where the princess’s tower stood, etc. Why these details that at first glance only slow down the flow of the story? Apparently, this is a trace of an oral narrative, when the narrator, addressing the listeners, sought to achieve their visual or, better yet, spatial empathy: now that the borders of Kyiv have become different, the listeners need to explain what the city was like then, in the distant times of the reign of Igor and Olga .
“And she told Olza that the Drevlyans had arrived...” the chronicler continues the story. What follows is Olga’s dialogue with the Drevlyan ambassadors. Lively, relaxed dialogue is an indispensable element of the story; it is often psychologically dispassionate, it is characterized by illustrative speech, it is important, not How it is said, but only that What it is precisely said, since this “what” is the grain of the plot. So, Olga invites the Drevlyan ambassadors to go to their boats for the night, and in the morning demand from the people of Kiev: “We are not going on horseback, nor are we going on foot, but you will carry us to the boats.” This favor of Olga towards the ambassadors of her husband’s killer is unexpected, and thanks to this the plot acquires a certain tension and entertainment. However, the author immediately ceases to intrigue the listener, reporting that Olga “ordered to dig a large and deep hole in the yard.” Here, as in other epic stories, one remains in the dark until the last moment. bad guy, and the reader guesses (or even definitely knows) about the cunning of the positive hero and anticipates victory in advance, the intrigue is ajar for “his” reader and remains a mystery for the enemy in the story.
And indeed, the Drevlyan ambassadors, not suspecting deception, demand to be carried into the boat, as the princess advised them: the chronicler emphasizes that they sit in it “proudly”; this further sharpens the denouement of the plot: the Drevlyans, intoxicated by the imaginary honors shown to them, are unexpectedly thrown into a pit, and Olga, approaching the edge of it, asks with ominous irony: “Are you honorable?” And he orders them to be buried alive.
The story about Olga’s last, fourth revenge is constructed according to the same scheme: having besieged the capital of the Drevlyans, Iskorosten, Olga suddenly declares her mercy: “And I no longer want to take revenge, but I want to take tribute little by little, and having resigned myself to you, I will go back again (back).” The tribute that Olga demands is indeed insignificant: three doves and three sparrows from the yard. But when the Drevlyans bring the required birds, Olga’s warriors, on the orders of the princess, tie a tser (tinder) to each of them, wrapping them in scarves with mali, twisting (tying) them with a thread. In the evening, the birds are released into the wild, and they carry lighted tinder on their paws to the city: “the pigeons flew into their nests, the pigeons into the dovecots, and under the eaves; and so the dovetails, the cages, the vezhes, the odrinas (sheds, haylofts) began to burn, and there was no yard where there was no fire.”
So, the entertaining nature of the plot is based on the fact that the reader is at one with positive hero deceives (often cruelly and insidiously in the medieval style) the enemy, who until the last moment is unaware of his disastrous fate.
Another thing is also important: the liveliness and naturalness of the story is achieved not only by the indispensable introduction of character dialogue into it, but also by a detailed, scrupulous description of any details, which immediately evokes a specific visual image in the reader. Let us pay attention to how in detail the method by which the tinder was attached to the legs of the birds is described, how various buildings are listed that were “ignited” by the sparrows and pigeons who returned to their nests and under the eaves (again, a specific detail).
We encounter all the same features of the epic legend that are already familiar to us in the story about the siege of Belgorod by the Pechenegs, read in the “Tale of Bygone Years” under 997. Famine began in the besieged city. Having gathered at the meeting, the townspeople decided to surrender to the mercy of their enemies: “We will give in to the Pechenegs, and who will we live, who will we kill? We are already dying from hunger.” But one of the elders was not present at the meeting and, having learned about the decision of the people, offered his help. By order of the old man, two wells were dug, the townspeople collected handfuls of oats, wheat and bran, got honey from the prince's medusha (pantry), and from these supplies they prepared "tsezh", from which they make jelly, and sytu - a drink made from honey diluted with water . All this was poured into tubs installed in wells. Then Pecheneg ambassadors were invited to the city. And the townspeople said to them: “Why are you ruining yourself? If (when) can you overcome us? If you stand for 10 years, what can you do for us? We have more food from the ground. If you don’t believe, let your eyes see it.” And then - again with details - it is told how the Pechenegs were led to the wells, how they drew water from them and had enough to eat, cooked jelly and treated the ambassadors. The Pechenegs believed in a miracle and lifted the siege from the city.
We have looked at only a few stories of folklore origin. These also include the legend about the death of Oleg, which served as the basis for the plot of Pushkin’s “Song of prophetic Oleg", a story about a young man-kozhemyak who defeated the Pecheneg hero, and some others.
But in the chronicles we also find other stories, the plots of which were certain particular facts. Such, for example, is the message about the uprising in the Rostov land, led by the Magi, the story of how a certain Novgorodian told fortunes to a magician (both in article 1071), a description of the transfer of the relics of Theodosius of Pechersk (in article 1091). Some historical events are narrated in detail, and these are stories, and not just detailed plot notes. D. S. Likhachev, for example, drew attention to the plot nature of the chronicle “stories about princely crimes.” In the Tale of Bygone Years, these include the story of the blinding of Vasilko Terebovlsky in article 1097.
What distinguishes such stories from weather records? First of all, the organization of the plot. The narrator dwells in detail on individual episodes, which acquire a special meaning for the idea of the entire story. Thus, talking about the blinding of Vasilko Terebovlsky - an event that led to a long internecine war in which many Russian princes were drawn, the chronicler strives by all means to expose the criminals: Prince of Kyiv Svyatopolk Izyaslavich and Volyn prince David Igorevich.
This episode of Russian history is as follows. In 1097, the princes gathered in the city of Lyubech for a congress, where they decided to live in unanimity (“we have one heart”) and strictly observe the principle: “let each one keep his fatherland.” But when the princes began to leave for their destinies, a hitherto unheard of (as the chronicler claims) “evil” happened. The boyars slandered Vasilko Rostislavich, Prince of Terebovl, before Davyd Igorevich (Prince of Vladimir-Volynsky). They convinced their overlord that Vasilke had conspired with Vladimir Monomakh to attack him, Davyd, and the Kyiv prince Svyatopolk. The chronicler, however, explains the slander by the machinations of the devil, who, saddened by the newly proclaimed friendship of the princes, “climbed” into the heart of “a certain husband,” but one way or another, Davyd believed them and convinced Svyatopolk of the same. The princes persuade Vasilko to stay and stay with them in Kyiv on the way to his native land. Vasilke at first refuses, but then gives in to their requests.
The chronicler, in deliberate detail (with the usual laconicism of chronicle narration!), describes how further events developed. Here are three princes sitting in Svyatopolk’s hut and talking. At the same time, Davyd, who himself convinced Vasilko to be captured, cannot contain his excitement: he is “grayed as if he were dumb.” When Svyatopolk goes out, supposedly to order breakfast, and Davyd remains with Vasilko, the conversation again does not go well: “And Vasilko began to speak to Davydov, and there was no voice or obedience in Davyd (no matter how he could not speak , nor listen): I was horrified (horrified) and had flattery in my heart.” Davyd cannot stand it and asks the servants: “Where is the brother?” They answer: “Stand on the senekh.” And, getting up, Davyd said: “I am going along, and you, brother, turn grey.” And, getting up, go out.” As soon as Davyd came out, the hut was locked, and Vasilko was chained. The next morning, after consulting with the people of Kiev, Svyatopolk orders Vasilko to be taken to the town of Belgorod near Kiev and there, on the advice of Davyd, to blind him. It describes in full detail how the prince's servants barely overcome the powerful and desperately resisting prince...
But let us return to the above episode of the conversation between the princes. It is notable for the fact that here the chronicler skillfully conveys not only the actions (there are almost none), but precisely the mental state of the conspirators, and especially Davyd Igorevich. This psychologism, which is generally very rare for Old Russian literature of the older period, speaks both of the great artistic possibilities and of the literary skill of Old Russian scribes; These possibilities and this skill made themselves felt as soon as a sufficient reason presented itself, when it was necessary to create a certain attitude of the reader to what was being described. In this case, the chronicler departed from tradition, from the canon, from the usual dispassionate, etiquette depiction of reality, which is generally inherent in chronicle narration.
It is in the Tale of Bygone Years, like in no other chronicle, that plot stories are frequent (we are not talking about inserted stories in the chronicles of the 15th-16th centuries). If we take the chronicles of the 11th-16th centuries. In general, the chronicle as a genre is characterized by a certain literary principle, developed already in the 11th-13th centuries. and received the name “style of monumental historicism” from D.S. Likhachev, who studied it.
Monumental historicism permeates the entire culture of Kievan Rus; its reflection in literature, and even more narrowly in chronicles, is only a particular, concrete embodiment of it.
According to the chroniclers, history is a book of human existence, largely already written in advance, destined by divine providence. The struggle between good and evil is eternal in the world, and the situation is eternal when people neglect their duties to God, violate his “covenants” and God punishes the disobedient - with pestilence, famine, “the discovery of foreigners” or even the complete destruction of the state and the “waste” of the people. Therefore, the entire chronicle is full of analogies, broad historical perspectives; the outline of events appears in it only as partial manifestations of the mentioned “eternal” collisions. Therefore, the chronicle talks about the main characters of this historical mystery - kings, princes, governors and the main functions corresponding to their position in society. The prince is depicted primarily at the most central moments of his activity - upon accession to the throne, during battles or diplomatic actions; the death of the prince is a kind of result of his activities, and the chronicler seeks to express this result in ceremonial posthumous obituary, which lists the virtues and glorious deeds of the prince, and precisely those of his virtues that befit him as a prince and a Christian. The ceremonial nature of the image requires adherence to etiquette of verbal expression. The picture painted here is an ideal, a kind of ideological and aesthetic credo of ancient Russian authors. We saw in the analysis of the “Tale of Bygone Years” that the chronicler often (and precisely in the “Tale of Bygone Years”, in contrast to subsequent chronicle collections) transgresses this credo, either giving way to the plots of historical legends, or offering entertaining eyewitness accounts, or focusing on the image individual, most significant historical episodes. In these cases, ceremony also retreated before the pressure of reality, as we saw in the story of the blinding of Vasilko Terebovlsky.
But if we leave aside these violations of the rules, these examples of literary freedom that the chroniclers, the creators of The Tale of Bygone Years and the collections that preceded it, allowed themselves, then in general the chronicle is a genre in which to the greatest extent reflected the main, main provisions of the style of monumental historicism.
“The Tale of Bygone Years” did not remain only a monument of its time. Almost all chronicle collections of subsequent centuries began with the “Tale”, although, of course, in the abbreviated collections of the 15th-16th centuries. or in local chroniclers ancient history Rus' was presented in the form of brief selections of the most important events. And yet, history in them began from the very beginning, historical continuity continued to be recognized by Russian scribes until the 17th century.
The text of "The Tale of Bygone Years" in the Laurentian Chronicle of 1377
In the XI-beginning of the XII century. the first Russian lives were created: two lives of Boris and Gleb, “The Life of Theodosius of Pechersk”, “The Life of Anthony of Pechersk” (not preserved until modern times). Their writing was not only a literary fact, but also an important link in the ideological policy of the Russian state. At this time, the Russian princes persistently sought from the Patriarch of Constantinople the rights to canonize their own Russian saints, which would significantly increase the authority of the Russian Church. The creation of a life was an indispensable condition for the canonization of a saint.
We will look here at one of the lives of Boris and Gleb - “Reading about the life and destruction” of Boris and Gleb and “The Life of Theodosius of Pechersk”. Both lives were written by Nestor. A comparison of them is especially interesting, since they represent two hagiographic types - the life-martyria (the story of the martyrdom of the saint) and the monastic life, which tells about the entire life path of the righteous man, his piety, asceticism, the miracles he performed, etc. Nestor, Of course, he took into account the requirements of the Byzantine hagiographic canon. There is no doubt that he knew translated Byzantine lives. But at the same time, he showed such artistic independence, such extraordinary talent that the creation of these two masterpieces makes him one of the outstanding ancient Russian writers, regardless of whether he was also the compiler of “The Tale of Bygone Years” (this issue remains controversial).
"Reading about Boris and Gleb." In addition to the two lives, a short article in The Tale of Bygone Years is also devoted to the fate of the sons of the Kyiv prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich - Boris and Gleb, the analysis of which is useful to precede the analysis of Nestor's "Reading".
1. Periodization.I. Literature of the Old Russian state of the 11th - first half of the 13th centuries. The literature of this period is often called the literature of Kievan Rus.
II. Literature of the period of feudal fragmentation and the struggle for the unification of north-eastern Rus' (second half of the 13th - first half of the 15th centuries).
III. Literature from the period of creation and development of the centralized Russian state (XVI-XVII centuries).
However, when periodizing the literary process, it is necessary to take into account:
1. A range of original and translated monuments that appeared in a given period.
2. The nature of ideas and images reflected in literature.
3. The leading principles of reflecting reality and the nature of genres and styles that determine the specifics of literary development of a given period.
The first monuments of ancient Russian writing that have come down to us are known only from the second half of the 11th century: the Ostromir Gospel (1056-1057), “Izbornik of the Grand Duke Svyatoslav 1073”, “Izbornik 1076”. Most of the works created in the 11th-12th centuries were preserved only in later copies of the 14th-17th centuries.
However, the intensive development of writing in Rus' began after the official adoption of Christianity in 988. At the same time, a certain education system arose. In the 30s of the 11th century. in Kyiv there are “many scribes” who not only copy books, but also translate them from Greek into "Slovenian letter". All this allows us to highlight the end of the 10th - the first half of the 11th century. as the first, initial, period of formation of Old Russian literature. True, we can only speak hypothetically about the range of works of this period, their themes, ideas, genres and styles.
The predominant place in the literature of this period was apparently occupied by books of religious and moral content: the Gospels, the Apostle, the Service Menaion, the Synaxari. During this period, the translation of the Greek chronicles was carried out, on the basis of which the “Chronograph according to the Great Exposition” was compiled. At the same time, records of oral legends about the spread of Christianity in Rus' arose. The artistic pinnacle of this period and the beginning of a new one was Hilarion’s “Sermon on Law and Grace.”
The second period - the middle of the 11th - the first third of the 12th century - the literature of Kievan Rus. This is the heyday of original ancient Russian literature, represented by the genres of didactic “word” (Feodosia Pechersky, Luka Zhidyata), genre varieties original lives (“The Legend” and “Reading” about Boris and Gleb, “The Life of Theodosius of Pechersk”, “Memory and Praise to Prince Vladimir”), historical tales, stories, legends that formed the basis of the chronicle, which at the beginning of the 12th century. is called "The Tale of Bygone Years". At the same time, the first “walk” appeared - the journey of Abbot Daniel and such an original work as the “Teaching” of Vladimir Monomakh.
Translated literature during this period is widely represented by philosophical-didactic and moral-didactic collections, patericons, historical chronicles, and apocryphal works.
The central theme of the original literature becomes the theme of the Russian land, the idea of its greatness, integrity, and sovereignty. Its devotees are the spiritual lights of the Russian land and the ideal of moral beauty. to his "toil and sweat" formidable princes build the fatherland - “good sufferers for the Russian land.”
During this period they develop various styles: epic, documentary-historical, didactic, emotionally expressive, hagiographic, which are sometimes present in the same work.
The third period falls on the second third of the 12th - first half of the 13th century. This is literature from the period of feudal fragmentation, when the “patchwork empire of the Rurikovichs” broke up into a number of independent feudal semi-states. The development of literature takes on a regional character. Based on the literature of Kievan Rus, local literary schools are created: Vladimir-Suzdal, Novgorod, Kiev-Chernigov, Galicia-Volyn, Polotsk-Smolensk, Turovo-Pinsk, which will then become the source of the formation of the literature of the three fraternal Slavic peoples - Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian.
In these regional centers, local chronicles, hagiography, travel genres, historical stories, epideictic eloquence (“words” of Cyril of Turov, Kliment Smolyatich, Serapion of Vladimir), the “Tale of the Miracles of the Vladimir Icon” begins to take shape Mother of God" Through the works of Bishop Simon of Vladimir and monk Polycarp, the “Kievo-Pechersk Patericon” was created. The pinnacle of literature of this period was “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” firmly connected with the outgoing traditions of the heroic druzhina epic. The original striking works are “The Lay” by Daniil Zatochnik and “The Lay on the Destruction of the Russian Land.”
The fourth period - the second half of the XIII-XV centuries - literature of the period of the struggle of the Russian people with the Mongol-Tatar conquerors and the beginning of the formation of a centralized Russian state, the formation of the Great Russian people. The development of literature during this period proceeds in such leading cultural centers, like towering Moscow, Novgorod, Pskov, Tver.
Awareness of the need to fight against foreign enslavers led to the unification of popular forces, and this struggle goes hand in hand with the political unification of Rus' around a single center, which becomes Moscow. An important milestone in the political and cultural life of Rus' was the victory won by the Russian people on the Kulikovo field in September 1380 over the hordes of Mamai. It showed that Rus' has the strength to decisively fight the enslavers, and these forces can be united and united by the centralized power of the Grand Duke of Moscow.
In the literature of this time, the main theme was the fight against foreign enslavers - the Mongol-Tatars and the theme of strengthening the Russian state, glorifying the military and moral exploits of the Russian people, their deeds. Literature and fine arts reveal moral ideal personality capable of overcoming “the strife of this age” - the main evil that prevents the unification of all forces to fight the hated conquerors.
Epiphanius the Wise revives and raises to a new level of artistic perfection the emotionally expressive style developed by the literature of Kievan Rus. The development of this style was determined by the historical needs of life itself, and not only by the second South Slavic influence, although the experience of Bulgarian and Serbian literature was taken into account and used by the literature of the late 14th and early 15th centuries.
The style of historical narration receives further development. It is influenced by the democratic strata of the population, on the one hand, and church circles, on the other. Entertainment and artistic fiction are beginning to penetrate more widely into the historical narrative. Fictional tales appear that are taken as historical (the story of the city of Babylon, “The Tale of the Mutyansky governor Dracula”, “The Tale of the Iveron Queen Dinara”, “The Tale of Basarga”). In these tales, journalistic and political tendencies are intensified, emphasizing the importance of Rus' and its center of Moscow - the political and cultural successor of the ruling world powers.
In the 15th century reaches its peak Novgorod literature, which clearly reflected the acute struggle of classes within the feudal urban republic. Novgorod chronicles and hagiography with its democratic tendencies played an important role in the development of ancient Russian literature.
In literature, there is growing interest in the psychological states of the human soul, the dynamics of feelings and emotions.
The literature of this period reflected the main character traits of the emerging Great Russian people: perseverance, heroism, the ability to endure adversity and difficulties, the will to fight and win, love for the homeland and responsibility for its fate.
The fifth period of development of Old Russian literature falls at the end of the 15th-16th centuries. This is the period of literature of the centralized Russian state. In the development of literature, it was marked by the process of merging local regional literatures into a single all-Russian literature, which provided an ideological justification for the centralized power of the sovereign. The acute internal political struggle to strengthen the sovereign power of the Grand Duke, and then the Sovereign of All Rus', determined the unprecedented flourishing of journalism.
The official style of the era becomes the representative, magnificent, eloquent style of the Makaryev literary school. Polemical journalistic literature gives rise to freer, more vibrant literary forms associated with business writing and everyday life.
The sixth period of development of Old Russian literature falls on the 17th century. The nature of literary development allows us to distinguish two stages in this period: 1st - from the beginning of the century to the 60s, 2nd - 60s - the end of the 17th, the first third of the 18th centuries.
The first stage is associated with the development and transformation of traditional historical and hagiographic genres of ancient Russian literature. The events of the first Peasant War and the struggle of the Russian people against the Polish-Swedish intervention dealt a blow to religious ideology and providentialist views on the course of historical events. In the social, political and cultural life of the country, the role of the posad, the trade and craft population, increased. A new democratic reader has appeared. Responding to his requests, literature expands the scope of reality, changes the previously established genre system, begins to free itself from provenentialism, symbolism, etiquette - the leading principles of the artistic method of medieval literature. Hagiography is turning into everyday biography, and the genre of the historical story is being democratized.
The second stage of the development of Russian literature, the second half XVII V. Connected with church reform Nikon, with the events of the historical reunification of Ukraine with Russia, after which an intensive process of penetration of Western European literature into Old Russian literature began. A historical story, losing connections with specific facts, becomes an entertaining narrative. The life becomes not only an everyday biography, but also an autobiography - a confession of a hot, rebellious heart.
Traditional genres of church and business writing become objects of literary parody: a church service is parodied in the service to a tavern, the life of a saint in the life of a drunkard, petition and “judgment case” in “The Kalyazin Petition” and “The Tale of Ersha Ershovich.” Folklore is rushing into literature in a broad wave. The genres of folk satirical fairy tales, epics, and song lyrics are organically included in literary works.
The self-awareness of the individual is reflected in a new genre - the everyday story, in which a new hero appears - a merchant's son, a seedy rootless nobleman. The nature of translated literature is changing.
The process of democratization of literature meets with a response from the ruling classes. In court circles, an artificial normative style, ceremonial aesthetics, and elements of Ukrainian-Polish baroque were implanted. Living folk lyrics are contrasted with artificial syllabic book poetry, democratic satire with moralizing abstract satire on morals in general, and folk drama with court and school comedy. However, the emergence of syllabic poetry, court and school theater testified to the triumph of new principles and prepared the way for the emergence of classicism in Russian literature of the 18th century.
2. A characteristic feature of Old Russian literature is the handwritten nature of its existence and distribution. Moreover, this or that work did not exist in the form of a separate, independent manuscript, but was part of various collections that pursued certain practical goals. “Everything that serves not for the sake of benefit, but for the sake of embellishment, is subject to the accusation of vanity.” These words of Basil the Great largely determined the attitude of ancient Russian society towards written works. The value of a particular handwritten book was assessed from the point of view of its practical purpose and usefulness.
Another feature of our ancient literature is the anonymity and impersonality of its works. This was a consequence of the religious-Christian attitude of feudal society towards man, and in particular towards the work of a writer, artist, and architect. IN best case scenario we know the names of individual authors, “writers” of books, who modestly put their name either at the end of the manuscript, or in its margins, or (which is much less common) in the title of the work. At the same time, the writer will not accept to provide his name with such evaluative epithets as “thin”, “unworthy”, “many sinners”. In most cases, the author of the work prefers to remain unknown, and sometimes hide behind the authoritative name of one or another “father of the church” - John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, etc.
Biographical information about the ancient Russian writers known to us, the volume of their creativity, character social activities very, very scarce. Therefore, if when studying literature of the 18th-20th centuries. literary critics widely use biographical material, reveal the nature of the political, philosophical, aesthetic views of a particular writer, using the author’s manuscripts, trace the history of the creation of works, identify creative individuality writer, then the monuments of ancient Russian writing have to be approached differently.
As a rule, the original texts of works have not reached us, but more than late lists, sometimes distant from the time of writing the original by a hundred, two hundred or more years. For example, “The Tale of Bygone Years,” created by Nestor in 1111-1113, has not survived at all, and the edition of Sylvester’s “story” (1116) is known only as part of the Laurentian Chronicle of 1377. “The Tale of Igor’s Host,” written at the end of 80 s of the 12th century, was found in a list of the 16th century.
When studying ancient Russian literature, one very important circumstance should be taken into account: in the medieval period, fiction had not yet emerged as an independent area of social consciousness; it was inextricably linked with philosophy, science, and religion.
In this regard, it is impossible to mechanically apply to ancient Russian literature the criteria of artistry with which we approach when assessing the phenomena of literary development of modern times.
The process of historical development of ancient Russian literature is a process of gradual crystallization fiction, its isolation from the general flow of writing, its democratization and “secularization,” i.e., liberation from the tutelage of the church.
One of characteristic features Old Russian literature is its connection with church and business writing, on the one hand, and oral poetic folk art, on the other. The nature of these connections at each historical stage of the development of literature and in its individual monuments was different.
However, the wider and deeper literature used the artistic experience of folklore, the more clearly it reflected the phenomena of reality, the wider was the sphere of its ideological and artistic influence.
A characteristic feature of Old Russian literature is history. Its heroes are predominantly historical figures; it almost does not allow fiction and strictly follows the fact. Even numerous stories about “miracles” - phenomena that seemed supernatural to a medieval person, are not so much the invention of an ancient Russian writer, but rather accurate records of the stories of either eyewitnesses or the people themselves with whom the “miracle” happened.
The historicism of ancient Russian literature has a specifically medieval character. The course and development of historical events is explained by God's will, the will of providence. The heroes of the works are princes, rulers of the state, standing at the top of the hierarchical ladder of feudal society. However, having discarded the religious shell, the modern reader easily discovers that living historical reality, the true creator of which was the Russian people.
3 . Genre system.
The specific features of the medieval worldview determined the system of genres of ancient Russian literature, subordinated to practical utilitarian goals - both moral and political. Along with Christianity, Ancient Rus' also adopted the system of genres of church writing that was developed in Byzantium. There were no genres here yet in the modern literary understanding, but there were canons enshrined in the decrees of ecumenical councils, legend - tradition and charter. Church literature was associated with the ritual of Christian worship and monastic life. Its significance and authority were built on a certain hierarchical principle. The top level was occupied by the books of “holy scripture”. Following them came hymnography and “words” associated with interpretations of “scripture” and explanations of the meaning of the holidays. Such “words” were usually combined into collections - “celebrants”, Triodion colored and Lenten. Then followed the lives - stories about the exploits of saints. The Lives were combined into collections: Prologues (Synaxari), Chetii-Minea, Patericon. Each type of hero: martyr, confessor, monk, stylite, holy fool - corresponded to its own type of life. The composition of the life depended on its use: liturgical practice dictated certain conditions to its compiler, addressing the life to readers and listeners.
Based on Byzantine examples, ancient Russian writers created a number of outstanding works of hagiographic original literature that reflected essential aspects of the life and everyday life of ancient Rus'. In contrast to Byzantine hagiography, Old Russian literature creates an original genre of princely lives, which aimed to strengthen the political authority of princely power and surround it with an aura of holiness. A distinctive feature of the princely life is “historicism”, a close connection with chronicles, military stories, i.e. genres of secular literature.
Just like the princely life, on the verge of transition from church genres to secular ones there are “walkings” - travels, descriptions of pilgrimages to “holy places”, legends about icons.
The system of genres of worldly (secular) literature is more flexible. It was developed by ancient Russian writers through extensive interaction with the genres of oral folk art, business writing, and church literature.
The dominant position among the genres of secular writing is occupied by the historical story, dedicated to outstanding events related to the struggle against the external enemies of Rus', the evil of princely strife. The story is accompanied by a historical legend and legend. A legend is based on some plot-completed episode; a legend is based on an oral legend. These genres are usually included in chronicles and chronographs.
A special place among worldly genres is occupied by the “Teaching” of Vladimir Monomakh, “The Lay of Igor’s Host”, “The Lay of the Destruction of the Russian Land” and “The Lay” of Daniil Zatochnik. They testify to the high level of literary development achieved by Ancient Russia in the 11th - first half of the 13th centuries.
Development of Old Russian literature of the 11th-17th centuries. goes through the gradual destruction of a stable system of church genres and their transformation. Genres of worldly literature are subject to fictionalization. They are becoming increasingly interested in inner world of a person, the psychological motivation of his actions, entertaining and everyday descriptions appear. Historical heroes are being replaced by fictional ones. In the 17th century this leads to radical changes in the internal structure and style of historical genres and contributes to the birth of new purely fictional works. Virse poetry, court and school drama, democratic satire, everyday stories, and picaresque short stories appeared.
Original Russian literature.
The genre that best defines the first period is chronicle genre .
As is known, “The Tale of Bygone Years” has come down to us in two forms (second (1116) and third (1118) editions), the best are the “Lavrentievskaya” (2) and Ipatievskaya (3) editions
Indeed, the beginning of chronicle writing dates back to the 30s of the 11th century. But there were probably some records before that. It was hypothesized that there was some historical information in:
oral form (in which detail is removed and generalities are added);
records (which began to be kept with Easter tables where I came from weather recording principle. Each church had Easter tables, in which the days of Easter were calculated several years in advance, and the most significant facts (for example, about princes) were recorded from scratch. But there was a second result of such records - a form of weather record was found, which was the most closed system).
the desire to cover a sufficiently large chronological period, and therefore to cover various episodes, to convey a sense of movement/meaning of the theory;
compilability (use of various sources);
journalistic orientation (to prove something to enemies, friends, our patriotic view of history);
In 1113, Nestor (the chronicler) completed the creation of the chronicle as a genre that existed until the 17th century. Nestor introduces a biblical aspect - he connects everything with biblical history(for example, the division of the land between the sons of Noah). Nestor thinks in terms of world history, but also remains a man of his tribe, and he mocks other tribes (he says about the Drevlyans: there was no marriage, we have no shame). This is local patriotism with open-mindedness. We already have a state chronicle in front of us, hence patriotism.
Nestor also acts as a researcher (his additions to the story of Olga’s revenge from oral sources - legends), he reflects on what is reliable and what is not (for example, reflections on the emergence of Kyiv. According to Kie, Nestor rejects this version, since he this offended him, he says that Kiy was a prince). As a result, the chronicle becomes official history.
Genre Life.
“The Legend of the Initial Spread of Christianity in Rus'” is not yet a life, but there is a description of exploits, stories about death (for example, “Boris and Gleb”). From it grows the first Russian hagiography, which does not have all the hagiographic features (the legend of Boris and Gleb).
An anonymous legend about Boris and Gleb emerges from chronicle history. The anonymous author expands and gives us detailed description how Boris and Gleb accepted death. There is no canonical introduction, their infancy and adolescence. Then a story about the sons of Vladimir, and then a story about the death of Boris and Gleb, who are killed by Svyatopolk, their brother (the son of Vladimir’s murdered brother). He was afraid of rivalry with his brothers as princes... the princely family was still perceived as one. But Yaroslav then defeated Svyatopolk. In this story, the focus is on the death event, which is described in great detail (telling how they feel). The brothers' monologues are very similar (we see that Boris understands what is happening: he is smart, and Gleb cannot believe in fratricide). A feeling of melancholy is described (that the children did not bury their father. For him - Gleb - his father is still alive; his experiences intensify; well described psychological condition). Also, after the death of Gleb’s brother Boris, his feelings intensify even more.
But this is also not a canonical life (that’s why it is so intense and emotional). Since it is not canonical, Nestor undertook to make it canonical. He added an introduction, a story about his youth (and since he knew little, he added what was needed: they read divine books, did not play with children). Nestor removed all the specifics (the name of the boy who tried to save Boris). Specifics belittled their actions and grounded them. When the specifics, sharpness, and emotionality were gone, so-called rhetorical exercises turned out. Nestor also edited some of the miracles (removing social motives and specifics). This is an unsuccessful model for constructing a life.
But at the same time, Nestor manages to create a rich, emotional life - “The Life of Theodosius of Pechersk”. This is the man with whom he lived next to in the monastery. It followed the Byzantine canon (correct). This is a deeply religious person who lived a traditional life for a saint with the peculiarities of his personal life. Nestor begins and writes his life according to the rules. But Theodosius speaks in detail about his parents (which is not required by the canon!). He says that his mother was domineering, rude, strong, she believed that she knew how to make her son happy. Theodosius does not play, wears bad clothes, he leaves home along with the pilgrims and wanderers. Theodosius thinks about the soul, and his mother wants him to achieve earthly happiness. He goes to Kyiv and takes monastic vows. They don't want to cut his hair anywhere. The mother, having learned this, finds Theodosius and asks him to leave (he comes out for the third time, and on the condition that his mother becomes a nun). He becomes the abbot (abbot) of the Kiev Pechersk Monastery. His exploits are standard. But he is also an educator and a builder (a story about the construction of new buildings in the Kiev Pechersky Monastery). As a result, Theodosius gets the opportunity to work miracles (since he has purified his soul). The miracles are even funny (the baker’s visit to Theodosius and complaints about the demon - Theodosius shuts himself up in the bakery for the night, prays and the demon disappears. Veselovsky’s wandering plot!). Humility is the most important virtue (obedience was characteristic of Theodosius). There are political things (for example, the clash between Theodosius and the Kyiv prince).
Paterik.
A wonderful monument is “Kievo-Pechersk Patericon”. Psychological and everyday details have been preserved. It also talks about the exploits of the holy monks (the story of Moses and Ungra). The monks perform feats and get the opportunity to work miracles (the story of Olympia). The land itself becomes holy.
A story about two brothers (at the beginning). There is no stench if a person is holy (until death).
Story about Mark. Mark dug graves, but lazily (it often happened that his brother died and the grave was not yet ready!). A story about the relationship between the monaz (when Sid during the service...?). Miracle - Titus is healthy, and Vagriy is numb, as if he had died a few days ago.
The name of Prokhor the Lebednik was known (he ate only quinoa!). If people received bread from Prokhor’s hands, it (the bread) was sweet, but the stolen bread was bitter. Prokhor created salt from ashes, and in the king’s courtyard they turned back into ashes. These are paterik novellas.
Sermon.
Sermon is the word spoken by the minister before the service. The most syncretic and free genre (a combination of different arts). Not only the preacher’s word is important, but also architecture, painting, and to some extent music. These elements are used in different types of preaching.
Sermon highlights:
Everyday (in common days, concerns everyday and sometimes political issues);
Solemn (on major holidays, affects listeners).
Everyday Sermon. Introduction, sequential presentation, conclusion. It must logically prove/convey something to the listener. The personality of the preacher is reflected.
Theodosius in preaching he is a passionate man, a fanatic, which is aimed at glorifying Orthodoxy and fighting enemies - Catholics. Theodosius writes “The Sermon on the Christian and Latin Faith” to convince that in no case should one accept Catholicism. It would seem that the question is serious and we must start with why the churches diverged. Theodosius begins with a spell for the prince not to communicate with Catholics. The first argument is as the fathers commanded; He says they don’t believe rightly, they don’t live purely. Graduation technique (from harmless to disgusting): “They eat soup with cats and drink... urine.” Theodosius is a medieval man; everything alien is bad. He comes to the main creed. The relationship has already been formed.
Image: a strong, fanatical, convinced man, he convinces the prince of what he himself is convinced of.
Hilarion and Kirill– developed solemn sermon. Kirill spoke on very solemn holidays, he is an emotional person. Everything is thin. the funds are aimed at making us feel included. He specifies some things that are unclear to us (for example, the ascension of Christ). His main artistic technique is rhetorical amplification. Kirill wants us to experience the feeling that a peasant/Christian experiences.
Hilarion is the first Russian metropolitan. Demon of consent. His sermon has philosophical and political significance. Writes “The Word on Law and Grace.” The pattern of replacement of Judaism by Christianity. Grace is Christianity, law is Judaism. He comprehends natural historical processes: the worldwide spread of Christianity was planned by the Almighty from the very beginning, it was predetermined. But then people were not ready. God decides which people and when to accept faith. Everything is done according to the will of God.
Hilarion's biography is interesting. When we adopted Christianity, the metropolitans were Greeks. After the death of another metropolitan, Yaroslav the Wise appoints Hilarion as metropolitan without anyone’s consent. A few years later, the Metropolitan was Greek again. There is one hypothesis (but not reliable): Hilarion later accepted monasticism in the Kiev Pechersk Monastery, became a monk and took the name Nikon! Hilarion belonged to a circle of scribes. He has the same interests as Yaroslav the Wise.
In his “Sermon on Law and Grace” Hilarion reflects(!) on the historical movement. It takes one aspect: the replacement of the Jewish religion with Christianity. He varies the scheme and comes to the conclusion that Judaism is a step towards Christianity. The sermon is delivered in the temple, where there are frescoes on this occasion. In this way he achieved syncretism (that is, the connection of different arts). One of those wonderfully structured sermons. It is built on a system of parallels and synthesis.
law grace
shadow, cold, moonlight, warmth, sun
Law - man's relationship with God is strictly regulated. Grace is a free choice, a moral choice every day. In Judaism, everything is predetermined (for example, in Judaism you cannot cook dairy and meat in the same container, you cannot work on the Sabbath, after marriage women are shaved bald). Law is opposed to grace. Hagar and her son Ishmael are contrasted with Sarah and her son Isaac.
“First is the shadow and then is the truth,” teaches Hilarion. Here he is a philosopher. The philosophy of history is presented. Hilarion’s goal is to prove that this change is a completely natural thing, foreseen by the creator. Hilarion gives many examples (for example, the arrival of Grace to God); if Judaism is a natural step to Christianity, then there is no merit of Byzantium (+ independence of Rus'). Everything is according to God's will. The theme is religious-philosophical, the idea is political. For a medieval person, any postulate must be justified religiously and philosophically. Hilarion is first and foremost a philosopher.
Walking.
Travel genre. It arose after the adoption of Christianity. We need to make sure of what is written about. Many people wanted to become pilgrims, so pilgrimages to Constantinople began. People are asking eternal questions, but there is great damage to the economy. The church harshly characterized this movement: according to the church, this is an encroachment on its mission, the church is concerned about what is happening (the fields are abandoned). Many texts condemned pilgrimage. The Church convinces us that we don’t need to go far at all, but rather read the descriptions of the holy places.
Abbot Daniel was the first to write. There is a hypothesis: Daniel’s goal is political; Daniel carried out a diplomatic mission from the Kyiv prince Svyatopolk. At this time, there is the state of the Crusaders with King Baldwin, his support is just right (the beginning of the 12th century, the struggle with Monomakh, who was in full force, + the authority of Constantinople). Svyatopolk needed to put someone behind his back (but he failed). Many documents prove this goal, according to which this hypothesis is quite probable. First, he is respected; Daniel alone is led to the Holy Sepulcher and to the Pillar of David. Daniel himself says that he “applied, and they let him in” - everything is much simpler. Secondly: “The Walking of Hegumen Daniil” - there was a reconstruction of the memorial list: the list is different in different copies, so we turn to the protographer, and there (in the memorial list) there are all the senior, independent princes, so Daniil feels like an intercessor (representative) of the entire Russian land. All these arguments generally confirm everything. Most likely, Daniil is the abbot of one of the southern Russian (Chernigov) monasteries. Its associations are similar to Russian. The most important thing that we see in the text is a special view of the world thanks to the composition.
The composition is justified by purpose. Each chapter intersects past and present. Daniel is inquisitive and wants to make sure of everything. His look is the look of a person who is joyfully convinced that everything he believes in really exists. He is a lively, curious person. This is confirmed by the details he describes. He's interested in everything. At the same time, he is a representative of the entire Russian land and sees the world like all representatives. This “Walking” is a kind of guide.
This is the literature of a single ancient Russian nationality. The literature of this period is also called the literature of Kievan Rus. The Kiev state was one of the most advanced states of its time. The Russian land was famous for its rich cities. In the 12th century. it had more than 200 cities. The oldest Russian cities included Kyiv, Novgorod, Chernigov, and Smolensk. In Kyiv and other Russian cities, from the end of the 11th century in Kyiv, the sister of Prince Yaroslav, Anna, established a women's school, the first in Europe. Literature XI-XII centuries. was the basis on which the subsequent development of the literatures of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus took place. The main monuments of this period are associated with Kyiv. The most important genres of literature are created here: the chronicle, the historical story, the life, the word.
2. Literature of the period of feudal fragmentation and unification of North-Eastern Rus' (XII-XV centuries)
The process of feudal fragmentation led to the collapse of Kievan Rus and the formation of new political and cultural centers: Vladimir, Moscow, Novgorod, and Tver principalities. Literature develops separately in each of them. But during the period of the struggle against the Tatar-Mongols, literature called for the unification of all forces to fight against the enemies. The most significant literary monuments of this period are “The Prayer of Daniel the Prisoner”, “The Tale of the Devastation of Ryazan by Batu”, “Zadonshchina”, “Walking across the Three Seas”, “The Tale of Peter and Fevronia”.
3. Literature of the period of the centralized Russian state (XVI-XVII centuries)
During this period, the literature of the emerging Russian nation was created. The church worldview is giving way to a secular one, and a more widespread democratic readership is appearing. Literary genres are becoming more democratic in both form and content. Artistic fiction emerges, which until the 17th century. was not in the literature. Literature of the 17th century was mainly of a journalistic nature, reflecting the ideological positions of the warring parties (Correspondence between Tsar Ivan the Terrible and Prince Andrei Kurbsky). The literature of this period is characterized by the development of the story, presented in its various genre exploits: hagiographical (“The Tale of Juliania Lazarevskaya”), historical (“The Tale of the Azov Siege of the Don Cossacks”), everyday (“The Tale of Woe and Misfortune”), satirical (“The Tale of Shemyakin’s Court”, “The Tale of Ersha Ershovich”, “The Tale of Hawkmoth”).
An outstanding writer of the 17th century. was Archpriest Avvakum, author of the Life.
In addition to democratic literature in the 17th century. High literature continues to develop, and a special style emerges, called “Baroque.” Baroque was an aristocratic phenomenon, opposed to Russian democratic and satirical literature. This trend embraced court poetry and drama.
Ticket number 9. Main themes and genres of ancient Russian literature.
So, the literature of Ancient Rus' had very special circumstances of its origin, a special place and functions in the life of society. It was they who were ahead of the system of original genres. In fact, it was “one theme and one plot. This plot is world history, and this theme is the meaning of human life,” as D.S. Likhachev noted
The genres of ancient Russian literature were as follows: chronicles and chronographs - about the history of the world, chronicles - about the history of Rus'; further - countless biblical books and paleys (from the Greek palaios - ancient) - the same description of biblical events, but with reasoning and interpretation. Usedpopularitylives saints - a large collection of biographies of Christian ascetics, famous for their piety and asceticism, or who died for their religious beliefs at the hands of pagans or infidels, and patericon - collections of short, often action-packed stories from the lives of monks TeachingsAnd " words" representedgenresolemneloquence: firstdenouncedvices, welcomedvirtuesAndin every possible wayinstructedbelieversVChristianmorality; Ainsecond, pronounceableVchurchesintimeservices, opened upreligioussymbols and meanings of church holidays. RelativesthemwereAnddogmaticessays - Theywere engagedtheologicalquestionsAnddenouncedheresies. Moderngenre " travelnotes" hadVancestorswalking - storiesOtravelV " Holyland", T about Palestine: the pilgrims, their authors, not only retold biblical legends associated with the places they walked through, but also described the architecture, nature and customs of those places. Manygenresnewtime - such, Howdomesticnovelorstory, drama Turgy - will appear only much later - in the 15th or even 17th century, but this does not mean at all that the ancient Russian reader was not interested in either emotional prose or descriptions of the life of ordinary people. The everyday story-anecdote, love song, fairy tale, legend and heroic epic existed in Ancient Rus', but not at all in written form, that is, in the form of folklore, not literature: it was too irrational to write down accessible and well-known works of oral literature on expensive parchment through the efforts of a few scribes, occupied with more necessary Christian and historical literature. Unfortunately, we cannot completely reconstruct ancient folklore, but its later examples that have come down to us and its mentions in the literature of older times give us undoubted evidence of the presence of an extensive system of genres of ancient Russian folklore. The system of literary genres was not specific to only one ancient Russian literature: in Byzantium in the 9th-10th centuries. we will find almost the same genres in the same proportions. Secular genres - love story and lyric poetry - will appear in Byzantine literature somewhat later, in the 11th-12th centuries, but under the conditions of strict selection of literature for translation, books of this kind were practically not represented in Ancient Rus', with rare exceptions: for example, the epic poem about Digenis Akritos. Please payattentionmoreononeimportantcircumstance: right up tobeforeXVIIV. VliteratureNotallowedliteraryfiction. Underfictionshouldunderstandfictionhimselfauthor: scribeAlwaysonlyrecording Al for witnesses of events will appear in Russian literature no earlier than the 15th century, although he will still be disguised as a hero of a distant country or a long time ago. Onlyonegenreadmittedfrankfiction, ButonlyForTogo, toillustratewhich one- oridea- This is an apologist, or a parable.
Ticket number 10. Structure and plots of the Old Russian chronicle.
Ticket number 11. Canon of Old Russian Life. Evolution of the genre.
The spiritual reserve that Ancient Rus' had at its disposal did not have enough resources to develop an inclination towards philosophical thinking. But she found plenty of material on which feeling and imagination could work. This was the life of the Russian people, who, following the example of Eastern Christian ascetics, devoted themselves to the fight against the temptations of the world. Old Russian society was very sensitive and sympathetic to such ascetics, just as the ascetics themselves very receptively adopted Eastern models. Perhaps both did so for the same reason: the temptations of their Russian life were too elementary or too difficult to obtain, and people love to struggle with an intractable or demanding life. The lives and biographies of such ascetics became the favorite reading of the ancient Russian literate person. Lives describe the lives of holy princes and princesses, the highest hierarchs of the Russian Church, then its subordinate servants, archimandrites, abbots, simple monks, most rarely people from the white clergy, most often the founders and ascetics of monasteries, who came from different classes of ancient Russian society, including from peasants. The people about whom the lives are narrated were all more or less historical figures who attracted the attention of contemporaries or the memories of immediate posterity, otherwise we would not have known about their existence. But a life is not a biography or a heroic epic. It differs from the latter in that it describes real life only with a certain selection of material, in the required typical, one might say stereotypical, manifestations. The hagiographer, the compiler of hagiography, has his own style, his own literary techniques, and his own special task. The Life is a whole literary structure, in some details reminiscent of an architectural structure. It usually begins with a lengthy, solemn preface, expressing a view of the significance of holy lives for human society. Then the activity of the saint is narrated, destined from infancy, sometimes even before birth, to become God's chosen vessel of high talents; this activity is accompanied by miracles during his lifetime and is sealed by miracles after the death of the saint. The life ends with a word of praise to the saint, usually expressing gratitude to the Lord God for sending down to the world a new lamp that illuminated the path of life for sinful people. All these parts are combined into something solemn, liturgical: the life was intended to be read in church at the all-night vigil on the eve of the saint’s memorial day. The Life is addressed not to the listener or reader, but to the one praying. It more than instructs: while instructing, it tunes, strives to turn a soulful moment into a prayerful inclination. It describes an individual personality, personal life, but this chance is valued not in itself, not as one of the diverse manifestations of human nature, but only as the embodiment of an eternal ideal. Byzantine lives served as a model for Russian hagiography, but already in the initial period of the development of Old Russian literature, two types of hagiographic texts appeared: princely lives and monastic lives. Princely lives generally gravitate towards a hagiographical scheme. This is, for example, created at the beginning of the 12th century. monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor, life entitled “Reading about Boris and Gleb.” This work was written according to the strict requirements of classical Byzantine hagiography. Nestor, following tradition, spoke about the childhood of princes Boris and Gleb, about Boris’s marriage, about how the brothers prayed to God. The purpose of life is to clearly show in individual existence that everything that the commandments require of a person is not only doable, but has been fulfilled more than once, and therefore is obligatory for conscience, for of all the demands of goodness, only the impossible is not necessary for conscience. A work of art in its literary form, a life, treats its subject didactically: it is edification in living persons, and therefore living persons are instructive types in it. The Life is not a biography, but an edifying panegyric within the framework of a biography, just as the image of a saint in the Life is not a portrait, but an icon. Therefore, among the main sources of ancient Russian history, the lives of the saints of Ancient Rus' occupy their special place. The Old Russian Chronicle notes current phenomena in the life of their country; stories and legends convey individual events that had a particularly strong impact on the life or imagination of the people; monuments of law, legal codes and charters formulate general legal norms or establish private legal relations that arose from them: only ancient Russian life gives us the opportunity to observe personal life in Ancient Rus', although raised to an ideal, reworked into a type from which the correct hagiographer tried to shake everything off petty concrete accidents of personal existence that impart such vital freshness to a simple biography. His stereotypical details about the providential upbringing of the saint, about the fight against demons in the desert - are requirements of the hagiographical style, not biographical data. He didn't hide it. Knowing nothing about the origin and early life of his saint, he sometimes openly began his story: but from what city or village and from what parents such a lamp came, we have not found in the scriptures, God knows, but it is enough for us to know that he is a citizen of heavenly Jerusalem, his father is God, and his mother is the holy church, his relatives are all-night tearful prayers and incessant sighs, his neighbors are tireless desert labors. Finally, the posthumous miracles of a saint that often accompany the life of a saint, especially those who labored in a desert monastery, are very valuable for historiography. This is often a kind of local chronicle of a remote corner, which has not left a trace in the general chronicle, or even in any written record. Such records of miracles were sometimes kept on behalf of the abbot and the brethren by specially appointed persons, with interviews of those healed and testimonies, with the circumstances of the case written down, being more likely business documents, books of formal protocols, than literary works. Despite the fact that they sometimes vividly reflect the life of the local world, which flowed to the grave or tomb of the saint with its needs and illnesses, family troubles and social troubles. Old Russian hagiography tried to perpetuate in their lives the memory of all Russian ascetics of piety for the edification of posterity; Several lives and individual legends have been compiled about some of them. Not all of these stories have reached us; many pass from hand to hand locally, remaining unknown to Russian church historiography. There are up to 250 hagiographic works about more than 170 ancient Russian saints. I present these figures to give you some idea of the available stock of Russian hagiography. The ancient Russian lives and legends that have come down to us, mostly not yet published, are read in many lists - a sign that they were part of the most beloved reading of Ancient Rus'. This prevalence is explained by the literary features of hagiography.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/
Literature of Kievan Rus (mid-11th - first third of the 12th centuries)
The first works of original ancient Russian literature that have reached us date back to the middle of the 11th century. Their creation was due to the growth of the political, patriotic consciousness of early feudal society, striving to strengthen new forms of statehood and assert the sovereignty of the Russian land. Substantiating the ideas of political and religious independence of Rus', literature seeks to consolidate new forms of Christian ethics, the authority of secular and spiritual power, to show inviolability, “eternity” feudal relations, rules of law. historical literary cultural
The main genres of literature of this time were historical: legend, tale, story - and religious-didactic: solemn words, teachings, lives, walks. Historical genres, relying in their development on the corresponding genres of folklore, develop specific book forms of storytelling “according to the epics of this time.” The leading genre is the historical story, based on a reliable depiction of events. Depending on the nature of the events reflected in the stories, they can be “military”, stories about princely crimes, etc. Each type of historical stories acquires its own specific stylistic features.
The central character of historical stories and legends is a warrior prince, a defender of the country's borders, a builder of temples, a zealot for education, a righteous judge of his subjects. His antipode is a seditious prince, violating the feudal legal order of subordinating the trade wind to his overlord, the eldest in the clan, leading bloody internecine wars, striving to gain power for himself by force.
The narration of the good and evil deeds of the princes is based on the testimony of eyewitnesses, participants in the events, and oral traditions that existed among the druzhina environment.
Historical incarnations and legends do not allow fiction n modern meaning this word. The facts stated and them are documented, attached to exact dates, correlated with other events.
Historical genres of ancient Russian literature, as a rule, do not exist separately, but as part of chronicles, where the principle of weather presentation made it possible to include a variety of material: weather records, legends, stories. These historical genres were dedicated the most important events, associated with military campaigns, the fight against external enemies of Rus', the construction activities of the prince, strife, unusual natural phenomena - heavenly signs. At the same time, the chronicle also included church legends, elements of lives and even entire lives, and legal documents.
One of the oldest surviving greatest historical and literary monuments of the second half of the 11th century - beginning of XII century is "The Tale of Bygone Years".
"The Tale of Bygone Years"
“The Tale of Bygone Years” is an outstanding historical and literary monument that reflected the formation of the ancient Russian state, its political and cultural flourishing, as well as the beginning of the process of feudal fragmentation. Created in the first decades of the 12th century, it has come to us as part of chronicles of a later time. The oldest of them are the Laurentian Chronicle - 1377, the Ipatiev Chronicle, dating back to the 20s of the 15th century, and the First Novgorod Chronicle of the 30s of the 14th century.
In the Laurentian Chronicle, the “Tale of Bygone Years” is continued by the North Russian Suzdal Chronicle, brought up to 1305, and the Iyatiev Chronicle, in addition to the “Tale of Bygone Years,” contains the Kyiv and Galician-Volyn chronicles, brought up to 1292.
All subsequent chronicles of the XV-XVI centuries. certainly included “The Tale of Bygone Years” in their composition, subjecting it to editorial and stylistic revision.
Formation of the chronicle. HYPOTHESIS A. A. SHAHMAMAVA. The history of the emergence of the Russian chronicle has attracted the attention of more than one generation of Russian scientists, starting with V.N. Tatishchev. However, only A. A. Shakhmatov, an outstanding Russian philologist, at the beginning of this century managed to create the most valuable scientific hypothesis about the composition, sources and editions of The Tale of Bygone Years. When developing his hypothesis, A. A. Shakhmatov brilliantly applied the comparative historical method of philological study of the text. The results of the research are presented in his works “Research on the most ancient Russian chronicles” (St. Petersburg, 1908) and “The Tale of Bygone Years” (Vol. 1. Pg., 1916).
In 1039, a metropolitanate was established in Kyiv - an independent church organization. At the court of the Metropolitan, the “Most Ancient Kiev Code” was created, updated to 1037. This code, suggested A. A. Shakhmatov, arose on the basis of Greek translated chronicles and local folklore material. In Novgorod in 1036 the Novgorod Chronicle was created, on its basis and on the basis of the “Ancient Kievan Code” in 1050 the “Ancient Novgorod Code” appeared. In 1073, the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nikon the Great, using the “Ancient Kiev Code,” compiled the “First Kiev-Pechersk Code,” which also included records of historical events that occurred after the death of Yaroslav the Wise (1054).
Based on the “First Kiev-Pechersk Vault” and the “Ancient Novgorod Vault” of 1050, the “Second Kiev-Pechersk Vault” was created in 1095, or, as Shakhmatov first called it, the “Initial Vault”. The author of the “Second Kiev-Pechersk Code” supplemented his sources with materials from the Greek chronograph, the Paremiynik, oral stories of Jan Vyshatich and the life of Anthony of Pechersk.
“The Second Kiev-Pechersk Code” served as the basis for the “Tale of Bygone Years”, the first edition of which was created in 1113 by the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor, the second edition by the abbot of the Vydubitsky Monastery Sylvester in 1116 and the third by an unknown author - confessor of Prince Mstislav Vladimirovich.
The first edition of Nestor's "Tale of Bygone Years" focuses on the narrative of historical events of the late 11th - early 12th centuries. allocated to the great Kyiv prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, who died in 1113. Vladimir Monomakh, having become the great Kyiv prince after the death of Svyatopolk, transferred the keeping of the chronicle to his patrimonial Vydubitsky monastery. Here Abbot Sylvester carried out an editorial revision of Nestor's text, highlighting the figure of Vladimir Monomakh. The unpreserved text of Nesterov’s first edition of “The Tale of Bygone Years” is reconstructed by A. A. Shakhmatov in his work “The Tale of Bygone Years” (Vol. 1). The second edition, according to the scientist, was best preserved by the Laurentian Chronicle, and the third by the Ipatiev Chronicle.
The hypothesis of A. A. Shakhmatov, which so brilliantly restores the history of the origin and development of the initial Russian chronicle, however, remains a hypothesis for now. Its main provisions aroused objections from V. M. Istrin.
He believed that in 1039, at the court of the Greek metropolitan, by shortening the chronicle of George Amartol, a “Chronograph according to the Great Exposition” appeared, supplemented by Russian news. Isolated from the Chronograph in 1054, they constituted the first edition of the Tale of Bygone Years, and the second edition was created by Nestor at the beginning of the second decade of the 12th century.
Hypothesis of D. S. Likhachev. Interesting clarifications of A. A. Shakhmatov’s hypothesis were made by D. S. Likhachev. He rejected the possibility of the existence of the “Ancient Kievan Code” in 1039 and connected the history of the chronicle with the specific struggle that the Kievan state had to wage in the 30-50s of the 11th century against the political and religious claims of the Byzantine Empire. Byzantium sought to turn the Russian church into its political agency, which threatened the independence of the ancient Russian state. The claims of the empire met with active resistance from the grand ducal power, which was supported by the broad masses of the population in the struggle for the political and religious independence of Rus'. The struggle between Rus' and Byzantium reached particular tension in the middle of the 11th century. The Grand Duke of Kyiv Yaroslav the Wise manages to highly raise the political authority of Kyiv and the Russian state. He lays strong foundations for the political and religious independence of Rus'. In 1039, Yaroslav achieved the establishment of a metropolitanate in Kyiv. Thus, Byzantium recognized a certain independence of the Russian church, although the Greek metropolitan remained at its head. In addition, Yaroslav sought the canonization of Olga, Vladimir and his brothers Boris and Gleb, who were killed by Svyatopolk in 1015. In the end, Byzantium was forced to recognize Boris and Gleb as Russian saints, which was a triumph of Yaroslav’s national policy. The veneration of these first Russian saints acquired the character of a national cult; it was associated with the condemnation of fratricidal strife, with the idea of preserving the unity of the Russian land.
The political struggle between Rus' and Byzantium turns into an open armed conflict: in 1050 Yaroslav sends troops to Constantinople led by his son Vladimir. Although Vladimir Yaroslavich's campaign ended in defeat, in 1051 Yaroslav elevated the Russian priest Hilarion to the metropolitan throne.
During this period, the struggle for independence covered all areas of the culture of Kievan Rus, including literature. D. S. Likhachev points out that the chronicle was formed gradually, as a result of interest in the historical past of his native land and the desire to preserve significant events of his time for future descendants.
The researcher suggests that in the 30s and 40s of the 11th century. By order of Yaroslav the Wise, oral folk historical legends were recorded, which D. S. Likhachev conventionally calls “Tales of the initial spread of Christianity in Rus'.” The “Tale” included legends about Olga’s baptism in Constantinople, about the death of two Varangian martyrs, about Vladimir’s test of faith and his baptism. These legends were anti-Byzantine in nature. Thus, in the legend of Olga’s baptism, the superiority of the Russian princess over the Greek emperor was emphasized. Olga rejected the emperor’s claims to her hand, cleverly “outwitting” him. The legend claimed that the Russian princess did not see much honor in the marriage offered to her. In her relations with the Greek emperor, Olga shows purely Russian ingenuity, intelligence and resourcefulness. She maintains her self-esteem by defending the honor of her native land.
The legend about the test of faith by Vladimir emphasizes that Christianity was adopted by Russia as a result of free choice, and not received as a gracious gift from the Greeks.
According to this legend, envoys of various faiths come to Kyiv: Mohammedan, Jewish and Christian, Greek, Roman. Each of the ambassadors extols the virtues of his religion. However, Vladimir wittily rejects both the Muslim and Jewish faiths, since they do not correspond national traditions Russian land. The Roman faith was rejected by “fathers and grandfathers” (meaning the mission of Bishop Adalbert in the middle of the 10th century). Having chosen Orthodoxy, Vladimir, before accepting this religion, sends his envoys to test which faith is better. Those sent are convinced with their own eyes of the beauty, splendor and splendor of Greek Christian church services, they prove to the prince the advantages of the Orthodox faith over other religions, and Vladimir finally decides on Christianity.
D. S. Likhachev suggests that “Tales about the initial spread of Christianity in Rus'” were recorded by scribes of the Kyiv Metropolis at the St. Sophia Cathedral. However, Constantinople did not agree with the appointment of the Russian Hilarion to the metropolitan see (in 1055 we see the Greek Ephraim in his place), and the “Tales,” which were anti-Byzantine in nature, did not receive further development here.
The center of Russian education, opposed to the Greek metropolitan, from the middle of the 11th century. becomes the Kiev Pechesra Monastery. Here in the 70s of the 11th century. the Russian chronicle is being compiled. The compiler of the chronicle is Nikon the Great. He used “Tales about the Spread of Christianity”, supplemented them with a number of oral historical traditions, eyewitness accounts, in particular the governor Vyshata, historical information about modern and recent events.
Obviously, under the influence of Easter chronological tables - Paschals, compiled in the monastery, Nikon gave his narrative the form of weather records - according to “years”. In the “First Kiev-Pechersk Code” created around 1073, he included a large number of legends about the first Russian princes and their campaigns against Constantinople. Apparently, he also used the Korsun legend about the campaign of Vladimir Svyatoslavich in 988 greek city Korsun (Chersonese Tauride), after the capture of which Vladimir demanded the sister of the Greek emperors Anna as his wife.
Thanks to this, the code of 1073 acquired a pronounced anti-Byzantine orientation. Nikon gave the chronicle political urgency, historical breadth and unprecedented patriotic pathos, which made this work an outstanding monument ancient Russian culture. The code condemned the princely strife, emphasizing the role of the people in protecting the Russian land from external enemies.
Thus, the “First Kiev-Pechersk Code” was an exponent of the ideas and sentiments of the middle and even lower strata of feudal society. From now on, journalisticism, integrity, breadth of historical approach, and patriotic pathos become distinctive features of the Russian chronicle.
After Nikon's death, work on the chronicle continued in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery. Here weather records were kept about current events, which were then processed and combined by an unknown author into the “Second Kiev-Pechersk Code” of 1095.
The “Second Kiev-Pechersk Code” continued the propaganda of the ideas of the unity of the Russian land, begun by Nikon. This code also sharply condemns princely sedition, and the princes are called for unity to jointly fight the steppe nomadic Polovtsians. The compiler of the code sets clear journalistic goals: to correct the current ones by the example of previous princes.
The author of the “Second Kiev-Pechersk Vault” widely draws on the stories of eyewitnesses of the events, in particular the stories of Vyshata’s son Jan. The compiler of the code also uses Greek historical chronicles, in particular the chronicle of George Amartol, the data of which allows him to include the history of Rus' in the general chain of events of world history.
“The Tale of Bygone Years” was created at a time when Kievan Rus was experiencing the most strong blows steppe nomadic Polovtsians, when the ancient Russian society was faced with the question of uniting all forces to fight the steppe, the “field” for the Russian land, which “fathers and grandfathers acquired with sweat and blood.”
In 1098, the great Kiev prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavich reconciled with the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery: he began to support the anti-Byzantine direction of the monastery’s activities and, understanding the political significance of the chronicle, sought to take control of the chronicle writing. In the interests of Svyatopolk, on the basis of the “Second Kiev-Pechersk Code”, the first edition of the “Tale of Bygone Years” was created by the monk Nestor in 1113. Having retained the ideological orientation of the previous code, Nestor strives with the entire course of the historical narrative to convince the Russian princes to put an end to fratricidal wars and brings to the fore the idea of princely brotherly love. Under the pen of Nestor, the chronicle acquires a state official character.
Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, placed by Nestor at the center of the narrative about the events of 1093-1111, did not have much popularity in the society of that time. After his death, Vladimir Monomakh became the Grand Duke of Kyiv in 1113 - “a good sufferer for the Russian land.” Understanding the political and legal significance of the chronicle, he transferred its management to the Vydubitsky Monastery, whose abbot Sylvester, on behalf of the Grand Duke, compiled the second edition of the “Tale of Bygone Years” in 1116. It highlights the figure of Monomakh, emphasizing his merits in the fight against the Polovtsians and in establishing peace between the princes.
In 1118, in the same Vydubitsky Monastery, an unknown author created the third edition of The Tale of Bygone Years. This edition includes the “Teaching” of Vladimir Monomakh, the presentation was brought up to 1117.
Hypothesis of B. A. Rybakov. A different concept of the development of the initial stage of Russian chronicle writing is developed by B. A. Rybakov. Analyzing the text of the initial Russian chronicle, the researcher suggests that brief weather records began to be kept in Kyiv with the advent of the Christian clergy (from 867) under the reign of Askold. At the end of the 10th century, in 996-997, the “First Kiev Chronicle” was created, which summarized the heterogeneous material of brief weather records and oral legends. This code was created at the Church of the Tithes; Anastas Korsunyanin, the rector of the cathedral, the bishop of Belgorod and Vladimir’s uncle, Dobrynya, took part in its compilation. The code provided the first historical summary of the sesquicentennial life of Kievan Rus and ended with the glorification of Vladimir. At the same time, suggests B. A. Rybakov, Vladimirov’s cycle of epics was also taking shape, in which a popular assessment of events and persons was given, while the chronicle introduced court assessments, book culture, squad epics, as well as folk tales.
Sharing the point of view of A. A. Shakhmatov about the existence of the Novgorod Code of 1050, B. A. Rybakov believes that the chronicle was created with the active participation of the Novgorod mayor Ostromir and this “Ostromir Chronicle” should be dated 1054-1060. It was directed against Yaroslav the Wise and the Varangian mercenaries. It emphasized the heroic history of Novgorod and glorified the activities of Vladimir Svyatoslavich and Vladimir Yaroslavich, Prince of Novgorod. The chronicle was purely secular in nature and expressed the interests of the Novgorod boyars.
B. A. Rybakov offers an interesting reconstruction of the text of Nestor’s “Tale of Bygone Years”. He puts forward a hypothesis about the active personal participation of Vladimir Monomakh in the creation of the second, Sylvester, edition. The researcher associates the third edition of “The Tale of Bygone Years” with the activities of Monomakh’s son Mstislav Vladimirovich, who tried to oppose Novgorod to Kyiv.
So the question is about initial stage Russian chronicles, the composition, sources of the “Tale of Bygone Years” is very complex and far from resolved.
What is certain, however, is that “The Tale of Bygone Years” is the result of a large summary of editorial work, summarizing the work of several generations of chroniclers.
The main ideas of the initial chronicle. Already in the title itself - “This is the story of the bygone years, where the Russian land came from, who began the first principality in Kyiv, and where the Russian land began to eat from” - contains an indication of the ideological and thematic content of the chronicle. The Russian land, its historical destinies, from its origin to the first decade of the 12th century, are the focus of the chronicle. The high patriotic idea of the power of the Russian land, its political independence, religious independence from Byzantium constantly guides the chronicler when he introduces into his work the “traditions of deep antiquity” and truly historical events of the recent past.
The chronicles are unusually topical, journalistic, full of sharp condemnation of princely strife and strife that weakens the power of the Russian land, a call to guard the Russian land, not to disgrace the Russian land in the fight against external enemies, first of all with the steppe nomads - the Pechenegs, and then the Polovtsians.
The theme of the homeland is decisive and leading in the chronicle. The interests of the homeland dictate to the chronicler one or another assessment of the prince’s actions and are the measure of his glory and greatness. Living feeling The Russian land, homeland and people convey to the Russian chronicler that unprecedented breadth of political horizon, which is unusual for Western European historical chronicles.
Let us think about the title given to the initial Russian chronicle - “The Tale of Bygone Years.” After all, the word “story” here means a story, i.e., what is told about the past of the Russian land in order to establish “where the Russian land came from, who began the reign in Kyiv first...”. If the work on compiling the chronicle began in the 30s and 40s of the 11th century, then its creators acted not only as historians-researchers, but also as the first historians-writers. First of all, they needed to obtain material about the past years, select it, literary process it and systematize it - “put it in a row.”
Such material apparently included oral historical traditions, legends, epic heroic songs, then written sources: Greek, Bulgarian chronicles, hagiographic literature.
From written sources, chroniclers borrow the historical Christian-scholastic concept, connecting the history of the Russian land with the general course of development of “world” history. The Tale of Bygone Years opens with the biblical legend about the division of the earth after the flood between the sons of Noah - Shem, Ham and Japheth. The Slavs are the descendants of Japhet, that is, they, like the Greeks, belong to a single family of European peoples.
Chroniclers are interested in the fate of the Slavic peoples in the distant past (V-VI centuries), the settlement of the Eastern Slavic tribes in the Dnieper basin and its tributaries, the Volkhov and Lake Ilmen, the Volga-Oka interfluve, the Southern Bug and the Dniester; the morals and customs of these tribes, from which the Polyan tribe stands out in terms of cultural development. Chroniclers seek explanations for the origin of the names of both individual tribes and cities by turning to oral legend. They correlate the events that took place in the Russian land with Greek and Bulgarian events. They realized the great cultural mission of the first Slavic “teachers” and “philosophers” Cyril and Methodius, and information about the activities of these great brothers related to the invention of the “Slovenian” alphabet is recorded in the chronicle.
Finally, they manage to “establish” the first date—6360—(852)—mention of the “Russian Land” in the “Greek Chronicle.” This date makes it possible to put “numbers in a row,” that is, to begin a consistent chronological presentation, or more precisely, to arrange the material “by years”—by years. And when they cannot attach any event to a particular date, they limit themselves to simply fixing the date itself (for example: “in the summer of 6368”, “in the summer of 6369”). The chronological principle provided ample opportunities for free handling of the material, made it possible to introduce new legends and stories into the chronicle, exclude old ones if they did not correspond to the political interests of the time and the author, and supplement the chronicle with records of events of recent years, of which its compiler was a contemporary.
As a result of the application of the weather chronological principle of presenting the material, the idea of history gradually emerged as a continuous sequential chain of events. The chronological connection was reinforced by a genealogical, tribal connection, the continuity of the rulers of the Russian land, starting from Rurik and ending (in the Tale of Bygone Years) with Vladimir Monomakh.
At the same time, this principle made the chronicle fragmentary, which I. P. Eremin drew attention to.
Genres included in the chronicle. The chronological principle of presentation allowed the chroniclers to include in the chronicle material that was heterogeneous in nature and genre characteristics. The simplest narrative unit of a chronicle is a laconic weather record, limited only to a statement of fact. However, the very inclusion of this or that information in the chronicle indicates its significance from the point of view of the medieval writer. For example: “In summer 6377 (869). The whole Bulgarian land was quickly baptized...”; “In summer 6419 (911). A great star appeared in the west like a spear..."; “In summer 6481 (973). The beginning of the princedom of Yaropolk,” etc. The structure of these entries is noteworthy: as a rule, the verb is placed first, which emphasizes the significance of the action.
The chronicle also presents a type of detailed record, recording not only the “actions” of the prince, but also their results. For example: “In the summer of 6391, Oleg fought against the Derevlyans, and, having tormented them, imposed tribute on them, according to black kun,” etc.
Both a brief weather record and a more detailed one are documentary. There are no speech-decorating tropes in them. The recording is simple, clear and concise, which gives it special significance, expressiveness and even majesty.
The chronicler's focus is on the event - "what happened in the years of strength." They are followed by news of the death of the princes. The birth of children and their marriage are recorded less often. Then information about the construction activities of the princes. Finally, reports on church affairs, which occupy a very modest place. True, the chronicler describes the transfer of the relics of Boris and Gleb, includes legends about the beginning of the Pechersk monastery, the death of Theodosius of Pechersk and stories about the memorable monks of Pechersk. This is quite explainable by the political significance of the cult of the first Russian saints Boris and Gleb and the role of the Kiev Pechersk Monastery in the formation of the initial chronicle.
An important group of chronicle news consists of information about heavenly signs - eclipses of the sun, moon, earthquakes, epidemics, etc. The chronicler sees a connection between unusual natural phenomena and the lives of people, historical events. Historical experience associated with the evidence of the chronicle of George Amartol leads the chronicler to the conclusion: “Signs in the sky, or the stars, whether the sun, or birds, or nature, are not for good; but there are signs of evil, whether the manifestation of the army, or famine, or death.”
News of various topics can be combined within one chronicle article. The material included in the “Tale of Bygone Years” allows us to highlight a historical legend, toponymic legend, historical legend(associated with the druzhina heroic epic), a hagiographic legend, as well as a historical legend and a historical story.
The connection between the chronicle and folklore. The chronicler draws material about the events of the distant past from the treasury of folk memory.
The appeal to the toponymic legend was dictated by the chronicler’s desire to find out the origin of the names of Slavic tribes, individual cities and the word “Rus” itself. Thus, the origin of the Slavic tribes Radimichi and Vyatichi is associated with the legendary people from the Poles - the brothers Radim and Vyatko. This legend arose among the Slavs, obviously, during the period of decomposition of the clan system, when an isolated clan elder, in order to justify his right to political dominance over the rest of the clan, creates a legend about his supposedly foreign origin. Close to this chronicle legend is the legend about the calling of princes, placed in the chronicle under 6370 (862). At the invitation of the Novgorodians from overseas to “reign and rule”, three Varangian brothers come to the Russian land with their clans: Rurik, Sineus, Truvor.
The folklore nature of the legend confirms the presence of the epic number three - three brothers. The legend is of purely Novgorod, local origin, reflecting the practice of relations between the feudal city republic and the princes. In the life of Novgorod, there were frequent cases of the “calling” of a prince, who performed the functions of a military leader. Introduced into the Russian chronicle, this local legend acquired a certain political meaning. She substantiated the rights of princes to political power over all of Russia. A single ancestor of the Kyiv princes was established - the semi-legendary Rurik, which allowed the chronicler to consider the history of the Russian land as the history of the princes of Rurik's house. The legend about the calling of the princes emphasized the political independence of the princely power from the Byzantine Empire.
Thus, the legend about the calling of the princes served as an important argument for proving the sovereignty of the Kievan state, and did not at all indicate the inability of the Slavs to independently establish their state, without the help of Europeans, as some scientists tried to prove.
A typical toponymic legend is also the legend about the founding of Kyiv by three brothers - Kiy, Shchek, Khoryv and their sister Lybid. On oral source The chronicler himself indicates the material included in the chronicle: “Ini, ignorant, rekosha, what kind of carrier Kiy was.” Version folk legend the chronicler indignantly rejects the story of Kie the carrier. He categorically states that Kiy was a prince, made successful campaigns against Constantinople, where he received great honor from the Greek king and founded the settlement of Kievets on the Danube.
Echoes ritual poetry Since the time of the clan system, chronicles are filled with news about the Slavic tribes, their customs, wedding and funeral ceremonies.
The first Russian princes are described in the chronicles using the techniques of oral folk epic: Oleg, Igor, Olga, Svyatoslav.
Oleg is, first of all, a courageous and wise warrior. Thanks to his military ingenuity, he defeats the Greeks by putting his ships on wheels and sailing them across the land. He deftly unravels all the intricacies of his Greek enemies and concludes a peace treaty with Byzantium that is beneficial for Rus'. As a sign of the victory, Oleg nails his shield on the gates of Constantinople to the greater shame of his enemies and the glory of his homeland.
The successful prince-warrior is popularly nicknamed the “prophetic”, i.e., a wizard (however, the Christian chronicler did not fail to emphasize that the nickname was given to Oleg by the pagans, “people of trash and lack of voice”), but he also cannot escape his fate. Under 912 the chronicle contains a poetic legend connected, obviously, “with Olgova’s grave,” which “exists... to this day.” This legend has a complete plot, which is revealed in a laconic dramatic narrative. It clearly expresses the idea of the power of fate, which no mortal, and even the “prophetic” prince, can avoid.
Igor is depicted in a slightly different way. He is also courageous and brave, defeating the Greeks in the campaign of 944. He is caring and attentive to the needs of his squad, but, in addition, he is greedy. The desire to collect as much tribute as possible from the Drevlyans becomes the reason for his death. Igor’s greed is condemned by the chronicler with a folk proverb, which he puts into the mouths of the Drevlyans: “If you put a wolf into a sheep, then carry out the whole flock, unless you kill it...”
Igor's wife Olga is a wise woman, faithful to the memory of her husband, rejecting the matchmaking of not only the Drevlyan prince Mal, but also the Greek emperor. She cruelly takes revenge on the murderers of her husband, but her cruelty is not condemned by the chronicler. The description of Olga's four places emphasizes the wisdom, firmness and inflexibility of the character of a Russian woman. D. S. Likhachev notes that the basis of the legend is made up of riddles that the unlucky Drevlyan matchmakers cannot solve. Olga's riddles are based on associations of wedding and funeral rites: not only honored guests, but also the dead were carried in boats; Olga's offer to the ambassadors to wash in the bathhouse is not only a sign of the highest hospitality, but also a symbol of the funeral rite; heading to the Drevlyans, Olga goes to perform a funeral feast not only for her husband, but also for the Drevlyan ambassadors she killed. The slow-witted Drevlyans understand Olga's words in their literal meaning, unaware of the other, hidden meaning of the wise woman's riddles, and thereby doom themselves to death. The entire description of Olga’s revenge is based on the bright, laconic and stagey dialogue of the princess with the messengers of the “Village Land”.
The heroics of the druzhina epic are inspired by the image of the stern, simple and strong, courageous and straightforward warrior Svyatoslav. Cunning, flattery, cunning are alien to him - qualities inherent in his Greek enemies, who, as the chronicler notes, “are flattering to this day.” With a small squad, he wins a victory over the superior forces of the enemy: with a short, courageous speech, he inspires his soldiers to fight: “... let us not disgrace the Russian land, but let us lie down with our bones, for a dead man has no shame.”
Svyatoslav despises wealth, he values only his squad, weapons, with the help of which he can obtain any wealth. The description of this prince in the chronicle is accurate and expressive: “...walking easily, like a pardus, he created many wars. Walking, he did not carry a cart on his own, nor cooked a cauldron, nor cooked meat, but cut up a thin horse meat, an animal or a beef on coals, baked a meat, or a tent named after him, but sent a lining and a saddle at the head; as well as his other howl ecu byahu.”
Svyatoslav lives in the interests of his squad. He even goes against the admonitions of his mother, Olga, and refuses to accept Christianity, fearing the ridicule of the squad. But the constant desire
Svyatoslav to wars of conquest, neglect of the interests of Kyiv, his attempt to move the capital of Rus' to the Danube causes condemnation of the chronicler. He expresses this condemnation through the mouth of “Kiyan”: “... you, prince, are looking for a foreign land and consuming it, but having taken possession of your own (left), small (barely) because we were not taken by the Pechenesi...”
The straightforward prince-warrior dies in an unequal battle with the Pechenegs at the Dnieper rapids. The Pecheneg prince Kurya, who killed Svyatoslav, “took his head, and made a cup in his forehead (skull), bound his forehead, and drank from it.” The chronicler does not moralize about this death, but the general trend is still evident: Svyatoslav’s death is natural, it is a consequence of his disobedience to his mother, a consequence of his refusal to accept baptism.
The chronicle news about Vladimir’s marriage to the Polotsk princess Rogneda, about his abundant and generous feasts arranged in Kyiv - the Korsun legend - goes back to folk tales. On the one hand, before us appears a pagan prince with his unbridled passions, on the other, an ideal Christian ruler, endowed with all the virtues: meekness, humility, love for the poor, for the monastic and monastic order, etc. The contrasting comparison of the prince between a pagan and a Christian prince, the chronicler sought to prove the superiority of the new Christian morality over pagan morality.
The reign of Vladimir was covered in the heroism of folk tales already at the end of the 10th and beginning of the 11th centuries.
The legend of the victory of the Russian youth Kozhemyaki over the Pecheneg giant is imbued with the spirit of the folk heroic epic. As in the folk epic, the legend emphasizes the superiority of a person of peaceful labor, a simple artisan over a professional warrior - a Pecheneg hero. The images of the legend are built on the principle of contrastive comparison and broad generalization. At first glance, the Russian young man is an ordinary, unremarkable person, but he embodies that enormous, gigantic power that the Russian people possess, decorating the earth with their labor and protecting it on the battlefield from external enemies. The Pecheneg warrior with his gigantic size terrifies those around him. The humble Russian youth is opposed to the boastful and arrogant enemy, younger son tanner. He accomplishes the feat without arrogance and boasting. At the same time, the legend is confined to the toponymic legend about the origin of the city of Pereyaslavl - “the zone of the glory of the youth,” but this is a clear anachronism, since Pereyaslavl was already mentioned more than once in the chronicle before this event.
The legend of Belgorod jelly is associated with the folk fairy tale epic. This legend glorifies the intelligence, resourcefulness and ingenuity of the Russian people.
Both the legend of Kozhemyak and the legend of Belgorod jelly are complete plot narratives, built on the opposition of the inner strength of a worker to the boasting of a terrible enemy only, the wisdom of an old man - the gullibility of the Pechenegs. The culmination of the plots of both legends are duels: in the first - physical combat, in the second - dueling of the mind and resourcefulness with gullibility and stupidity. The plot of the legend about Kozhemyak is typologically close to the plots of heroic folk epics, and the legend about Belgorod jelly is close to folk tales.
The folklore basis is clearly felt in the church legend about the visit to the Russian land by the Apostle Andrew. By placing this legend, the chronicler sought to “historically” substantiate the religious independence of Rus' from Byzantium. The legend claimed that the Russian land received Christianity not from the Greeks, but allegedly by the disciple of Christ himself - the Apostle Andrew, who once walked the path “from the Varangians to the Greeks” along the Dnieper and Volkhov - Christianity was predicted on the Russian land. The church legend about how Andrei blessed the Kyiv mountains is combined with the folk tale about Andrei’s visit to the Novgorod land. This legend is of an everyday nature and is associated with the custom of the inhabitants of the Slavic north to steam in hotly heated wooden baths.
Compilers of chronicles of the 16th century. drew attention to the discrepancy between the first part of the story about the Apostle Andrei's visit to Kyiv and the second, they replaced the everyday story with a pious legend, according to which Andrei leaves his cross in the Novgorod land.
Thus, most of the chronicles, dedicated to events IX - late X centuries, associated with oral folk art and its epic genres.
Historical stories and legends as part of the chronicle. As the chronicler moves from narrating events of long ago to the recent past, the chronicle material becomes more and more historically accurate, strictly factual and official.
The chronicler's attention is drawn only to historical figures at the top of the feudal hierarchical ladder. In depicting their actions, he follows the principles of medieval historicism. According to these principles, only purely official events that have historical significance for the state should be recorded in the chronicle, and the private life of a person and the everyday environment around him are not of interest to the chronicler.
The chronicle develops the ideal of a prince-ruler. This ideal is inseparable from the general patriotic ideas of the chronicle. The ideal ruler is the living embodiment of love for his native land, its honor and glory, the personification of its power and dignity. All his actions, all his activities are determined by the good of his homeland and people. Therefore, in the view of the chronicler, the prince cannot belong to himself. He is first and foremost a historical figure who always appears in an official setting, endowed with all the attributes of princely power. D. S. Likhachev notes that the prince in the chronicle is always official, he seems to be addressed to the viewer and is presented in his most significant actions. The prince's virtues are a kind of ceremonial clothing; at the same time, some virtues are purely mechanically attached to others, thanks to which it became possible to combine secular and church ideals. Fearlessness, courage, military valor are combined with humility, meekness and other Christian virtues.
If the prince’s activities are aimed at the good of his homeland, the chronicler glorifies him in every possible way, endowing him with all the qualities of a predetermined ideal. If the prince’s activities run counter to the interests of the state, the chronicler does not spare black paint and attributes negative character all mortal sins: pride, envy, ambition, greed, etc.
The principles of medieval historicism are vividly embodied in the stories “About the Murder of Borisov” (1015) and about the blinding of Vasilko Terebovlsky, which can be classified as historical stories about princely crimes. However, in style it is completely various works. The story “About the Murder of Borisov” sets out the historical facts of Svyatopolk’s murder of the brothers Boris and Gleb with extensive use of elements of the hagiographic style. It is built on the contrast of the ideal martyred princes and the ideal villain - the “cursed” Svyatopolk. The story ends with praise glorifying the “Christ-loving passion-bearers”, “shining lamps”, “bright stars” - “intercessors of the Russian land”. At its end, there is a prayer call to the martyrs to subdue the filthy “under the nose of our prince” and deliver them “from the hostile army”, so that they may remain in peace and unity. This is how the patriotic idea common to the entire chronicle is expressed in hagiographic form. At the same time, the story “About the Murder of Borisov” is interesting for a number of “documentary” details, “realistic details”.
Written by priest Vasily and placed in the chronicle under 1097, “The Tale of the Blinding of Vasilko of Terebovl” is designed in a historical-documentary style.
The exposition of the plot is a message about the congress of princes “to establish peace” in Lyubech. The unanimity of those gathered is expressed by a speech allegedly said by all the princes: “Why are we destroying the Russian land, which we ourselves are active in? And the Polovtsi will carry our zeshu separately, and for the sake of the essence, they will fight between us. Yes, but from now on we are in one heart, and we guard the narrow lands; let each one hold on to his fatherland...”
The established new feudal order of relationships (“let each one keep his fatherland”) is sealed by the princes with an oath—the making of the cross. They give each other their word not to allow strife and strife. This decision meets with the approval of the people: “and for the sake of the people ecu.” However, the achieved unanimity turned out to be temporary and fragile, and the story, using the concrete, terrible example of Vasilko’s blinding by his cousins, shows what the princes’ violation of their obligations leads to.
The motivation for the plot of the story is traditional, providentialist: saddened by “love”, the consent of the princes, the devil “climbed” into the heart of “a certain husband”; they say “lying words” to David that Vladimir Monomakh allegedly conspired with Vasilko about joint actions against him and Svyatopolk of Kyiv. What kind of “certain men” these are - it is not known what actually prompted them to convey their “lying words” to David - is unclear. Then the providentialist motivation develops into a purely psychological one. By believing the “husbands,” David sows doubts in the soul of Svyatopolk. The latter, “confused in mind,” hesitates, he does not believe in the justice of these statements. In the end, Svyatopolk agrees with David on the need to capture Vasilko.
When Vasilko came to the Vydubitsky monastery, Svyatopolk sent a messenger to him with a request to stay in Kyiv until his name day. Vasilko refuses, fearing that in his absence the “army” would not have happened at home. Davyda’s messenger, who then appeared to Vasilko, already demands that Vasilko stay and thereby not “disobey his elder brother.” Thus, Davyd raises the question of the need for Vasilko to observe his duty as a vassal in relation to the overlord. Note that Boris and Gleb die in the name of observing this duty. Vasilko’s refusal only convinces Davyd that Vasilko intends to capture the cities of Svyatopolk. Davyd insists that Svyatopolk immediately give Vasilko to him. Svyatopolk’s envoy goes to Vasilko again and, on behalf of the Grand Duke of Kyiv, asks him to come, say hello and sit with Davyd. Vasilko gets on his horse and with a small squad rides to Svyatopolk. It is characteristic that here the story is structured according to the laws of an epic plot: Vasilko decides to go to his brother only after the third invitation.
A warrior warns his brother Vasilko about his insidious plan, but the prince cannot believe it: “Why would they want to kill me? Sometimes (when recently) they kissed the cross.” Vasilko does not allow the thought of the possibility of the princes violating their obligations.
The story about Vasilko’s meeting with Svyatopolk and Davyd is dramatic and deeply psychological. Having introduced the guest into the upper room, Svyatopolk still tries to strike up a conversation with him, asks him to stay until Christmastide, but “David is gray, like mute,” and this detail clearly characterizes the psychological state of the latter. Svyatopolk cannot stand the tense atmosphere and leaves the upper room under the pretext of the need to arrange breakfast for the guest. Vasilko is left alone with Davyd, he tries to start a conversation with him, “and there is no voice or obedience in Davyd.” And only now Vasilko begins to see the light: he was “horrified”, realizing the deception. And Davyd, after sitting for a while, leaves. Vasilko, having been shackled in “two shackles,” is locked in the upper room, with guards posted for the night.
Emphasizing Svyatopolk’s indecision and hesitation, the author talks about how he does not dare to make a final decision about Vasilko’s fate. Svyatopolk convenes the “boyars and kiyans” the next morning and sets out to them the accusations that Davyd brings against Vasilko. But both the boyars and the “Kyans” do not take moral responsibility. Forced to make a decision himself, Svyatopolk hesitates. The abbots beg him to let Vasilko go, and Davyd “encourages” him to be blinded. Svyatopolk already wants to let Vasilko go, but the scales are outweighed by the words of Davyd: “...if you don’t do this (blinding - V.K.), but let him go, then neither you nor I will reign.” The prince made a decision, and Vasilko is transported on a cart from Kyiv to Belgorod, where he is put in the “istoka mola.” The development of the plot reaches its climax, and it is given with great artistic skill. Seeing Torchin sharpening a knife, Vasilko guesses his fate: they want to blind him, and he “cries out to God with great weeping and lamentation.” It should be noted that the author of the story - priest Vasily - did not follow the path of hagiographic literature. According to the hagiographic canon, a lengthy monologue of the hero, his prayer, and lamentation should have been placed here.
The author conveys the climactic scene accurately and dynamically. The main artistic function in this scene belongs to the verb - a kind of “speech gesture”, as A. N. Tolstoy understood it. Enter the grooms of Svyatopolk and Davyd - Snovid Izechevich and Dmitry:
and wash the carpet often,
and stretched out, eating Vasilka
and want and damage;
and fights with him tightly,
and you can't damage it.
And behold, the friends were overthrown and,
and connected and,
and remove the board from the stove,
and put it on his chest.
And gray-haired both sexes Snovid Izenevich and Dmitry,
and you can’t hold it back.
And two attackers,
and took the other deck off the stump,
and gray hair,
and strangling and ramyano, like overeating troscotati.
The entire scene is maintained in a clear rhythmic structure, which is created by the anaphoric repetition of the connecting conjunction “and,” conveying the temporal sequence of the action, as well as by verbal rhymes.
Before us is a leisurely story about the event; there is no external emotional assessment in it. But before the reader - listener, a scene full of drama appears with great specificity: “And attack the stick... holding the knife and even hitting him in the eye, and sinning the eye and cutting his face, and that wound is on Vasilka even now. And therefore hit the eye, and the apple of the eye, and then the other eye, and the other eye. And that hour he was like dead.”
The unconscious, lifeless Vasilko is taken on a cart, and at the Zdvizhenya bridge, at the market, they take off his bloody shirt and give it to his priest to wash. Now the outwardly dispassionate tale gives way to a lyrical episode. Popadya deeply sympathizes with the unfortunate man, she mourns him as if he were dead. And hearing the cry of a compassionate woman, Vasilko regains consciousness. “And he touched the shirt and said: “Why did they take it off me? May I accept death in that bloody shirt and stand before God.”
Davyd carried out his intention. He brings Vasilko to Vladimir Volynsky, “like catching a catch.” And in this comparison there is a moral condemnation of the crime committed by the brother.
Unlike the hagiographical narrative, Vasily does not moralize, does not provide biblical comparisons and quotes. From the story of the fate of Vasilko, he moves on to the story of how this crime affects the fate of the Russian land, and now the main place is given to the figure of Vladimir Monomakh. It is in him that the ideal of the prince is embodied. Vasily hyperbolically conveys the feelings of the prince who learned about Vasilko’s blindness. Monomakh “...was horrified and wept and said: “This kind of evil never happened in the Russian land, neither in the time of our grandfathers, nor in the time of our fathers.” He seeks to peacefully “correct” this evil in order to prevent the destruction of the Russian land. Vladimir and the Kiyans pray to Vladimir to “create peace” and “guard the Russian land,” and Vladimir burst into tears and says: “Truly our fathers and our grandfathers have neglected the Russian land, but we want to destroy it.” The characterization of Monomakh takes on a hagiographic character. His obedience to his father and his stepmother is emphasized, as well as his veneration of the metropolitan, the rank of hierarch and especially the “chernechsky”. Having discovered that he has deviated from the main topic, the narrator hastens to return “to his place” and announces peace with Svyatopolk, who pledged to go against Davyd Igorevich and either capture him or expel him. Then the author talks about Davyd’s failed attempt to occupy Vasilkov volost and Vasilko’s return to Terebovl. It is characteristic that in negotiations with Vasilko’s brother Volodar, Davyd tries to shift the blame for Vasilko’s blinding onto Svyatopolk.
The peace is then disrupted by Vasilko and Volodar. They take the city of Vsevolozh with a spear, set it on fire and “execute vengeance on innocent people, and shed innocent blood.” Here the author clearly condemns Vasilko. This condemnation intensifies when Vasilko deals with Lazar and Turyak (who persuaded Davyd to commit the crime); “Behold, take the second vengeance, it wouldn’t have been so stupid to do it, so that God would be an avenger.”
Fulfilling the terms of the peace treaty, Svyatopolk Izyaslavich expels Davyd, but then, breaking the kiss of the cross, he goes against Vasilko and Volodrya. Now Vasilko is again performing in the aura of a hero. He becomes the head of the army, “raising the cross.” At the same time, “many faithful people saw the cross” over the soldiers.
Thus, the story does not idealize Vasilko. He is not only a victim of slander, cruelty and treachery of Davyd Igorevich, gullibility of Svyatopolk, but he himself reveals no less cruelty both towards the perpetrators of evil and towards innocent people. There is no idealization in the depiction of the Grand Duke of Kyiv Svyatopolk, indecisive, gullible, weak-willed. The story allows the modern reader to imagine the characters of living people with their human weaknesses and virtues.
The story was written by a medieval writer who builds it on the opposition of two symbolic images“cross” and “knife”, the leitmotif running through the entire narrative.
"Cross" - "kissing the cross" - is a symbol of princely brotherly love and unanimity, sealed by an oath. “If anyone from now on is against anyone, then we will give him an honorable cross,” - with this oath the princes seal their agreement in Lyubech. Vasilko does not believe in the brothers’ deceit: “What do they want to give me? They sometimes kissed the cross, saying: “If anyone falls on anyone, then there will be a cross on him, and we too.” Vladimir Monomakh makes peace with Svyatopolk “kissing the cross between them.” Vasilko, avenging his insult to Davyd, raises the “honest cross.”
The “knife” in the story about the blinding of Vasilko is not only a weapon for a specific crime - the blinding of Vasilko, but also a symbol of princely strife and strife. “...A knife has been thrown at us!” exclaims Monomakh, having learned about the terrible crime. Then these words are repeated by the ambassadors sent to Svyatopolk: “What evil has this ecu done in the Russian land and thrown a knife into us?”
Thus, “The Tale of the Blinding of Vasilko Terebovlsky” sharply condemns the princes’ violation of their contractual obligations, leading to terrible bloody crimes, bringing evil to the entire Russian land.
Descriptions of events related to the military campaigns of the princes take on the character of a historical documentary tale, indicating the formation of the genre of military stories. Elements of this genre are present in the tale of Yaroslav's revenge on the Accursed Svyatopolk in 1015-1016. The plot of the plot is the news to Yaroslav from Kyiv from his sister Predslava about the death of his father and the death of Boris; Yaroslav begins to prepare for the campaign, gathers troops and goes to Svyatopolk. In turn, Svyatopolk, “the builder of the be-shchisla howl, Rus' and the Pechenegs,” goes to meet Lyubech. The opposing sides stop at a water barrier - on the banks of the Dnieper. For three months they stand against each other, not daring to attack. And only the ridicule and reproaches thrown by the governor Svyatopolk towards Yaroslav and the Novgorodians force the latter to take decisive action: “...if anyone does not come with us, we ourselves will kill him.” At dawn, Yaroslav and his troops cross the Dnieper, and, pushing away their boats, the warriors rush into battle. The description of the battle is the culmination of the plot: “... and left the place. The slaughter of evil happened, and it was not easy to help the Pechenegs with the lake, and pressed Svyatopolk with his squad to the lake, and stepped onto the ice and broke off the ice with him, and Yaroslav began to overcome, seeing Svyatopolk and Yaroslav ran and overcame. Using the stylistic formula “quick slaughter of evil,” the battle is assessed. The victory of Yaroslav and the flight of Svyatopolk is the denouement of the plot.
...Similar documents
The history of the Russian chronicle "The Tale of Bygone Years". "The Tale of Bygone Years" as a historical source and literary monument. Style originality"Tales of Bygone Years". The significance of "The Tale of Bygone Years" in the literary aspect.
course work, added 10/25/2006
Analysis of coverage of origin issues Russian state in "The Tale of Bygone Years". general characteristics state system and forms of government of Kievan Rus in the 9th-12th centuries. Reflection of branches of law in The Tale of Bygone Years.
course work, added 01/18/2014
The problem of the composition of “mysterious stories” and genre originality, the writer’s creative method, literary parallels and cultural and philosophical roots. The beginning of literary comprehension of works. Poetics of Turgenev’s realistic stories of the 60–70s.
thesis, added 10/21/2014
Studying the features of chronicle writing. "The Tale of Bygone Years", its sources, history of creation and edition. Inclusion of various genres in the chronicle. Folklore in the chronicle. The “walking” genre in ancient Russian literature. Household and fictional stories of the late 17th century.
cheat sheet, added 09/22/2010
Problems of determining the genre specificity of V. Bykov’s war stories in Soviet literary criticism. The story "In the Fog": the construction of a "moral experiment". Characteristics of military stories by V. Bykov. Genre features of V. Bykov's story "Obelisk".
course work, added 01/08/2010
Genre nature, history of creation and publication of the story. Love issues in "Ghosts" and the cycle of love stories by Turgenev. "Ghosts" in relation to the cycle "Notes of a Hunter" and the novel "Smoke". Philosophical, socio-political aspects of the story.
thesis, added 10/08/2017
The essence and history of the development of the concept of “hero” from ancient Greek myths to modern literature. Character as a person’s social appearance, differences this concept from the hero, the order and conditions for transforming a character into a hero. The structure of a literary hero.
abstract, added 09.09.2009
Darling literary hero. A principled, honest, open and kind person. Vladimir Ustimenko in Y. German's trilogy "The Cause You Serve." Without medicine, his life would be boring and meaningless. The main thing is people's health.
essay, added 01/05/2007
The relationship between the figurative idea of "Rome" and the St. Petersburg stories. The ideological originality of the story "The Stroller", its internal structure and system of images. The cyclical organization of the “Petersburg Tales”, the denunciation of Petersburg as the center of all kinds of evil.
abstract, added 07/25/2012
Analysis of elements of fantasy and miracles in ancient Russian works: “The Life of Archpriest Avvakum” and “The Tale of Peter and Fevronia.” Christian and pagan traditions of ancient Russian literature. The miraculous as an integral part of the picture of the world of ancient Russian man.