The history of the creation of works of the Boris and Gleb cycle. Dmitry Pozharsky University Publishing House - Monuments of the Boris and Gleb cycle: textual criticism, poetics, religious and cultural context. On the importance of the canonization of Boris and Gleb

Completing the Stalin Cycle The peculiarity of the social sciences, among other things, is that the objects of their research usually speak about themselves. This, on the one hand, is a blessing, but on the other hand, it is a source of additional difficulties and misconceptions. Because of this, the main focus of the study

Recently, M. Yu. Paramonova, assessing the focus of works devoted to the veneration of the passion-bearing princes Boris and Gleb, summarized: “The study of the cult of Boris and Gleb enjoyed priority attention in Russian medieval studies, partly due to the peculiarities of the corresponding hagiographic sources. The cult was the earliest instance of officially established veneration of saints of Russian origin and gave rise to a vast and rich literary tradition. The most prominent Russian philologists, textual critics and historians were involved in discussions about the sources of texts belonging to the Boris and Gleb cycle. For a long time, the problem of the origin of the cult was usually reduced to the question of the origin, dating and authorship of individual texts.

It is only in recent decades that cult has come to be seen as a complex phenomenon that has evolved within a system of various and intertwined factors, including the Christian practice of venerating saints, pre-Christian (or non-Christian) beliefs and practices, and the interaction between ecclesiastical and secular communities. ) and the broader context of European dynastic and royal cults. In connection with the specific historical context in which the cult of the two holy princes arose in Kievan Rus, the question also arises about possible external influences on this process.” These lines very accurately indicate the main trends and lines of development in the study of both the veneration of the holy brothers and the texts dedicated to them.

Ranchin Andrey Mikhailovich - Monuments of the Boris and Gleb cycle: textual criticism, poetics, religious and cultural context

M.: Russian Foundation for the Promotion of Education and Science, 2017. 512 p.

ISBN 978-5-91244-205-6

Ranchin Andrey Mikhailovich - Monuments of the Boris and Gleb cycle: textual criticism, poetics, religious and cultural context - Contents

Preface

• Chapter one. On the issue of textual criticism of the Boris and Gleb cycle
• Chapter two. On the question of the history of the text of the chronicle story about Boris and Gleb
• Chapter three. Legend and Reading about Boris and Gleb as part of the Great Mena of the Fourth of Metropolitan Macarius
• Chapter Four. Spatial structure in the chronicles of 1015 and 1019. and in the lives of Saints Boris and Gleb
• Chapter Five. Poetics of antitheses and repetitions in the Tale of Boris and Gleb
• Chapter six. Towards the interpretation of the historical and theological introduction in the Reading about Boris and Gleb by St. Nestor: the semantic archetype of the lives of Boris and Gleb and models for veneration
• Chapter seven. Some observations on the functions of reminiscences from the Holy Scriptures in the monuments of the Boris and Gleb cycle
• Chapter eight. Biblical quotation-topos in the Tale of Boris and Gleb: traditional and individual in ancient Russian literature
• Chapter Nine. About one strange comparison in the Tale of Boris and Gleb
• Chapter ten. Formation of the cult of the holy princes Boris and Gleb: motives for canonization
• Chapter Eleven. Monuments of the Boris and Gleb cycle in the Slavic and Western European context: an invariant plot of the murder of an innocent ruler
• Chapter twelve. The holiness of Boris and Gleb against the background of the cults of the rulers-passion-bearers: pagan relics and Christian interpretation

APPLICATIONS

• 1. Svyatopolk the Accursed: establishing paternity
• 2. On questions about the formation of the veneration of Saints Boris and Gleb, about the time of their canonization and about the reliability of the texts dedicated to them

Instead of an afterword

List of abbreviations

Bibliography

Index of names

Ranchin Andrey Mikhailovich - Monuments of the Boris and Gleb cycle: textual criticism, poetics, religious and cultural context - Instead of an afterword

As Lermontov noted in the preface to the second edition of “A Hero of Our Time”: “In every book, the preface is the first and at the same time the last thing; it serves as an explanation of the purpose of the work, or as a justification and response to critics. But usually readers do not care about the moral purpose and to magazine attacks, and therefore they do not read the prefaces.”

In my case, it is not the preface that is superfluous, but the afterword: everything that the author wanted to say is contained in the chapters of the book. Drawing any general conclusions is not only unnecessary, but also premature, because the study of the monuments of the Boris and Gleb cycle continues, and many of the conclusions of the author of the book are more likely to have the nature of conscious hypotheses rather than claiming to be an indisputable truth. Nevertheless, I will still express some general considerations.

A textual study of the monuments of the Boris and Gleb cycle leads me (not me first) to the conclusion that the relationship between the works dedicated to the holy brothers is much more complex than the simple influence of one (one) on the other (another). It can be assumed that the history of the formation of these monuments was more whimsical and intriguing than usually thought. What were the reasons for this? Conjecturally, we can assume that this is explained, for example, by some political reasons, a kind of censorship caused, for example, by references to the designation of Boris by his father that originally existed in works that have not reached us, and perhaps by some other unfavorable news for Yaroslav the Wise. (But definitely not news about Yaroslav himself being involved in this tragedy; such news simply could not have happened - the version about him as the murderer of one or both brothers is untenable.)

The glorification of Boris and Gleb, apparently, dates back to the reign of Yaroslav the Wise, and it is possible that by a time somewhat earlier than 1039. The veneration of Boris and Gleb was not formed as a “political” cult; religious motives were dominant. At the same time, the idea of ​​a “free sacrifice” in imitation of Christ was layered on a rich pre-Christian basis, as was the case with the cults of other rulers or representatives of ruling dynasties who found themselves victims in the struggle for power.

Boris and Gleb, undoubtedly, do not embody some purely Russian holiness - such saints are numerous in newly baptized Christian countries. However, in their veneration and in their life images there is a special emphasis on meekness and a willingness to lovingly forgive their enemies. Church veneration and interpretation of the brothers' feats in their lives is comprehended through numerous analogies from the Old Testament and, of course, in the light of the Christlikeness of the saints. The feat of Boris and Gleb was perceived in Rus' as an exceptional event, equal in significance to the events of Sacred history.

At the same time, chronicles and hagiographic monuments about the passion-bearing brothers form a single tradition; in the Latin West, where the veneration of innocently murdered kings and kings was formed, the historiographical (chronicles and sagas) and hagiographic lines did not always come close; sometimes they radically diverged in assessments and interpretations. The impact of both the baptism and the passion-bearing of Boris and Gleb on the consciousness of the ancient Russian ruling stratum turned out to be immeasurably more profound than similar events in the Frankish state or in Scandinavia: in Kievan Rus, the killings of rivals by princes in the struggle for power after 1015 came to naught. These are some preliminary results - conclusions that partially coincide with what was written before me.

The role of biblical reminiscences in the monuments of Borsoglebsky, primarily in the Tale of the Murder of Boris and Gleb and in the Reading about Boris and Gleb by Nestor, the cycle is very significant. Thus, the text of the Tale of the Murder of Boris and Gleb opens with a quotation from the Psalter (Psalm 111: 2): “Their generation of the righteous shall be blessed, says the prophet, and their seed shall be blessed” (Uspensky collection of the 12th-13th centuries. Ed. sub. O. A. Knyazevskaya, V. G. Demyanov, M. V. Lyapon. M., 1971. P. 43). R. Picchio wrote about it as a leitmotif, a thematic key (Picchio R. Slavia Orthodoxa: Literature and Language. M., 2003. pp. 449-450, 485). The brothers are presented in the monuments of the Boris and Gleb cycle as the blessed children of Vladimir the Baptist, and together with their father they form a triad in the Boris and Gleb monuments and in the tradition of veneration. The text of the Legend reveals correspondences with the Gospel story of the crucifixion of Christ. Boris's nightly solitary prayer is correlated with Christ's prayer for the cup; Boris’s words to the murderers, expressing his acceptance of the sad and at the same time joyful lot, remind of Christ accepting what was prepared; Boris prays in front of the icon of Christ, asking him to be granted the same death. The body of the deceased Christ is pierced with a spear (John 19:34), the murderers pierce the body of Boris with spears. Boris likens himself to a ram: “regarding me as a ram for food” (Uspensky collection, p. 49). Gleb is killed with a knife like a lamb by his own cook Goryaser; these names of Boris and Gleb liken them to Christ - the Heavenly Lamb. The role of the traitor cook is similar to the role of the apostate Judas. Gleb, turning his words of prayer to the murderers, calls himself a young vine - Jesus Christ calls himself a vine (John 15: 1-2).

The cook - the murderer of St. Gleb in the Reading of Nestor is likened to Judas: “the same cook<...>become like Judas the traitor,” “you have worn out the body of the saint” (Revelli G. Monumenti letterari su Boris e Gleb. Literary monuments about Boris and Gleb. Genova, 1993. R. 660-662).

The likening of the murderers of the prince to Judas and the Jews guilty of the crucifixion of Christ is found in the first monument of Slavic princely hagiography - in the First Slavic Life of Prince Vyacheslav of Czech (Vostokov Legend). Compare: “Yes, when his brother and his brother are always mature and meaningful, then the devil is in the heart of the wicked as his counsellor, just as sometimes in Judas the traitor, for it is written: “Everyone who rises up against his master is like Judas” [quote from Tim. 1: 8. — A.R.]"; “and they have done evil and they are hostile, just as they were thinking about Pilate against Christ, and they are also evil in a befitting manner, contemplating as if they had killed their master” (Tales of the beginning of the Czech state in ancient Russian writing. M., 1970. pp. 37, 38).

Later, such a comparison is found, for example, in the Tale of the Murder of Andrei Bogolyubsky.

The place where Boris was killed is endowed with symbolic, rather than physical, signs of cramped space and narrowness thanks to a quotation from the Psalter (21:17): “I have been offended by the psi mnozi and the unzi of the fatness that has possessed me” (Uspensky collection, p. 47).

The words from Psalm 21 about calves and dogs were interpreted in the Christian tradition as a prototype of the taking of Christ into custody, thereby indicating Boris’s Christlikeness in the Legend. In the Uglitsky obverse Psalter of 1485 the following illustration is given for the psalm: “ Scripture: Yunqi's fatness has possessed me. He opened his mouth against me. Ps. 21. Miniature: Between the warriors, of whom there are two on both sides, stands a sacred figure, with a radiance around its head, above it the inscription: IC. XC. The warriors have ox horns on their heads. Scripture: Like you offended me so much. Ps. 21. Miniature: Also a sacred figure, and on its sides there are two warriors with dog heads.” People with dog heads are also depicted in the miniature of the Byzantine Lobkov (Khludov) Psalter of the 9th century. (Buslaev F.I. Old Russian literature and Orthodox art. St. Petersburg, 2001. P. 211-212).

These images combine elements of the signified (warriors) and the signifier (horns, dog heads). Accordingly, the killers of Boris should obviously be perceived as not really people. However, according to L.A. Durnovo and M.V. Shchepkina, the miniature of the Khludov Psalter depicts mummers with dog-headed masks (See M.V. Shchepkina’s commentary on the reproduction of the illustration in the ed.: M.V. Shchepkina. Miniatures of the Khludov Psalter: Greek illustrated codex of the 9th century / Ins. article and general. ed. I.S. Duichev. M., 1977. L. 19). However, for the Russian tradition of facial Psalms, this semantics of illustrations to Ps. 21:19 could not be significant: figures with dog heads should have been perceived as psiglavians, cynocephalians.

The parallel “killers of a saint are dogs” is perceived by the Legend of Boris and Gleb from the Psalter, perhaps through the Second Slavic Life of Prince Vyacheslav of Czech (Legend of Nikolsky). In Nikolsky’s Legend, the legend tells about the fate of Vyacheslav’s murderers, some of whom “barked at the sands, gnashed their teeth in the voices of the place, and then gnawed at the sand” (Tales of the beginning of the Czech state in ancient Russian writing. P. 82). Mention of the brother and initiator of the murder of Vyacheslav Boleslav “but also his brother himself, as many former ones will tell, is often attacked by a demon” (Ibid. p. 82). similar to the characterization of the fratricide Svyatopolk in the Tale of Boris and Gleb: “attack on ni bls” (Uspensky collection. P. 54). Christological (including, above all, liturgical) symbolism is also related to the Legend of Nikolsky and the Legend of Boris and Gleb.

The place where the fratricide Svyatopolk is located is endowed with connotations of hellish space thanks to a quotation from the Psalter (Psalm 9: 18): “the end turned back, as David said: “Let sinners return to hell”” (Chronicle story about the murder of Boris and Gleb . - Tale of Bygone Years / Edited by D.S. Likhachev / Edited by V.P. Peretz. (Series “Literary monuments”). “Then they ended up returning to the murderer who sent me. As David said<...>"(The Tale of Boris and Gleb. - Assumption collection. P. 53)

The relics of the saints end up in the center of Rus', the fratricide is expelled to the periphery of Russian space (probably understood as sacred). Svyatopolk, having suffered defeat at the very place where Boris was put to death, flees from the Russian land, and his flight is the implementation of the saying from the Book of Proverbs of Solomon (28: 1, 17) about flight and wandering to which the wicked is doomed, even if he We are not persecuted by anyone; reminiscent of the story of the flight of Svyatopolk and the mention of the fear to which Cain was doomed by God (Gen., ch. 4). The story of the flight of Svyatopolk is similar to the story of the evil death of the wicked Antiochus IV (“Proud”) Epiphanes, who set off in a stampede and was tormented by severe pain.

This parallel between the chronicle story of 1019 and 2 Book of Maccabees (chapter 9) was pointed out by G.M. Barats (Barats G.M. Collection of works on the issue of the Jewish element in the monuments of ancient Russian writing. Berlin, 1924. Vol. 2. About the compilers of “The Tale of Bygone Years” and its sources, mainly Jewish. P. 178). However, the Books of Maccabees were translated into Slavic only at the end of the 15th century. and became part of the so-called. Gennadievskaya Bible (Alekseev A.A. Textology of the Slavic Bible. St. Petersburg, 1999. P. 197). The description of Svyatopolk's flight could have been inspired by the description of the flight and death of Antiochus Epiphanes in the translated Chronicle of George Amartol (Book 7, Chapter 109).

Also, the story of Svyatopolk’s flight resembles the story of King Herod, set out in the chronicle of George Amartol (Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. M., 2001. (Series “The Life of Remarkable People”), pp. 176-177). A.Yu. Karpov also pointed out the correspondence of the story about the flight of Svyatopolk the Accursed with the words of the Book of Proverbs of Solomon (28: 1, 17). (See: Ibid. P. 176.)..

The murderer of Saints Boris and Gleb dies “evilly” in the “desert” “between Czechs and Lyakhs” (Uspensky collection, p. 54), that is, as if in a spatial vacuum, in the interborder region, “nowhere.”

Perhaps, when at the beginning of the Reading about Boris and Gleb the story of the Book of Genesis (2: 8) is quoted, it is no coincidence that the mention of the planting of Paradise “and plant a breed in the east” is preserved (Revelli G. Monumenti letterari su Boris e Gleb R. 601): Paradise (East) is opposed to the West (the region of hell), the place of Svyatopolk’s death.

A.V. Markov made the observation that the expression “between Czechs and Lyakhs” is an old saying meaning “somewhere far away.” He also pointed out that this saying was preserved in the dialects of the Arkhangelsk province (Markov A.V. Poetry of Veliky Novgorod and its remains in Northern Russia // Poshana. Kharkov, 1908. T. 18. P. 454). There is an example in V.I.’s Dictionary. Dalia. (For interpretations of this expression, see also: Ilyin N.N. Chronicle articles of 6523 and its source. M., 1957. pp. 43-44, 156; Demin A.S. “The Tale of Bygone Years” // Old Russian literature: Perception of the West in the XI - XIV centuries. M., 1996. P. 129.)

In reality, Svyatopolk apparently died a little later and not in the interborder region, but either within the Russian land, in Berestye, or in Poland (see summary of data on this and their analysis in the book: Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. With . 178-179.).

The symbolic meaning of Svyatopolk’s death outside the Russian land was noted by Yu.M. Lotman, who summarized: “The outcome of a journey (point of arrival) is determined not by geographical (in our sense) circumstances and not by the intentions of the traveler, but by his moral dignity” (Lotman Yu.M. On the concept of geographical space in Russian medieval texts. // Lotman Yu. M. Inside thinking worlds. Man - text - semiosphere - history. M., 1996. P.

It is difficult to say whether the land between the two Catholic countries in the Tale of Boris and Gleb with the semantics of the “sinful” land. (The final division of the churches occurred in 1054, and the Legend was apparently written after this event; however, the news of the death of Svyatopolk “between the Czechs and the Lyakhs” could have been contained in the source text of the Legend.) Similar perception of Catholic lands, the West distinguished by the cultural consciousness of Muscovite Rus', but until the 14th century. a stable negative attitude towards the Latin West, it seems, was not generally accepted in Ancient Rus' (Florya B.N. At the origins of the religious schism of the Slavic world (XIII century). St. Petersburg, 2004. P. 22; 24-25).

However, the Legend could have reflected the attitude towards the West characteristic of the monastic culture of Ancient Rus', and in the monastic environment the perception of “Latin” countries was less tolerant than, for example, in princely and court circles (See about this perception: Florya B.N. At the origins of the religious schism of the Slavic world (XIII century).

The spatial vacuum into which Svyatopolk was expelled from the Russian land is reminiscent of the “evil land” into which Cain flees from the face of the Lord, having committed fratricide (cf. the parallels “Svyatopolk - Cain” in the Boris and Gleb monuments). This is how it is said about this in the translated “Christian Topography” by Kozma Indikoplov: “After the fratricide, Cain was driven away from God, as it is written, Cain came out from the presence of God, and settled in the land of Naid, so he says, as from ъ I would have driven there is Cain from the face of God, and was sent quickly b V ъ imprisonment in ъ land from ъ lu" (The book called Kozma Indicoplov / Edited by V.F. Dubrovin. M., 1997. P. 114).

In addition, Svyatopolk’s flight into the “desert” is apparently correlated with the death “in the desert” of Emperor Julian the Apostate: two “boyars” sent by the Persian king lured Julian’s troops into the desert area: “they led into an empty and waterless land”; Over the course of several sentences in the story of the Chronicle of John Malala about the ill-fated campaign of Julian, which ended with the death of the wicked man killed by Saint Mercury, lexemes with the root “empty-” are repeated three times: twice “desert” and once “empty place” (Istrin V.M. Chronicle John Malala in the Slavic translation. Reprint of materials by V. M. Istrin / Edited by M. I. Chernysheva, 1994. pp. 306-307; Ellinsky and Rimsky: Chronicler of Ellinsky and Rimsky. St. Petersburg, 1999. T. 1. Text. P. 309; a similar story is present in the Chronicle of George Amartol (book 10, chapter 44, 3). Svyatopolk is directly compared to the Roman emperor.

N.I. Based on the comparison in the Tale and Reading of the death of Julian, who was killed by the will of God, with the death of Svyatopolk, as well as the comparison of Svyatopolk with the murdered Abimelech in the so-called “Historical” paremia readings to Boris and Gleb, he concludes that Svyatopolk was actually killed (the order about this was allegedly given by Yaroslav); through such comparisons, ancient Russian scribes “hint” at this. See: Holy prince-martyrs Boris and Gleb / Research and preparation. texts by N.I. Milyutenko. St. Petersburg, 2006. pp. 124-133. This assumption is logical if we take into account the interests of the victorious Yaroslav the Wise (Yaroslav wanted the death of his brother and could have given the order for his destruction), but not indisputable if we proceed from these texts. It seems that the comparisons of Svyatopolk with Abimelech and Julian are explained by the desire to emphasize the sin (Avimelech was also guilty of exterminating his brothers) and wickedness (parallel with Julian) of Svyatopolk; in comparison with Julian, death in a foreign land is also significant. The “hint” of Svyatopolk’s “sudden death” could “appear” regardless of the will of the scribes, who, through analogies with Abimelech and Julian, only sought to interpret the death of the fratricide as divine retribution, without asserting that Svyatopolk was actually killed.

The story of the death of Svyatopolk can at the same time be interpreted as the realization of the lines of the Psalter: “Drawing the weapon of the sinner, straining your bow to shoot the poor and wretched, sacrifice the right heart. Their weapons will penetrate their hearts, and their bows will be broken” (36: 14-15). (The Slavic translation is quoted from the Ostrog Bible: Bible, that is, the Books of the Old and New Testaments. Ostrog, 1581. Phototype reprint. M.; L. 1988. Sheet 7 second pagination. In the so-called Elizabethan Bible, accepted in the modern Church, this the fragment is more different from the quotation in the text of the Tale.) These lines of the Psalter are quoted in the Tale of Boris and Gleb when characterizing Svyatopolk’s intent.

The uprooting of Svyatopolk from his native land is presented in the Legend as the implementation of a biblical quote: “They were killed by the slaughter, returning to the one who sent me, as David spoke<…>: “The sinners drew their weapons, strained their bows, and laid down their right hearts, and their weapons entered into the hearts, and their hearts were crushed, as the sinners perished” [Ps. 15:20]. And as you told Svyatopolka that you had done what you commanded, and when you heard it, you ascended into your heart. And what the psalmist Davydm said will come true: “What are you praising about malice? Iniquity, all day long, your tongue has plotted unrighteousness; you have loved malice more than goodness, untruth, rather than righteousness.<…>. For this reason, God will destroy you completely, will uproot you and drive you away from your village and your roots from the living land” [Ps. 51: 3-7]” (Uspensky collection. P. 53). Svyatopolk, really, physically uprooted from their native land. He, fetus evil root, is opposed to the family of the righteous - Boris, Gleb and their father Vladimir. This quotation echoes the quotation from the Psalter that opens the text of the Legend, speaking about the blessing of the family of the righteous and referred to Vladimir and his passion-bearing sons: “"The family of the righteous shall be blessed, the speech of the O fate, and their seed will be blessed” [Ps. 111:2]. Sitsa must have been littler than these” (Uspensky collection. P. 347). This saying is the leitmotif of the Tale of Boris and Gleb. The tale begins with stories about the death of three righteous people, and ends with a description of the death of a sinner. For Vladimir, Boris and Gleb, death opens the door to eternity. Physical death condemns Svyatopolk to “eternal death.” The blessed fate of Boris and Gleb is contrasted with the path of Svyatopolk - the path of sin and death.

Boris, in contrast to Svyatopolk, in the Reading of Nestor notes that he would prefer to die here in Rus' than in another land; “Boris in Nestor’s “Reading”, perhaps for the first time in Russian literature, shows his patriotism<…>"(Petrukhin V. Ya. Ancient Rus': People. Princes, Religion. // From the history of Russian culture. M., 2000. T. 1. (Ancient Rus'). P. 178).

The movement of the “characters” of The Tale of Boris and Gleb in space horizontally, which has a value-based symbolic meaning, corresponds to the same symbolic movement vertically. Svyatopolk “will give himself up to both mutse and fire. And his grave exists to this day, and an evil stench emanates from it.<...>"(Uspensky collection. P. 55). An evil stench is a sign that Svyatopolk’s soul is underground, in hell. The motives for the stampede of a sinner persecuted by no one and death on a foreign side refer to the Book of Leviticus (26:17), as pointed out by G.M. Barats (Barats G.M. Collected works... T. 2. P. 179). Here is a detailed quote from the Old Testament text: “<…>and you will sow your seeds in vain, and your adversaries will eat me<…>and you will run and no one will chase you<…>And I will bring upon you the sword of vengeance and the vengeance of the covenant.<…>and I will scatter you into tongues<…>and you will be in the land of your enemy<…>And those who are left behind from you I will put fear into their hearts in the lands of their enemy, and the sound of a flying leaf will marry them, and they will be beaten as if they are fleeing from the army, and they will fall under persecution.<…>And you will perish among the nations<…>"(Leviticus 26: 17, 25, 33, 34, 36, 38). The images of seeds and sterility from this fragment may also be projected onto the text of The Tale of Boris and Gleb: the sterility of the seed of the fratricide Svyatopolk is opposed by the blessing of the “seed” - the clan, the offspring of Vladimir the Saint, the chosenness of this “seed” is stated in a quote from the Psalter at the very beginning of the text .

It is significant that in the narration of the First Novgorod Chronicle about the death of the fratricide, it is said about the smoke rising from his grave: “there is smoke to this day” (Novgorod First Chronicle of the older and younger edition. M.; Leningrad, 1950. P. 175, text according to the Commission list of the junior edition). And in several copies of Nestor’s Readings, instead of mentioning the cancer (“race”), in which the body of Svyatopolk the Accursed is buried, they speak of the darkness in which he resides: “having seen it in the darkness” (Revelli G. Monumenti letterari su Boris e Gleb. Genova, 1993. R. 665, note 11, reading five lists). This message is apparently secondary, but is indicative as evidence of the understanding of the death of the “second Cain”: this is the imprisonment of the soul in hell. The lexeme “darkness” appears in the text because it contains connotations associated with hell. The darkness surrounding Svyatopolk's grave contrasts with the pillar of fire above the burial place of St. Gleb. Both were buried in remote places, but God glorified Gleb, and rewarded Svyatopolk, punishing him for his great evil.

An evil stench is a sign that Svyatopolk’s soul is underground, in hell. The souls of Boris and Gleb ascend into the sky, to the throne of God, and their bodies, imperishable and not exuding stench, are laid in Vyshgorod - a city in whose name there is the seme “height”, “height”. The hagiographer plays on the internal form of the name “Vyshgorod”, endowing this city with a sign of chosenness and glory associated with the holy brothers: “Blessed indeed is the city of the Russians and the highest city, which has such a treasure in itself; it is not the same as the whole world. Truly Vyshegorod is called, the highest and superior city of all” (Uspensky collection. P. 57). The glorification of Vyshgorod is preceded by a quotation from the Gospel of Matthew (5: 14-15), which also speaks of the city located in high place , on the mountain : “As the Lord said: A city cannot hide itself in the top of a standing mountain, nor cover the lights with fire, nor place them in the light, so that they can give light to the dark ones,” - so<...>This holy one ordained to shine many miracles in the world” (Ibid. pp. 55-56).

Probably, in the text of the Tale of Boris and Gleb, a parallel is drawn between the quotation from the Book of Proverbs of Solomon (2: 21; 14: 32) and praise to the city of Vyshgorod. Before his death, Boris “thought about the word of the wise Solomon: “They shall live righteously, and their reward is from the Lord, and their building is from the Most High”” (Uspensky collection, p. 46). The structure of the words "Vyshgorod" and "Vyshny" ("Vyshny") are similar: both contain the same root. Finding bliss by Boris in eternity ( at the throne Vyshny) corresponds in earthly space to the transfer of the relics of the passion-bearer to Vyshgorod, which appears as God’s chosen, holy city.
© All rights reserved

The tragic fact of Russian history - the murder of the brothers Boris and Gleb by Svyatopolk the Accursed - had a wide resonance in ancient Russian society and led to the creation of a number of literary monuments on this topic. Despite the journalistic orientation of the works about the martyred princes, which were created, as researchers have proven, in the interests of Yaroslav the Wise, these works preserved valuable historical evidence: their authors mention the circumstances, time and place of death of Boris and Gleb, give the names of the prince’s servants and hired servants murderers.

In the "Tale of Bygone Years" under 1015, it was reported that after the death of Prince Vladimir, one of his sons, Prince Svyatopolk of Pinsk (or Turov), seized the Kiev table and brutally dealt with other possible contenders for grand-ducal power. His victims were Prince Boris of Rostov and Prince Gleb of Murom, as well as his other brother, Svyatoslav. When Prince Vladimir died, Boris, who “we love as a father more than all” sons, was not in Kyiv. He was returning from a campaign against the Pechenegs, and the news of his father’s death found him on the Alta River. The “taken away” squad was ready to forcefully obtain the Kiev table for the young prince, but Boris refused to go to war against his older brother. Abandoned by his squad (only a small detachment of faithful “youths” remained with him), Boris was killed by order of Svyatopolk. “Russian Cain” sent a messenger to Gleb with a request to arrive in Kyiv as quickly as possible, where his seriously ill father was supposedly waiting for him. On the way, Gleb learns the terrible truth: his father died, his brother was killed, and he himself will soon die. And indeed, near Smolensk, the prince's ship is attacked by hired killers, on whose orders the cook, “take out the knife, cut Gleb, like a blameless lamb.” Yaroslav rises to fight the fratricide, in the battle with whom Svyatopolk is defeated. With the help of the Polish king Boleslav, he briefly manages to return Kyiv. In 1019, Svyatopolk, who came to Rus' with the Pechenegs “in the power of litigation,” was completely defeated, fled abroad and soon died.

It is possible that already under Yaroslav the Wise, local veneration of Boris and Gleb arose in Vyshgorod, where the brothers were buried. Scientists associate the transfer of the relics of the martyred princes to the new temple by the sons of Yaroslav in 1072 with the all-Russian canonization of saints.

Researcher's opinion

There is a point of view in the scientific literature that at first the saints were venerated among the princes and, perhaps, separately. According to the hypothesis of V. Bilenkin (USA), there was even a separate life of Gleb, and the cult itself was Glebo-Borisov, for the first miracles are associated with the name of the youngest of the brothers. If at first the saints were revered as “unfailing sources of healing,” then later, by the end of the 11th – beginning of the 12th century, the cult of brother-healers was transformed into the cult of warrior-defenders of the Russian land and became Boriso-Gleb, highlighting the elder brother, especially revered in the family of Vladimir Monomakh. The repeated transfer of the relics of the saints in 1115 consolidates precisely this form of cult. Boris and Gleb now become the most authoritative national saints. Russian princes invariably turn to them, as heavenly patrons, for help in battles. It was they who helped the army of Alexander Nevsky defeat the knights, warning of the approach of the enemy.

A whole series of works of ancient Russian literature is dedicated to Boris and Gleb. In addition to chronicle stories, it includes "Reading about life and destruction" by Boris and Gleb, written by Nestor, anonymous "Story and Passion and Praise" to the Saints, to which in the Assumption collection of the XII–XIII centuries. adjacent is the “Tale of Miracles”, which arose on the basis of records compiled at different times in the Vyshegorod church. Short stories in the Prologue and “readings” included in the liturgical books - Paremieniki and Service Menaion - are also dedicated to Saints Boris and Gleb.

Scientific discussion

The question of the relationship and chronology of individual works that make up the Boris-Gleb cycle is very complex. Currently, there are several versions in science about the order of its formation. According to the concept adhered to, in particular, by S. A. Bugoslavsky and I. P. Eremin, “The Legend” arose in the last years of the reign of Yaroslav the Wise, i.e. in the middle of the 11th century; Later, the “Tale of Miracles” was added to it, compiled by various authors during the years 1089–1115, and on this basis, around 1108, Nestor wrote the “Reading” about Boris and Gleb. A different point of view was defended in their works by A. A. Shakhmatov, D. I. Abramovich, N. N. Voronin, who believed that “Reading” is primary in relation to “Telling”; it arose in the 1080s. and together with the chronicle story it served as a source for the author of the “Tale”, which initially included stories about the miracles of saints and was created after 1115.

"The Legend" and "Reading" about Boris and Gleb in their type are lives of martyrs, however, the conflict in them is not so much religious as political. Boris and Gleb do not die at the hands of pagans or infidels; they are killed on the orders of a Christian brother, obsessed with a criminal plan: “I will beat all my brothers and take Russian power as one.” The younger sons of Prince Vladimir preferred death to the fight against Svyatopolk. Thus, works about Boris and Gleb affirmed an important political the idea of ​​clan seniority in the system of princely inheritance, thereby advocating the strengthening of state law and order. This thought also permeates the will of Yaroslav the Wise to his sons, placed in the “Tale of Bygone Years” under 1054: “Behold, I entrust my place to my eldest son, your brother Izyaslav - Kiev, listen to this, as you listen to me.” The theme of vassal fidelity was revealed in the lives of Boris and Gleb, both through the example of the tragic fate of the brothers, and through the description of the feat of Boris’s servant, who covered the prince with his body, exclaiming: “Yes, I will not leave you, my dear lord, and even as the beauty of your body fades, and I will be able to finish my life with you!”

Experts consider the most perfect literary monument of the Boris and Gleb cycle to be the anonymous "The Legend and Suffering and Praise of the Martyrs Saints Boris and Gleb", whose author, unlike the chronicler, focused on the spiritual side of this historical drama. The task of the hagiographer is to depict the suffering of the saints and show the greatness of their spirit in the face of inevitable death. If in the chronicle story Boris does not immediately learn about Svyatopolk’s plan, then in the “Tale”, having received the news of his father’s death, he foresees that Svyatopolk is “thinking about beating him.” Boris is placed by the hagiographer in a situation of moral choice: together with his squad, go to “fight Kyiv” and kill Svyatopolk, as his father, Prince Vladimir, once did in the struggle for power, having dealt with his brother Yaropolk, or with his own death, begin a new tradition in inter-princely relations - traditions of Christian humility and unconditional submission to the eldest in the family. The hero concentrated all his spiritual strength on accepting martyrdom with dignity. In this decision, he is strengthened by examples that come to mind from hagiographic literature, when a righteous man was killed by his loved ones. Boris remembers the “torment and passion” of Saints Nikita and Vyacheslav of the Czech Republic “and how Saint Barbara fathered his murderer.”

Although Boris goes to his death voluntarily and consciously, his soul is full of melancholy and confusion; the prince’s last dream is heavy and terrible; notes of pain and resentment towards his brother break through in Boris’s dying prayer, when he calls on God to become a judge between him and Svyatopolk. From the author’s commentary on Boris’s actions it is clear that the hero is struggling with conflicting feelings: with a “broken heart”, crying, he awaits the killers, at the same time “rejoicing in his soul” that he has been awarded a martyr’s crown from God. The psychological complexity of Boris’s characterization makes the picture of his death vital and truly tragic.

To enhance the emotional impact on the reader, the author of “The Tale” repeats the scene of the murder of the prince three times. First, he is pierced with spears in the tent by Putsha, Talets, Elovich and Lyashko. Then, when the wounded prince “stunned” runs out of the tent, the killers call on each other to “put an end to what was commanded.” Finally, Boris’s body, wrapped in a tent, is carried on a cart, but it seems to Svyatopolk that the enemy is still alive and raises his head; overwhelmed with horror, he sends the Varangians, and they pierce Boris with a sword in the heart.

Scenes of the prince’s martyrdom every now and then interrupt the hero’s lengthy prayers, forcing the killers with weapons raised over the victim to wait patiently for him to finish praying: “The artificiality of such collisions, of course, was understood by the readers,” writes O. V. Tvorogov, “but was also accepted by them as a detail of a hagiographic ritual. And the more verbose and inspired the righteous man prayed in his dying moments, the more persistently he asked God to forgive his destroyers their sin, the brighter the holiness of the martyr shone and the more clearly the godless cruelty of the tormentors was seen.”

The expressive-emotional element that dominates the “Tale” is created through the use of primary lyrical genres. These, in addition to prayers and psalms, include laments and internal monologues of the heroes, who every now and then “speak in their hearts,” “on their minds and thoughts.” Boris's cry for his deceased father is filled with a feeling of deep sorrow. Going back to the tradition of oral folk lament for the deceased, it gives rise to sympathy for the orphaned. Crying is constructed as an alternation of sentences of the same type in structure using anaphora and repetition of the first word. It is filled with rhetorical exclamations and questions-appeals: “Woe is me, the light of my eyes, the radiance and dawn of my face!.. Woe is me, my father and my lord! To whom will I run, to whom will I look?<...>My heart is burning, my soul is confused and I don’t know whom to turn to and to whom to extend this bitter sadness?” Upon learning of the death of his brother, Gleb cries, bitterly complaining about his loneliness. Exclamation “Alas for me! I wish I could die with you..." his cry sounds like a cry of despair. The strength of the crying doubles as Gleb mourns both his brother and his father. "Bitter sighs" and "plaintive lamentations" of Boris's faithful servants, for whom he was like " a guide for the blind, clothing for the naked, a staff for the old, a mentor for the foolish,” merge into a chorus and form a collective lament for the prince, “merciful and blessed.” The intonations of lament literally permeate “The Tale,” defining the main tone of the narrative. The dominant theme of death in the work is reinforced by symbolism, used by the author - the symbolism of water and ship, associated with an ancient funeral rite, and a number of omens: under Gleb, who is rushing to Kyiv at the call of Svyatopolk, a horse stumbles, as if warning its owner of danger.

The Tale is characterized by a tendency towards individualization of the hagiographic hero, which was contrary to the canon, but consistent with the truth of life. The image of the youngest of the martyred princes did not duplicate the characteristics of the elder. Gleb is more inexperienced than his brother, so he has complete confidence in Svyatopolk and goes to Kyiv at his call, not suspecting anything bad, while Boris is tormented by gloomy forebodings and suspicions. Later, Gleb cannot suppress the fear of death in himself, he believes in the possibility of pitying the hired killers, begging for mercy: “Do not touch me, my dear and dear brothers! Do not touch me, who has not caused you any harm! Have mercy, my brothers and lords, have mercy What offense have I caused to my brother and to you, my brothers and lords?<...>Do not destroy me, in my young life, do not reap the ear, not yet ripe, filled with the juice of goodness! Do not cut a vine that has not yet grown, but has fruit! I beg you and surrender to your mercy." The hero pronounces these words with a "meek gaze," "bursting with tears and a weakened body," "sighing tremulously," "in heartfelt contrition." The unknown hagiographer created one of the first in Russian literature psychological portraits, rich in the subtle emotional experiences of the hero, for whom the crown of martyrdom is difficult and premature. The author deliberately strengthened the motive of Gleb's defenseless youth, the childishness of his actions and words. Drawing a verbal portrait of Boris, he emphasized the youth and beauty of the hero, seeing in this a reflection of purity and spiritual beauty: Boris is “handsome in body, tall,” but in soul “truthful and generous, quiet, gentle, humble.” In fact, the brothers were not so young: they were born from a “Bulgarian woman,” one of the wives of Vladimir the pagan, and about 28 years passed from the prince’s baptism to his death.

Psychologically reliable image in "The Legend" hagiographic antihero, in the role of which is Prince Svyatopolk. He is possessed by excessive envy and pride, he is burned by a thirst for power and hatred of his brothers. The appearance of Svyatopolk’s name in the text is accompanied by constant epithets “cursed”, “damned”, “very nasty”, “evil”, etc. The medieval writer explained his actions and thoughts not only by Svyatopolk’s enslavement to the devil, but also by real facts from the biography of the anti-hero. Svyatopolk is the embodiment of evil, since his origin is sinful. His mother, a blueberry, was stripped and taken as a wife by Yaropolk; after the murder of her husband by Prince Vladimir, she, being “not idle” (pregnant), became the latter’s wife, thus Svyatopolk is the son of two fathers who are brothers. The “ancestral sin” that turned Svyatopolk into the “second Cain” makes it possible to identify the real sources of his hatred of his brothers.

For the crime committed, Svyatopolk bears a worthy punishment. Defeated in the “evil battle” by Yaroslav the Wise, he flees from the battlefield, but “his bones are weakened, as if he cannot mount a horse, and he cannot be slain on bearers.” The tramp of Yaroslav's cavalry pursues the weakened Svyatopolk, and he hurries: “We run on, they are chasing! Woe is me!” Because of fear of retribution, he cannot stay anywhere for a long time and dies, “running from someone unknown,” in a deserted place in a foreign land, somewhere between the Czech Republic and Poland. The name of Svyatopolk the Accursed becomes a common noun in ancient Russian literature, denoting a villain.

In the “Tale,” Svyatopolk is contrasted not only with the “earthly angels” Boris and Gleb, but also with Yaroslav the Wise, who became an instrument of divine retribution for the murderer and an ideal ruler who put an end to “sedition” and “strife” in Rus'. It is symbolic that he won a victory over Svyatopolk on the Alta River, where Boris was once killed. In some chronicle editions of the “Tale,” angels help Yaroslav defeat Svyatopolk, and nature itself brings down lightning, thunder and “great rain” on the fratricide.

In order to surround the heroes with an aura of holiness, the author of the “Tale” cites their posthumous miracles at the end of the work, and in the final laudatory word he puts Boris and Gleb on a par with authoritative figures of the Christian Church. For example, he compares them, “defenders of the fatherland,” with Demetrius of Thessalonica: “You are also a weapon for us, the Russian land has taken away both the strengthening and the sharpness of both swords, and we are putting down the filthy insolence and trampling the devil’s vacillation into the lands.”

Unlike traditional hagiography, “The Tale” does not describe the lives of the heroes from birth to death, but gives a close-up view of only one episode - the villainous murder of the brothers. The author’s emphasis on the “historicism” of the narrative also prevented the recognition of the “Tale” as a life itself, therefore, according to I. P. Eremin, the need arose for a work about Boris and Gleb, where the hagiographic principle would be strengthened. This is how it appeared "Reading about the life and destruction of the blessed passion-bearers Boris and Gleb" by Nestor, created in full accordance with the church canon.

The life opened with a lengthy rhetorical introduction, where the author turned to God with a request to enlighten his mind, and to the reader to forgive his rudeness. Outlining world history from Adam and Eve to the baptism of Rus', Nestor talked about the eternal struggle between the forces of good and evil. The journalistic spirit of the preface to the life, where the Christianization of Rus' was regarded as a turning point in national history, echoed the “Sermon on Law and Grace” by Metropolitan Hilarion. Further, guided by the genre tradition, Nestor talked about the childhood of the saints and their early piety. He likened the heroes to two bright stars in a dark sky. Boris and Gleb, as befits saints, surprised everyone with their mercy and meekness, prayed a lot and tearfully, read the lives of the holy martyrs, as if sensing that they were destined to repeat their feat. The princes accepted death without hesitation, being champions of the Christian ideals of humility and brotherly love. In conclusion, miracles performed at the tombs of the saints were cited.

As I. P. Eremin noted, in “Reading about Boris and Gleb” the images of the heroes are “drier, stricter, more schematic”; and if in the “Tale” they are imbued with “warm sentimental lyricism,” then in Nestor they are imbued with “solemn, almost liturgical pathos.” “Reading” was not widely used in ancient Russian writing, while “Legend” was extremely popular and has come down to us in a large number of copies.

The origin of Svyatopolk the Accursed since the middle of the century before last has been the subject of debate among historians, although the Tale of Bygone Years seems to call Yaropolk Svyatopolk’s father, and not Vladimir, who took Yaropolk’s wife on his bed after the murder of her husband, and the Legend of the Murder of Boris and Gleb reports Yaropolk's paternity is already obvious. And only in one ancient Russian monument - Reading about Boris and Gleb by Nestor, which also contains detailed information about the “second Cain”, nothing is said about the paternity of Yaropolk and Vladimir is named as the parent of the killer of Boris and Gleb. Nevertheless, even S. M. Solovyov considered Svyatopolk to be Vladimir’s own son. Textual arguments in favor of the version about the unreliability of the news of the Tale of Bygone Years about Yaropolk and his wife, a disrobed Greek monk, not as Svyatopolk’s parents, were brought about a hundred years later by N. N. Ilyin. He noticed that these news, contained in articles under 6485 and 6488, are interpolations that violate the coherence of the chronicle text. L. Muller recently recognized these messages as inserts. L. Müller believed that the ancient Russian chronicler - the author of the insert about Svyatopolk and his father and mother - confused the Russian prince with his Polish namesake, Prince Sventepulk, whose mother was, indeed, a disrobed nun - the daughter of Margrave Tidrich. (Sventepulk and Svyatopolk were related, since Sventepulk’s half-brother Boleslav was the father-in-law of the Russian prince.) Accordingly, Svyatopolk, as born of a nun who broke a vow, appeared as a fiend of sin - the origins of the fratricide committed by Svyatopolk were allegedly discovered in the circumstances associated with his conception and birth. However, this bold assumption cannot be proven. The historian S. M. Mikheev convincingly showed that the news of the Tale of Bygone Years under 6488 about the pregnancy of Svyatopolk’s mother should be understood rather as an indication of the paternity of Vladimir, rather than Yaropolk; in the Old Russian original it is written: “Volodimer laid aside his brother Grekina’s wife. and it’s not idle,” this statement means literally: “Vladimir began to sleep with his brother’s wife, a Greek woman, and she became pregnant.”6 The author of the Tale of the Murder of Boris and Gleb understood this chronicle phrase as an indication of the paternity of Yaropolk, and not Vladimir, and therefore wrote that Vladimir took Yaropolk’s wife when she was already pregnant with Svyatopolk. It was beneficial for the author of the Legend to whitewash Vladimir by not recognizing him as the father of the accursed Svyatopolk. The idea that the origin of Svyatopolk from Yaropolk (“from two fathers” and from a mother who broke her monastic vow) is “no more than a hagiographical motive” designed to discredit the “second Cain” and break the “discredited” family connection between him and the baptist of Rus' was also expressed by the Polish historian A. Poppe. But in contrast to S. M. Mikheev, A. Poppe considers the hagiographic text of the news of the birth of Svyatopolk from Yaropolk to be primary in relation to the chronicle. And L. Müller, and S. M. Mikheev, and A. Poppe, also came to terms with the birth of Svyatopolk by a Greek woman - a former nun, suggesting that in reality she was a “Czech woman” - one of Vladimir’s wives, named in the chronicle article under 6488 (in the version of this article known to us, the “Czech woman” is credited with the birth of only one son from Vladimir - Vysheslav). I will first dwell on the textual arguments of supporters of the version of Vladimir’s paternity. The news about Yaropolk’s wife really breaks the entire text of the chronicle article about the discord between the Svyatoslavichs: “And Elga was buried in the place of the city of Vruchoga. and this is the grave of his Vruchy to this day. and accepted the power of ϵgo Yaropolk. oh Yaropolk is the wife of Grekini. and she was still a blueberry. It was Stoslav who brought him. and I will give beauty beyond Yaropolk for the sake of her face. Having heard Volodymyr in Novgorod. Yako Yaropolk obi Olga. I ran across the sea in fear. and Yaropolk planted his mayors in Novgorod. and without Volodya live in Rus'.” The message about the Greek woman in this fragment is clearly inappropriate.