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 the summer of 6377 (869). The entire Bulgarian land was baptized.”; "In the summer of 6419 (911). A great star appeared in the west like a spear."; “In the summer of 6481 (973). The reign of Yaropolk began,” etc. The structure of these entries is noteworthy: the first place, as a rule, is given to the verb, 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 tortured them, imposed a tribute on them according to the Black Kun,” etc. Both a brief weather record and a more detailed one are documentary. There are no speech-decorating tropes in them. It 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 this summer." Thematically, these events can be classified as follows.

Reports about the military campaigns of the princes occupy more than half of the chronicle. 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.

The chronicler uses the medieval system of chronology from the “creation of the world.” To convert this system to the modern one, it is necessary to subtract 5508 from the date of the chronicle.

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 and 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 signs are for evil, or the manifestation of the army, whether to famine or to show 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 chronicler draws material from the treasury about the events of the distant past people's 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 across the sea to reign and rule, three Varangian brothers come to the Russian land with their families: 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 absolute 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 Kyiv state, and did not at all indicate the inability of the Slavs to independently organize their state, without the help of Europeans, as a number of bourgeois scientists are trying 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: “In other words, ignorantly, rekosha, as if Kiy was a carrier.” 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 times of the tribal system, chronicles are filled with news about 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 places 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 in 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 the 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, and 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 bones, dead, for there is no shame in the imam.”

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 lightly, like a pardus, he created many wars. Walking, he did not carry a cart on his own, neither a cauldron, nor cooking meat, but he cut up a thin horse meat, an animal or beef on the coals and baked it. , no name for a tent, but he sent a pod and a saddle in the heads; and so did the rest of his warriors." 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 Svyatoslav’s constant desire for 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), you are small (barely) because you did not take us pechenesi.”

The straightforward prince-warrior dies in an unequal battle with the Pechenegs at the Dnieper rapids. The Pechenezh prince Kurya, who killed Svyatoslav, “took his head, and in his forehead (skull) he made a cup, 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 held 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. By contrasting the pagan prince with the Christian prince, the chronicler sought to prove the superiority of the new Christian morality over the pagan one.

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 spirit of the people heroic epic is imbued with the legend of the victory of the Russian youth Kozhemyaki over the Pecheneg giant. 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 also 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 the enormous, gigantic strength that the Russian people possess, decorating the land with their labor and protecting it on the battlefield from external enemies. The Pechenezh warrior terrifies those around him with his gigantic size. The boastful and arrogant enemy is contrasted with a modest Russian youth, the youngest son of a tanner. He accomplishes the feat without arrogance and boasting. At the same time, the legend is timed to coincide with the toponymic legend about the origin of the city of Pereyaslavl - “before 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.

WITH folk epic The legend about Belgorod jelly is also connected. 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 inner strength the worker's boastfulness is a terrible enemy only in appearance, the wisdom of the 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 - martial arts 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 legends about Belgorod jelly - 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 Andrew’s visit to Kyiv and the second, they replaced the everyday story with a pious legend, according to which Andrei Novgorod land leaves his cross. Thus, most of the chronicles dedicated to the events of the 9th - late 10th centuries are associated with oral folk art, its epic genres.

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 a definite and clear ideal of the 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 to the negative character all the 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" tells historical facts the murders of the brothers Boris and Gleb by Svyatopolk 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 subjugate the filthy “under the nose of our princes and deliver them” from the internecine 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 Terebovlsky” 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, on which we ourselves are active? And the Polovtsi are carrying our land separately, and for the sake of the essence, they are already fighting between us. But from now on we are in one heart, and we are guarding the Russian lands “Everyone should keep his fatherland.”

The established new feudal order of relationships (“let each one keep his fatherland”) is sealed by the princes with an oath—the kiss 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 all people.” 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, providentialistic: saddened by “love”, the consent of the princes, the devil “climbed” into the heart of “a certain husband”; they say “lying words” to Davyd that Vladimir Monomakh allegedly conspired with Vasilko about joint actions against Svyatopolk of Kyiv and Davyd. What kind of “certain men” these are - it is not known what actually prompted them to convey their “lying words” to Davyd is unclear. Then the providentialist motivation develops into a purely psychological one. By believing the “husbands,” Davyd sows doubts in Svyatopolk’s soul. The latter, “confused in mind,” hesitates, he does not believe in the justice of these statements. In the end, Svyatopolk agrees with Davyd 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. Again Svyatopolk’s envoy goes to Vasilko and on behalf of the great Prince 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 you want to give me away? 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 dumb,” and this detail vividly characterizes psychological state the last one. 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”, he understood the deception. And Davyd, after sitting for a while, leaves. Vasilka, 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 presents 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 Davyd’s words: “If you don’t do this (blinding - V.K.) and let him go, then you will neither be a prince nor will we. The prince has made a decision, and Vasilko is transported to cart from Kyiv to Belgorod, where they put him in the “istoka mala.” The development of the plot reaches its climax, and it is given with great artistic skill. Seeing Torchin sharpening a knife, Vasilko realizes his fate: they want to blind him, and he “goes to God crying. great and sienna." 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 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 approach the stick, holding the knife and even strike him in the eye, and sin the eye and cut his face, and there is that wound on Vasilka even now. And therefore strike him in the eye, and then withdrew the eye, and then into the other eye, and withdrew the other eye, and that hour he was as 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. The priest 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, of course, they took it off with less so that in that bloody shirt they accepted death and stood before God.” Davyd fulfilled his intention. He brings Vasilko to Vladimir, “like catching a catch.” And in this comparison it sounds moral condemnation of the crime committed by his 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. 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 Monomakh’s blindness.” was horrified and cried and said:

“This never happened in the Russian land, neither under our grandfathers, nor under our fathers, any kind of evil. He seeks to peacefully “correct” this evil in order to prevent the destruction of the Russian land. Vladimir and the “Kyans” pray to “create peace” and “ watch over the Russian land,” and Vladimir burst into tears and said: “truly our fathers and grandfathers have neglected the Russian land, and 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 hurries to return to his “own 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 thanks to the intervention of Vasilko’s brother Volodar and Vasilko’s return to Terebovl. It is characteristic that in negotiations with Volodar, Davyd, in turn, 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 David, but then, breaking the kiss of the cross, he goes against Vasilko and Volodar. Now Vasilko is again performing in the aura of a hero. He becomes the head of the army, “having raised crosses. At the same time, men of good faith see crosses over the soldiers of Amnosi. 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 typically medieval writer, who builds it on the opposition of two symbolic images of the “cross” and “knife”, which run through the entire narrative as a leitmotif. "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 all give him an honorable cross,” - with this oath the princes seal their agreement in Lyubech. Vasilko does not believe in the deceit of the brothers: “Why would they want to kill me? They sometimes kissed the cross, saying: if anyone is against anyone, then the cross will be against him and all of us.” Vladimir Monomakh makes peace with Svyatopolk “kissing the cross between you.” Vasilko, avenging his insult to Davyd, raises an “honest cross.” “The “knife” in the story about the blinding of Vasilko is not only a weapon of a specific crime - the blinding of Vasilko, but also a symbol of princely strife and strife." Auger has thrown a knife into us!” Monomakh exclaims, having learned about the terrible crime. Then these words are repeated by the ambassadors sent to Svyatopolk: “What evil have you done in the Russian land and have you thrown a knife into us?” Thus, “The Tale of Blinding Vasilko Terebovlsky" sharply condemns the princes' violation of their contractual obligations, leading to terrible bloody crimes that bring evil to the entire Russian land.

Descriptions of events related to the military campaigns of the princes acquire 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, “build 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 doesn’t come with us, we will kill him ourselves.” 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 climax of the plot: "and stepped down on the spot. There was a slaughter of evil, and it would not have been possible to help the Pecheneg lake, and pressed Svyatopolk with his squad to the lake, and stepped onto the ice and broke off the ice with them, and began to defeat Yaroslav, seeing Svyatololk and Yaroslav ran and overcame.” Using the constant stylistic formula “the slaughter of evil”, the battle is assessed. The victory of Yaroslav and the flight of Svyatopolk is the denouement of the plot.

Thus, this chronicle tale already contains the main plot and compositional elements of a military story: gathering troops, going on a campaign, preparing for battle, battle and its denouement. The legends about the battle of Yaroslav with Svyatopolk and the Polish king Boleslav in 1018 - 1019, about the internecine struggle between Yaroslav and Mstislav in 1024 are constructed in a similar way. Here it should be noted the appearance of a number of new stylistic formulas: the enemy comes “in heavy strength”, the battlefield is “covered” many howls"; the battle takes place at dawn “with the rising sun”, its grandeur is emphasized “there was a slaughter of evil, like it was not in Rus'”, the warriors “are cut by the hands”, “like the blood of a mother-in-law.” Symbolic image thunderstorm battles are outlined in the description of the battle at Listven between the troops of Yaroslav and Mstislaa in 1024; “And when it was night, there was darkness, lightning, and thunder, and rain. And when the slash was strong, like lightning, a weapon flashed, and when the thunderstorm was great, the slash was strong and terrible.” The image of the battle-thunder was used in the legend of 1111 about the coalition campaign of the Russian princes against the Polovtsians, here the enemy troops are compared to a forest: “the view is like a boar.” The motive of help is introduced into the description of the battle heavenly powers(agels) to the Russian troops, which testifies, in the opinion of the chronicler, to the special disposition of heaven towards the pious princes.

All this allows us to speak about the presence in “The Tale of Bygone Years” of the main components of the genre of a military story. Within the framework of the historical documentary style, messages about heavenly signs are kept in the chronicle.

The earliest monument to the Russian chronicle is the work “The Tale of Bygone Years”. It describes historical events, which occurred in the period before 1117. At the same time, many experts doubt the authenticity of the document, citing various arguments.

But the Tale... is undoubtedly a landmark phenomenon both in Russian literature and in the history of the state, allowing us to trace the path Kievan Rus from the beginning of its formation.

History of the creation of the work

Historians and literary scholars agree that the author of this work is the monk Nestor. He lived and worked at the turn of the XI-XII centuries. Although his name as the author appeared in later editions of the chronicle, he is considered the author.

At the same time, experts, calling it the most ancient chronicle, they still believe that “The Tale of Bygone Years” is a literary adaptation of more ancient works.

The first edition of the code was written by Nestor in 1113, subsequently there were two more adaptations: in 1116 its transcribed by monk Sylvester, and in 1118 by another unknown author.

Currently the first edition is considered lost, the oldest version that has come down to us is a copy of the monk Lawrence, made in the 14th century. It was this that was compiled on the basis of the second edition of the chronicle.

There is also Ipatiev copy, written based on the third edition.

He paid the greatest attention to the structure and sources of the chronicle in his research Academician A.A. Shakhmatov. He substantiated the existence and history of the creation of each of the three versions of the chronicle. He also proved that the work itself is only transcription of more ancient sources.

Main content

This chronicle is a major work, which describes the key events that took place from the time the first came to the period when the work itself was created. Below we will consider in detail what this chronicle tells about.

This not a complete work, its structure consists of the following elements:

• historical notes;
• articles describing events for one specific year;
• lives of saints;
• teachings from various princes;
• some historical documents.

Attention! The structure of the chronicle is complicated by the fact that in later years additional insertions were made into it in a fairly free manner. They break the logic of the overall narrative.

In general, the entire work uses two types of storytelling: these are actually chronicles and weather notes. In the work, the monk strives to talk about the event itself; in the weather records, he reports about this or that event. Then the author writes a chronicle based on the hearth notes, filling it with colors and details.

Conventionally, the entire chronicle is divided into three large blocks:

1. The formation of Russian statehood from the moment when the first Slavs settled. They are considered to be the descendants of Japheth, and the narrative begins in biblical times. The same block describes the moment when the Varangians were called to Rus', as well as the period when the process of baptism of Rus' was established.
2. The second and largest block is quite detailed descriptions activities of the princes of Kievan Rus. It also describes the lives of some saints, the stories of Russian heroes and the conquests of Rus';
3. The third block describes the events of numerous wars and campaigns. The obituaries of the princes are also given here.

Prophetic Oleg, who, according to the legend of the Tale of Bygone Years, was destined to die from his horse.

The product is enough heterogeneous in structure and presentation, but the chronicle can be divided into 16 chapters. Among the most interesting chapters from a historical point of view, three can be noted: about the Khazars, about Olga’s revenge, about the activities of Prince Vladimir. Let's look at a summary of the work chapter by chapter.

The Slavs encountered the Khazars after they settled and founded Kyiv. Then the people called themselves Polans, and the founders of Kyiv were three brothers - Cue, Shchek and Horeb. After the Khazars came to the glades for tribute, they consulted for a long time. In the end they decided that tribute to the Khazars from every hut there will be represented by a sword.

The Khazar warriors will return to their tribe with tribute and will boast, but their elders will see such tribute as a bad sign. The Khazars were in circulation sabers- a weapon that has a sharp edge on only one side. And the clearing contacted with swords, a double-edged sword. And seeing such a weapon, the elders predicted to the prince that tributaries, having double-edged weapons, would eventually become collect tribute from the Khazars themselves. This is what happened later.

Princess Olga, the wife of Prince Igor, is probably the only woman about whom much is said in the chronicles. Her story begins with an equally entertaining story about her husband, who, due to greed and excessive collection of tribute, was killed by the Drevlyans. Olga's revenge was terrible. The princess, left alone with her son, became a very profitable match for remarriage. And the Drevlyans themselves, having decided reign in Kyiv, sent matchmakers to her.

First, Olga prepared a trap for the matchmakers, and then, having gathered a huge army, went to war against the Drevlyans, to avenge her husband.

Being a very smart and cunning woman, she was not only able to avoid an unwanted marriage, but was also able to completely protect yourself from the revenge of the Drevlyans.

To do this, the princess completely burned the capital of the Drevlyans, Iskorosten, and either killed the Drevlyans themselves, or took them and sold them into slavery.

Olga's revenge for the death of her husband was truly terrible.

Prince Vladimir became most famous for the fact that baptized Rus'. He did not come to faith entirely voluntarily, choosing for a long time which faith to be in and which god to pray to. And even having chosen, he set all sorts of conditions. But after being baptized, he began to actively preach Christianity in Rus', destroying pagan idols and persecuting those who did not accept the new faith.

The baptism of Rus' is described in great detail. Also, Prince Vladimir is mentioned a lot in connection with his military actions against the Pechenegs.

As an example, we can cite the following excerpts from the work:

• This is what Prince Vladimir says about the need to destroy the pagan gods: “If he sticks somewhere, push him away with sticks until he carries him through the rapids.”
• And this is how Olga spoke, implementing her plan for revenge on the Drevlyans: “Now you have neither honey nor furs.”

About the baptism of Rus'

Since the chronicle was written by a monk, its content has many references to the Bible and imbued with the spirit of Christianity.

The very moment when Prince Vladimir was baptized is the main one in the chronicle. In addition, the prince, before he was baptized, is described as a person who did not restrain himself in his desires and committed unrighteous acts from the point of view of Christianity.

It also describes the moment when he is overtaken by God's punishment for breaking a vow- He became blind and regained his sight only after he was baptized.

In the Tale of Bygone Years, in the chapters that talk about the baptism of Rus', the foundations of the Orthodox faith, in particular, it substantiates who or what can be the object of worship.

The chronicle provides the basis for the process of baptism of Rus', saying that only the righteous, who are considered Christians, can go to heaven.

The chronicle also describes the beginning of the spread of the Christian faith in Rus': what exactly was done, what churches were built, how worship was performed, how the structure of the church was organized.

What does the Tale of Bygone Years teach?

"The Tale of Bygone Years" is iconic work for literature and history of Russia. From the point of view of literary scholars, this is unique historical monument Slavic writing in the genre of chronicle, the date of writing of which is considered to be 1113.

The main theme of the chronicle is description of the history of the emergence and development of Rus'. Its author wanted to popularize the idea of ​​the power of the Russian state during that period. Whatever event the monk described, he considered each from the point of view of the interests of the entire state, and also assessed the actions of the characters.

Chronicle as a literary monument is also important for its role in the education of that time. Certain parts of the work served as material reading for children of that time. Until specialized children's literature appeared, children mainly learned the science of reading by reading chronicles.

The role of this work is also important for historians. There is a certain criticism of the correctness of presentation and assessments of some historical events. Many researchers believe that the author of the work was very biased. But all these assessments are made from the point of view of modern man, who may also be biased in assessing the work of the chronicler.

Attention! This presentation made it possible to make the work a source for the creation of many later chronicles, in particular, chronicles of cities.

The Tale of Bygone Years. Prince Oleg. Nestor - chronicler

A Tale of Bygone Years - Igor Danilevsky

Conclusion

"The Tale of Bygone Years" is one and first known historical evidence how it developed and established Russian statehood. The role of the work is also important from the point of view of assessing the events that took place in ancient times. What the chronicle teaches is, in general, clear.

Stylistic originality of “The Tale of Bygone Years”

The stylistic originality of “The Tale” deserves special attention, because in modern literary tradition there is no chronicle genre. The nature of the chronicle genre is very complex; the chronicle is one of the “unifying genres”, subordinating the genres of its components - a historical story, a life, a teaching, a commendable word, etc. See: Likhachev D. S. Poetics of Old Russian Literature. L., 1971, p. 48-50. And yet, the chronicle remains an integral work that can be studied as a monument of one genre, as a monument of literature, see: Eremin I.P. The Tale of Bygone Years as a monument of literature. - In the book: Eremin I.P. Literature of Ancient Rus' (studies and characteristics). M.-L., 1966; Likhachev D.S. Russian chronicles and their cultural and historical significance, ch. 7; It's him. Man in the literature of Ancient Rus'. M.-L., 1970, ch. 2 and 3; Tvorogov O. V. Plot narration in chronicles of the 11th-13th centuries. - In the book: Origins of Russian fiction, p. 31-66. . In the Tale of Bygone Years, as in any other chronicle, two types of narration can be distinguished - actual weather records and chronicle stories. Weather records contain reports of events, while chronicles offer descriptions of them. In a chronicle story, the author strives to depict an event, provide certain specific details, reproduce the dialogues of the characters, in a word, help the reader imagine what is happening, evoke his empathy.

Thus, in the story about the boy who fled from Kyiv besieged by the Pechenegs in order to convey the request of Princess Olga to Voivode Pretich, not only the very fact of the message was mentioned, but it is precisely how the boy fled through the Pecheneg camp with a bridle in his hand, asking about the supposed the missing horse (at the same time, the important detail was not missed that the boy could speak Pecheneg), about how, having reached the banks of the Dnieper, he “overthrew the ports” and threw himself into the water, how Pretich’s warriors swam out to meet him in a boat; Pretich’s dialogue with the Pecheneg prince was also conveyed. This is a story, and not a brief weather record, such as: “Svyatoslav defeated the Vyatichi and laid tribute on them,” or “Tsarina Anna of Volodymyr died,” or “Mstislav went to Yaroslav from the kozary and from the kasoga,” etc.

At the same time, the chronicle stories themselves belong to two types, largely determined by their origin. Some stories tell about events contemporary to the chronicler, others - about events that took place long before the chronicle was compiled; these are oral epic legends, only later included in the chronicle.

In the stories, sometimes strength and sometimes cunning triumph. Thus, the Pecheneg prince, who was at war with Russia, suggested that Vladimir send out a warrior from his army who would measure his strength with the Pecheneg hero. Nobody dares to take on the challenge. Vladimir is saddened, but then a certain “old husband” appears to him and offers to send for his youngest son. The young man, according to the old man, is very strong: “Since childhood, no one hit him with it” (that is, threw him to the ground). Once, the father recalls, the son, angry with him, “pretored the worm with his hands” (he tore the skin with his hands, which he was crumpling at that moment: the father and son were tanners). The young man is called to Vladimir, and he shows the prince his strength - he grabs the side of a bull running past and tears out “the skin from the meat, as big as his hare’s hand.” But nevertheless, the young man is “average in body”, and therefore the Pecheneg hero who came out to duel with him is “very great and terrible” - laughs at his opponent. Here (as in the story of Olga’s revenge), a surprise awaits the negative hero; the reader knows about the strength of the young man and triumphs when he “strangles” the leather meat with the hands of the Pecheneg hero.

Some stories in the chronicle are united by a special, epic style of depicting reality. This concept reflects, first of all, the narrator’s approach to the subject of the image, his author's position, and not just purely linguistic features of presentation. In each such story, in the center there is one event, one episode, and it is this episode that constitutes the characterization of the hero and highlights his main, memorable feature; Oleg (in the story about the campaign against Constantinople) is, first of all, a wise and brave warrior, the hero of the story about Belgorod jelly is a nameless old man, but his wisdom, in last moment saving the city besieged by the Pechenegs, and is the characteristic feature that won him immortality in people's memory.

Another group of stories was compiled by the chronicler himself or his contemporaries. It is distinguished by a different style of narration; it does not have an elegant completeness of the plot, there is no epic laconicism and generalization of the images of the heroes. These stories, at the same time, can be more psychological, more realistic, and literary, since the chronicler strives not just to tell about the event, but to present it in such a way as to make a certain impression on the reader, to force him to relate to the characters in the story in one way or another. Among similar stories within the Tale of Bygone Years, the story about the blinding of Vasilko Terebovlsky (in article 1097) especially stands out.

The episode about the terrible fate of the slandered prince appears emotionally vivid, it evokes sympathy for him, his expressed desire to appear before God “in that bloody shirt” seems to remind of inevitable retribution, serves as a journalistic justification for the completely “earthly” actions of the princes who went to war against Davyd Igorevich in order to restore Vasilko’s rights to the inheritance taken from him.

Thus, together with the chronicle narrative, a special genre subordinate to the chronicle begins to form - the genre of the story of princely crimes Likhachev D.S. Russian chronicles and their cultural and historical significance, p. 215-247..

The entire chronicle narrative is permeated by etiquette, especially in that part of it that is designed in the style of monumental historicism. In these cases, the chronicler selects for his narration only the most important events and deeds of national significance. In the style of monumental historicism, for example, the events of the time of Yaroslav the Wise and his son Vsevolod are presented. For example, a description of the battle on Alta, which brought Yaroslav victory over the “cursed” Svyatopolk, the murderer of Boris and Gleb (in the “Tale of Bygone Years” under 1019).

The combination of monumental historicism and epic styles in The Tale of Bygone Years created its unique literary appearance, and its stylistic influence will be clearly felt for several centuries: chroniclers will begin to apply or vary those literary formulas that were first used by the creators of the Tale of Bygone Years, imitate the characteristics present in it, and sometimes quote the “Tale”, introducing into your text fragments from this monument Prokhorov G.M. “The Tale of the Invasion of Batu” in the Laurentian Chronicle. - "TODRL". L., 1974, vol. XXVIII, p. 77-80..

1. Chronicle is a genre of ancient Russian literature.

2. “The Tale of Bygone Years”: what is it about?

3. A work imbued with patriotism and love.

Before talking about The Tale of Bygone Years, it is necessary to say what the chronicle is. Chronicles are monuments of historical writing and literature of Ancient Rus'. The peculiarity of the chronicle is that all entries in it were kept in chronological order by year. The chronicles were not created by one person; many chroniclers worked on them. The new chronicle certainly relied on the previous ones; the compilers included materials from other chroniclers in their texts. A distinctive feature of the chronicle was that it was not dry and impartial. Chroniclers gave their subjective assessments of the events and accompanied them with various additions and comments. So, the chronicle can be called a collection of heterogeneous genres. The chronicle included texts of weather records, military stories, and materials from princely archives. According to the definition of Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev, the chronicle is one of the “unifying genres”.

The most ancient chronicles are the Laurentian and Ipatiev Chronicles. Lavrentyevskaya received its name from the monk Lavrenty, who rewrote it by order of the Nizhny Novgorod-Suzdal prince Dmitry Konstantinovich in 1377. The Ipatiev Chronicle is named after the Ipatiev Monastery in Kostroma.

In general, the chronicle can be called the main, fundamental genre of ancient Russian literature.

Chronicle writing in Rus' began a very long time ago: approximately in the first half of the 11th century. The centers of chronicle writing became large and developed cities - Kyiv and Novgorod. As a rule, chronicles were written by monks. After all, it was the monasteries that were the centers of literacy at that time. This was a state matter, and often the chronicle was compiled on behalf of a prince, abbot or bishop. Sometimes the chronicle reflected exactly those events that were pleasing to the prince, and a real defeat on paper turned into a victory. But the compilers of the chronicles, even fulfilling a certain “order,” often showed independence, independence of thought, and sometimes criticized the actions and deeds of the princes if they seemed to them worthy of blame. The chronicler strove for truthfulness.

“The Tale of Bygone Years” is an outstanding monument not only of ancient Russian literature, but also of history. Reading it, we can trace the history of the formation ancient Russian state, its political and cultural flourishing, the beginning of the process of feudal fragmentation.

“The Tale of Bygone Years” was created in the first decades of the 12th century, but reached the modern reader as part of chronicles of a later time. The oldest of them include the aforementioned Laurentian and Hypatian Chronicles, as well as the First Novgorod Chronicle, dated 1377, 1420, and 1330.

All subsequent chronicle vaults The XV-XVI centuries certainly included “The Tale of Bygone Years”, of course, subjecting it to processing - both editorial and stylistic.

The chronicler who created The Tale of Bygone Years is unknown to us. Scientists can only assume that its author was Nestor, a monk of the Kiev Pechersk Monastery.

The chronicler compared books to rivers: “They are rivers that water the universe.” This comparison can be applied to the chronicle itself. After all, it is not only a literary, but also a historical monument. The chronicle majestically, slowly, tells us about the events that took place on Russian soil, and each of its heroes is a real person. The most various genres included in the “Tale of Bygone Years” are, as it were, tributaries of this deep and wild river. They not only make it a unique work, but also give it unique, bright features, making this monument stronger in an artistic sense.

“The Tale of Bygone Years” is a mirror in which the life of that time was clearly and clearly reflected. Here we see the ideology of the top of feudal society, and the people's thoughts and aspirations.

The great monument begins with simple and at the same time majestic words: “Here is the story of past years, where the Russian land came from, who became the first to reign in Kyiv and how the Russian land arose.”

Initially, the chronicle tells about the Slavs, their origin, customs, way of life, separation from those 72 nations that occurred after the Babylonian pandemonium.

The chronicle tells us about the most important events in the history of the country: the creation of the Slavic alphabet by Cyril and Methodius, the calling of the Varangians, the campaign against Byzantium, the conquest of Kyiv by Oleg, his life and death, the reign of Olga.

The theme of the baptism of Rus' plays a large role in The Tale of Bygone Years. After all, with the advent of Christianity in Rus', the life of our ancestors changed greatly.

A considerable place in the “Tale...” is given to various legends and tales created by the people. They not only enrich the chronicle as a work of art, but also express the point of view of ordinary people on the history of our country.

“The Tale of Bygone Years” is imbued with the patriotic idea of ​​uniting the Russian land against external enemies and condemning fratricidal strife. This explains the introduction of historical evidence of princely crimes into the chronicle.

In the chronicle one can also find a large number of praises - both to the princes and to the books. According to the chronicler, a wise prince must certainly be well-read, and a book is a source of wisdom: “Great is the benefit of bookish teaching: by books we are instructed and taught on the path of repentance, for we gain wisdom and abstinence in the words of the book. These are rivers that water the universe, these are sources of wisdom; books have immeasurable depth; with them we are comforted in sorrow; they are the reins of temperance.”

“The Tale of Bygone Years” has also become a source of inspiration for many talented writers. The images of Vladimir, Svyatoslav, Oleg were reflected in the works of A. S. Pushkin, K. F. Ryleev and others.

In my opinion, main lesson, which we can extract from the “Tale of Bygone Years” is respect for the historical past of our people. By touching the history of our homeland, we better understand our ancestors, their psychology and way of life.

Tale of Bygone Years Chronicle- An ancient Russian chronicle created in the 1110s. Chronicles are historical works in which events are presented according to the so-called yearly principle, combined into annual, or “yearly” articles (they are also called weather records). “Yearly articles,” which combined information about events that occurred during one year, begin with the words “In the summer of such and such...” (“summer” in Old Russian means “year”). In this regard, the chronicles, including The Tale of Bygone Years, are fundamentally different from the Byzantine chronicles known in Ancient Rus', from which Russian compilers borrowed numerous information from world history. In the translated Byzantine chronicles, events were distributed not by years, but by the reigns of the emperors.

The earliest list extant Tales of Bygone Years dates back to the 14th century. It got the name Laurentian Chronicle named after the scribe, monk Lawrence, and was compiled in 1377. Another ancient list Tales of Bygone Years preserved as part of the so-called Ipatiev Chronicle(mid 15th century).

The Tale of Bygone Years- the first chronicle, the text of which has reached us almost in its original form. Thanks to careful textual analysis Tales of Bygone Years researchers have discovered traces of earlier works included in it. Probably the oldest chronicles were created in the 11th century. The hypothesis of A.A. Shakhmatov (1864–1920), which explains the emergence and describes the history of Russian chronicles of the 11th–early 12th centuries, received the greatest recognition. He resorted to the comparative method, comparing the surviving chronicles and finding out their relationships. According to A.A. Shakhmatov, approx. 1037, but no later than 1044, was compiled The most ancient Kyiv chronicle code, which told about the beginning of history and the baptism of Rus'. Around 1073, in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, probably the monk Nikon completed the first Kiev-Pechersk Chronicle Code. In it, new news and legends were combined with the text The most ancient arch and with borrowings from Novgorod Chronicle mid 11th century In 1093–1095, it was here, based on the Nikon code, that the second Kiev-Pechersk vault; it is also commonly called Beginners. (The name is explained by the fact that A.A. Shakhmatov initially considered this particular chronicle to be the earliest.) It condemned the foolishness and weakness of the current princes, who were contrasted with the former wise and powerful rulers of Rus'.

The first edition (version) was completed in 1110–1113 Tales of Bygone Years- a lengthy chronicle collection that has absorbed numerous information on the history of Rus': about the Russian wars with the Byzantine Empire, about the calling of the Scandinavians Rurik, Truvor and Sineus to reign in Rus', about the history of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, about princely crimes. The probable author of this chronicle is the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor. This edition has not been preserved in its original form.

First edition Tales of Bygone Years the political interests of the then Kyiv prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavich were reflected. In 1113 Svyatopolk died, and Prince Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh ascended the Kiev throne. In 1116 by the monk Sylvester (in the Promonomakhian spirit) and in 1117–1118 by an unknown scribe from the entourage of Prince Mstislav Vladimirovich (son of Vladimir Monomakh) text Tales of Bygone Years has been redesigned. This is how the second and third editions arose Tales of Bygone Years; the oldest list of the second edition has reached us as part of Lavrentievskaya, and the earliest list of the third is in the composition Ipatiev Chronicle.

Almost all Russian chronicles are vaults - a combination of several texts or news from other sources of an earlier time. Old Russian chronicles of the 14th–16th centuries. open with text Tales of Bygone Years.

Name The Tale of Bygone Years(more precisely, Tales of Bygone Years– in the Old Russian text the word “story” is used in the plural) is usually translated as The Tale of Past Years, but there are other interpretations: A story in which the narrative is distributed by year or Narration in a time frame, The story of the last times - telling about the events on the eve of the end of the world and the Last Judgment.

Narration in Tales of Bygone Years begins with a story about the settlement of the sons of Noah on earth - Shem, Ham and Japheth - along with their families (in the Byzantine chronicles the starting point was the creation of the world). This story is taken from the Bible. The Russians considered themselves descendants of Japheth. Thus, Russian history was included in world history. Goals Tales of Bygone Years there was an explanation of the origin of the Russians ( Eastern Slavs), the origin of princely power (which for the chronicler is identical to the origin of the princely dynasty) and a description of the baptism and spread of Christianity in Rus'. Narration of Russian events in Tales of Bygone Years opens with a description of the life of East Slavic (Old Russian) tribes and two legends. This is a story about the reign in Kyiv of Prince Kiy, his brothers Shchek, Khoriv and sister Lybid; about the calling of the three Scandinavians (Varangians) Rurik, Truvor and Sineus by the warring northern Russian tribes, so that they would become princes and establish order in the Russian land. The story about the Varangian brothers has exact date– 862. Thus, in the historiosophical concept Tales of Bygone Years two sources of power are established in Rus' - local (Kiy and his brothers) and foreign (Varangians). The elevation of ruling dynasties to foreign families is traditional for medieval historical consciousness; Similar stories are found in Western European chronicles. Thus, the ruling dynasty was given greater nobility and dignity.

Main events in Tales of Bygone Years- wars (external and internecine), the founding of churches and monasteries, the death of princes and metropolitans - the heads of the Russian Church.

Chronicles, including Tale…, - Not works of art in the strict sense of the word, and not the work of a historian. Included Tales of Bygone Years included agreements between the Russian princes Oleg the Prophet, Igor Rurikovich and Svyatoslav Igorevich with Byzantium. The chronicles themselves apparently had significance legal document. Some scientists (for example, I.N. Danilevsky) believe that the chronicles and, in particular, The Tale of Bygone Years, were compiled not for people, but for Last Judgment, in which God will decide the fate of people at the end of the world: therefore, the sins and merits of the rulers and people were listed in the chronicles.

The chronicler usually does not interpret events, does not look for their remote causes, but simply describes them. In relation to the explanation of what is happening, the chroniclers are guided by providentialism - everything that happens is explained by the will of God and is viewed in the light of the coming end of the world and the Last Judgment. Attention to the cause-and-effect relationships of events and their pragmatic rather than providential interpretation is insignificant.

For chroniclers, the principle of analogy, the overlap between the events of the past and the present is important: the present is thought of as an “echo” of events and deeds of the past, especially the deeds and deeds described in the Bible. The chronicler presents the murder of Boris and Gleb by Svyatopolk as a repetition and renewal of the first murder committed by Cain (legend Tales of Bygone Years under 1015). Vladimir Svyatoslavich - the baptizer of Rus' - is compared with Saint Constantine the Great, who made Christianity the official religion in the Roman Empire (the legend of the baptism of Rus' in 988).

Tales of Bygone Years unity of style is alien, it is an “open” genre. The simplest element in a chronicle text is a brief weather record that only reports an event, but does not describe it.

Included Tales of Bygone Years traditions are also included. For example, a story about the origin of the name of the city of Kyiv on behalf of Prince Kiy; tales of the Prophetic Oleg, who defeated the Greeks and died from the bite of a snake hidden in the skull of a deceased princely horse; about Princess Olga, cunningly and cruelly taking revenge on the Drevlyan tribe for the murder of her husband. The chronicler is invariably interested in news about the past of the Russian land, about the founding of cities, hills, rivers and the reasons why they received these names. Legends also report this. IN Tales of Bygone Years the share of legends is very large, since the initial events described in it ancient Russian history separated from the time of the work of the first chroniclers by many decades and even centuries. In later chronicles telling about modern events, the number of legends is small, and they are also usually found in the part of the chronicle dedicated to the distant past.

Included Tales of Bygone Years stories about saints written in a special hagiographic style are also included. This is the story about the brother-princes Boris and Gleb under 1015, who, imitating the humility and non-resistance of Christ, meekly accepted death at the hands of their half-brother Svyatopolk, and the story about the holy Pechersk monks under 1074.

A significant part of the text in Tales of Bygone Years occupied by narratives of battles, written in the so-called military style, and princely obituaries.

Editions: Monuments of literature of Ancient Rus'. XI – first half of the XII century. M., 1978; The Tale of Bygone Years. 2nd ed., add. and corr. St. Petersburg, 1996, series “Literary monuments”; Library of Literature of Ancient Rus', vol. 1. XI – beginning of XII V. St. Petersburg, 1997.

Andrey Ranchin

Literature:

Sukhomlinov M.I. About the ancient Russian chronicle as a literary monument. St. Petersburg, 1856
Istrin V.M. Notes on the beginning of Russian chronicles. – News of the Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences, vol. 26, 1921; v. 27, 1922
Likhachev D.S. Russian chronicles and their cultural and historical significance. M. – L., 1947
Rybakov B.A. Ancient Rus': legends, epics, chronicles. M. – L., 1963
Eremin I.P. “The Tale of Bygone Years”: Problems of its historical and literary study(1947 ). – In the book: Eremin I.P. Literature of Ancient Rus': (Sketches and Characteristics). M. – L., 1966
Nasonov A.N. History of Russian chronicles of the 11th – early 18th centuries. M., 1969
Tvorogov O.V. Plot narration in chronicles of the 11th–13th centuries.. – In the book: Origins of Russian fiction . L., 1970
Aleshkovsky M.Kh. The Tale of Bygone Years: Fate literary work in Ancient Rus'. M., 1971
Kuzmin A.G. Initial stages ancient Russian chronicles . M., 1977
Likhachev D.S. Great legacy. "The Tale of Bygone Years"(1975). – Likhachev D.S. Selected works: In 3 vols., vol. 2. L., 1987
Shaikin A.A. “Behold the Tale of Bygone Years”: From Kiya to Monomakh. M., 1989
Danilevsky I.N. Biblicalisms "The Tale of Bygone Years". - In the book: Hermeneutics of Old Russian Literature. M., 1993. Issue. 3.
Danilevsky I.N. The Bible and the Tale of Bygone Years(On the problem of interpreting chronicle texts). – Domestic history, 1993, № 1
Trubetskoy N.S. Lectures on Old Russian literature (translated from German by M.A. Zhurinskaya). – In the book: Trubetskoy N.S. Story. Culture. Language. M., 1995
Priselkov M.D. History of Russian chronicles of the 11th–15th centuries. (1940). 2nd ed. M., 1996
Ranchin A. M. Articles about ancient Russian literature . M., 1999
Gippius A.A. “The Tale of Bygone Years”: about the possible origin and meaning of the name. - In the book: From the history of Russian culture, vol. 1 (Ancient Rus'). M., 2000
Shakhmatov A.A. 1) Research on the most ancient Russian chronicles(1908). – In the book: Shakhmatov A.A. Research about Russian chronicles. M. – Zhukovsky, 2001
Zhivov V.M. On the ethnic and religious consciousness of Nestor the Chronicler(1998). – In the book: Zhivov V.M. Research in the field of history and prehistory of Russian culture. M., 2002
Shakhmatov A.A. History of Russian chronicles, vol. 1. St. Petersburg, 2002
Shakhmatov A.A. . Book 1 2) The Tale of Bygone Years (1916). – In the book: Shakhmatov A.A. History of Russian chronicles. T. 1. The Tale of Bygone Years and the most ancient Russian chronicles. Book 2. Early Russian chronicles of the 11th–12th centuries. St. Petersburg, 2003