Suzdal Chronicle translation. Laurentian Chronicle

Laurentian Chronicle, a parchment manuscript containing a copy of the chronicle code 1305, made in 1377 by a group of scribes under the leadership of the monk Laurentius on the instructions of the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod prince Dmitry Konstantinovich from the list of the beginning of 14 in the “Tale of Bygone Years” and brought up to 1305. The manuscript does not contain news for 898 -922, 1263-1283, 1288-94. Code 1305 was the Grand Duke of Vladimir, compiled during the period when Tver Prince Mikhail Yaroslavich was the Grand Duke of Vladimir. It was based on the code of 1281, supplemented (from 1282) by Tver chronicle news. Lawrence's manuscript was written in the Annunciation Monastery in Nizhny Novgorod or in the Vladimir Nativity Monastery. In 1792, it was acquired by A. I. Musin-Pushkin and subsequently presented it to Alexander I, who gave the manuscript to the Public Library (now named after M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin), where it is kept. The complete publication was carried out in 1846 ("Complete collection of Russian chronicles", vol. 1).

The name of the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod prince Dmitry Konstantinovich is associated with a chronicle code compiled for him in 1377 on behalf of Bishop Dionysius by the monk Lavrentiy and which is the oldest of all surviving and indisputably dated lists of the Russian chronicle.

Obtained by the research of acad. A. A. Shakhmatov and M. D. Priselkov’s indisputable conclusions boil down to the recognition of the monument copied by Laurentius as identical with the protograph of the Trinity Chronicle, the Grand Duke Chronicle of 1305, between the Laurentian list of which and what Laurentius copied (i.e. this very code of 1305 g.), there were no intermediate stages of chronicle writing. Consequently, everything in Lawrence’s list that, for whatever reason, could not be traced back to the code of 1305, must be attributed to him without hesitation. The work of the historian Lawrence on his chronicle source is clearly characterized by the analysis of the story about the Tatar invasion of 1237.

The story of the Laurentian Chronicle for 1237-1239, starting with a description of the Ryazan events, touching on Kolomna and Moscow, then vividly and in detail depicts the siege and capture of Vladimir, mentioning in passing the capture of Suzdal; then leads us to Sit, where Yuri Vsevolodovich and Vasilko of Rostov have camped and where they bring Yuri the news of the death of Vladimir, which he mourns; then briefly talks about the victory of the Tatars and the murder of Yuri; the death of Vasilko is further depicted with details of Rostov origin; the burial of Yuri is spoken of, and everything ends with his praise.

The older version of the story about these events was read in the Trinity Chronicle, the text of which is restored according to the Resurrection Chronicle. This older version was also contained in the chronicle source, which Lavrentiy reworked. The whole story as a whole, as it looked in the Trinity Chronicle, is depicted as follows.

A more detailed retelling of the Ryazan events and related events in Kolomna (and not with Yuri of Vladimir) was replaced, as in the Laurentian Chronicle, by a description of the siege and capture of Vladimir with minor but significant differences; after the general indication with the Laurentian Chronicle of the outcome of 6745, the story immediately moved on to the episode missing from the Laurentian Chronicle with Dorozh, the ambassador of Prince Yuri, sent to scout out the whereabouts of the Tatars, to the picture of the battle on the City, sustained in the tone of military tales, with brief mention about the murder of Yuri, and with a detailed depiction of Vasilko’s death; the church element was limited to three prayers of Vasilko with the introduction of lamentation style into them; “praise” to Vasilko then listed his worldly virtues; There was no “praise” for Yuri; the story ended with a list of princes, led by Yaroslav, who escaped from the Tatars, “with the prayers of the Holy Mother of God.” The originality of this restored edition of the story about Batu's army in the Trinity Chronicle, and, consequently, in the Chronicle of 1305, in comparison with the close to it, but more widespread edition in the Laurentian Chronicle, is beyond doubt. All extensions, abbreviations or replacements in the Laurentian in comparison with what was read about Batu’s army in the Chronicler of 1305 could only have been made by the one who rewrote this Chronicler in 1377 with his own hand, i.e. the deceiver Lavrentiy. His author's contribution to the story of Batu's army can now be easily discovered.

Lavrentiy began his work on the text of the protograph by skipping that accusatory tirade about the unbrotherly love of the princes, which was undoubtedly read in the Chronicler of 1305 and, going back to the Ryazan code, was directed against Prince Yuri Vsevolodovich.

In the Laurentian Chronicle, the entire Ryazan episode is shortened, but in such a way that neither the negotiations of the Ryazan people with Yuri Vsevolodovich, nor his refusal to help them are even mentioned; there is no menacing tirade caused by all this. In addition, there is no mention of the Tatar ambassadors to Yuri in Vladimir; having discarded it along with everything else in the introductory episode about Ryazan, Lavrenty took into account, however, this mention below: it begins that “praise” to Yuri, on which the entire story about Batu’s army ends in the Laurentian Chronicle and which was not in the Trinity and in the Chronicler 1305. It is this own afterword to the story as a whole that Lavrentiy begins with the detail of the protograph omitted at the beginning. “Before, the evil bloodsuckers sent their envoys, saying: make peace with us; He (Yuri) didn’t want it, like a prophet to say: glorious battle is better than cold world.” The detail about the Tatar ambassadors from the condemnatory context for Yuri Vsevolodovich (in the protograph) was thus transferred by Lavrenty to his own laudatory context. Therefore, the entire “praise” as a whole is permeated with a polemicism understandable only to contemporaries. It has long been the custom of Russian chroniclers to argue with what was released from the protograph during correspondence. Let us recall the controversy of the Kyiv chronicler about the place of Vladimir’s baptism. The same is true in in this case“praise” to Yuri, Mnikha Lavrentiy argues with the angry invective of the Ryazan resident that was missed during the correspondence of the protographer. The “praise” there, from the very first words, contrasts the accusation of Prince Yuri with unbrotherly love with something exactly the opposite: “Behold, the wonderful Prince Yuri strives to keep God’s commandments... remembering the word of the Lord, which says: O seven, all men shall know, as my disciples are by nature, Love each other as well." That the “praise” to Yuri is not at all an obituary written immediately after his death, but a literary monument with a great perspective on the past, is immediately clear from his literary sources. It is all, as it were, woven from selections in the previous text of the same Laurentian Chronicle. The basis was the “praise” read there in 1125 to Vladimir Monomakh, expanded by extracts from articles about Yuri’s father, Prince Vsevolod, and his uncle, Andrei Bogolyubsky.

The mosaic selection of chronicle data applicable to Yuri about his ancestors: father Vsevolod, uncle Andrei and great-grandfather Vladimir Monomakh, in response to the negative characterization of him from the copied protograph omitted at the beginning, is a literary device, at least not of a contemporary. A contemporary would, of course, have accomplished the task of historical rehabilitation differently. Only a biographer from another era could have at his disposal so few genuine facts about the person being rehabilitated. Of all the “praise”, only the insert about Yuri’s construction activities can be recognized as a specific sign of this historical person, and even then the words “set up many cities” mean not so much facts as a legend that is far removed from them, in terms of the time of their origin. And everything else is simply abstract signs of other people’s book characteristics transferred to Yuri. And it’s remarkable that this technique in Lavrenty is not limited to “praise”; it extends to the entire previous story about the invasion itself. Some things, however, were introduced into it from the same chronicle even before Lawrence by the previous editors of this story.

Most of the associations of samples from stories about Polovtsian raids with the events of 1237 have every reason to be attributed to Lawrence himself; even the author’s afterword, which once ended the narrative of the 1093 raid of the Primary Kyiv Arch (“Behold, I am a sinner, and much and often I anger God and often sin all the days”), was repeated in its entirety by Lavrentiy, with only a characteristic postscript: “ But now we will ascend to what was foretold.” The entire subsequent passage is again imbued with similar previous borrowings. It is based on a chronicle article from 1015 about the death of Boris and Gleb; but there is also a borrowing from the article of 1206. On a borrowed basis, as we see, a new literary image is built: Gleb’s cry about his father and brother grows in Yuri into a rhetorical cry about the church, the bishop and “about people” who are pitied above themselves and their family. The crying itself is borrowed from the story about the death of Vsevolod’s wife, Yuri’s mother.

Further processing of the protograph under the pen of Lavrentiy was expressed in the transfer of features and characteristics of the main (originally) main thing to Yuri, who was sparingly presented there. actor, Rostov Vasilko, as well as Andrei Bogolyubsky and Vasilko’s father, Konstantin (under 1175, 1206 and 1218). Lavrentiy deliberately does not convey, however, the words of the protographer about the burial of Vasilko: “You shouldn’t hear singing in a lot of crying”; They, like the date, he associates below with Yuri. And in place of these words taken from Vasilko - before his secular “praise” - Lavrentiy again puts something that relates not to Vasilko, but to Yuri: a detail about putting Yuri’s head in the coffin, in the protograph, most likely, not read at all.

So, the entire literary work of Mnich Lavrenty, within the article about Batu’s army, is focused on one image of Prince Yuri. In order to remove from him the shadow cast by the previous chronicle, Lavrentiy showed a lot of ingenuity and diligence. It was hardly so simple to select everything that could be useful from individual pages and lines of ten chronicle articles (under 1015, 1093, 1125, 1175, 1185, 1186, 1187, 1203, 1206, 1218) about six different persons; transferred their features to Yuri, under the pen of Lawrence, St. Boris and Gleb, Vladimir Monomakh and Andrei Bogolyubsky, Vsevolod and his princess, and finally, even at the same time as Yuri, Vasilko was killed. It is immediately clear that the goal that guided Lavrenty’s pen was inextricably linked with his title of “mnich”: to the semi-folklore style of military stories, which was inherent in the story in the protograph, Lavrenty decisively contrasts the abstract rhetorical style of lives with prayers, “laments” and "praises". Not colloquial speech, but a book, not the echo of a song, but a quotation characterize his taste and techniques. A quotation from the previous contents of the monument is, by the way, also in Lawrence’s own afterword to the entire chronicle: “The merchant rejoices having made the purchase, and the helmsman is at peace, and the wanderer has come to his fatherland; the book writer also rejoices when he has reached the end of his books”; of the three likenings of the “scriber”, one, in any case, Lavrentiy also found in the chronicle he copied: under 1231, one of his predecessor chroniclers asks in prayer, “and I... directing, I will bring the ship of words into a quiet haven "

The time when Lawrence’s work was completed is known (from the same afterword) with precision: between January 14 and March 20, 6885 (1377). In the same afterword, he himself calls Bishop Dionysius, who blessed him for his work, “our bishop of Suzhdal and Novgorod and Gorodetsky." Lavrenty's postscript to quotes from the article of 1125 in “praise” to Prince Yuri (about the “great dirty trick on the lands” from the evil bloodsuckers Polovtsians and Tatars - “even here a lot of evil has been done”), hinting at something quite specific and only recently what happened “here”, i.e. where Lavrentiy worked, this postscript, dated, like the entire manuscript, from January - March 1377, shows that Lavrentiy wrote the chronicle in Nizhny Novgorod: in the protracted period of Tatar “dirty tricks on the lands "was around 1377, of the three cities of Bishop Dionysius, only Nizhny. In the same “praise” to Yuri, Lavrenty mentioned only the Nizhny Novgorod Annunciation Monastery. For such a preference, the reason could only be that Lawrence himself belonged to the brethren of this monastery. The story about the beginning of the monastery where the chronicle was compiled, even if only in the brief form of a simple mention, was, as is known, a custom among Russian chroniclers for a long time.

It is known about the Nizhny Novgorod Annunciation Monastery that it was, indeed, founded by Yuri Vsevolodovich, simultaneously with Nizhny, in 1221, but, having later fallen into decay, was restored anew, just before 1377. Coinciding with the heyday of the newly renewed Konstantin Vasilyevich of the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod principality, this restoration of the oldest of the monasteries of the new capital of the principality was not without the usual literary endeavor in such cases in ancient Rus': a chronicle was started in the monastery.

In the vaults that reflected our regional chronicle of the XIV-XV centuries. (in the chronicles of Simeonovskaya, Ermolinskaya, Rogozhskaya, Nikonovskaya and others), there is a number of news that indicate that, indeed, the Nizhny Novgorod Annunciation Monastery was the focus of the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod regional chronicle of the very era when one of its monks lived and worked, “ writer" of the Laurentian Chronicle named after him.

And since the glorification of the person who built the monastery where this chronicle was kept was also a custom among Russian chroniclers for a long time, this, however, partly explains increased attention Lavrenty to Yuri Vsevolodovich. In Lawrence's code, the prince-builder he praised in 1377 belonged to the distant past. The very scope of the “praise” for Yuri Vsevolodovich in the Laurentian Chronicle is too bold for the home-grown initiative of a simple “mich”. Prince Yuri, equated in the Ryazan codex with the “accursed” Svyatopolk, should be turned into a similar saint. Gleb, lover of Christ and martyr; to transfer to the loser who destroyed both his princely “root” and his principality, for the first time in the northeast, long before similar experiments on the ancestors of the Moscow princes, the dynastic reflection of the name of Monomakh - a simple monk would hardly have thought of and dared without the corresponding directives from above. And that Lawrence, in fact, had such directives is evident again from his afterword, where he twice, in solemn expressions, named his direct literary customers: Prince Dmitry Konstantinovich and Bishop Dionysius. The initiative of the latter should, of course, be attributed to all the bold originality of the independent chronicle work done by Lawrence.

The Kiev-Pechersk monk, abbot of one of the Nizhny Novgorod monasteries, Dionysius in 1374 was installed as bishop of the bishopric restored in the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod principality, which was in charge of the three main cities of the principality - Suzdal, Nizhny Novgorod and Gorodets. In 1377, Dionysius achieved the establishment of an archbishopric instead of a bishopric in the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod principality, i.e., he made the Suzdal church independent of the Moscow metropolitan. To substantiate his claims to this independence, Dionysius conceived the idea of ​​compiling a chronicle, entrusting this task to the monk Lawrence. The same plan of Dionysius explains all of Lavrenty’s work on the literary portrait of Yuri himself.

Byzantium recognized the right to be allocated to an archbishopric autonomous from the metropolitan for regions and lands with a certain historical and cultural prestige, in the sense as this prestige was then understood: the strength of secular power had to correspond to the strength and longevity of the Christian cult, external confirmation of which could best serve , in the eyes of Byzantium, private cults of local saints. In search of such prestige for his Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod land - before attempting to turn it into an archbishopric - Dionysius had to pay special attention to the ktitor of the main monasteries and temples in this land, the builder of one of its cities and the first of the princes who owned all three cities at once. It is not for nothing that in the features Lawrence gave to Prince Yuri there is so much that could appeal specifically to the Greeks: as a dynast of the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod princes, he was presented by them as a second Monomakh, a relative of the Byzantine basilivas; in his political failures he is not only justified as a martyr, like St. Boris and Gleb, but also endowed with one specific virtue that was absent from them: more devotion to the bishop than to his wife and children; and this is nothing more than a borrowing from the teachings of Patriarch Luke Chrysoverg to Andrei Bogolyubsky in that letter to him (1160), which was then constantly used in Rus' as the norm of princely-bishop relations. Finally, Lavrentiy gave Yuri a hagiographical connotation, even directly mentioning Yuri’s relics.

The compilation of the Laurentian Chronicle is inextricably linked, as we see, with the establishment in Rus' of the second archbishopric on the initiative of Dionysius. And since the implementation of the project in 1382 was undoubtedly preceded by a relatively very long period of reflection and comprehensive preparation, there is reason to recognize the compilation of the Laurentian Chronicle as one of the acts of this preparation. If, indeed, as one might think, the predecessor of Patriarch Nile, Patriarch Macarius, conducting negotiations with Dionysius between 1378 and 1379, called him to Byzantium even then, then he was supposed to gather there just at the indicated time, in 1377 and the hasty production of the Chronicler could have been timed, which could have been needed as a document in negotiations with the patriarch. And since Dionysius’s trip took place not at that moment, but two years later, when the hastily prepared list could have been rewritten and supplemented, then our Laurentian Chronicle remained at home.

How, however, did the associated attempt of this brave Pecheryan end to turn the then emerging all-Russian state from the Moscow road to the Nizhny Novgorod one?

The role of Moscow may not have been clear to contemporaries until 1380. The year of the Kulikovo victory should have clarified a lot. Returning from his diplomatic trip only two years later, Dionysius could not help but immediately fully appreciate what had happened in his absence. This must explain the obvious change in his political orientation, starting in 1383: he again went to Constantinople, but not on the affairs of the Suzdal archdiocese, but “about the administration of the Russian metropolis.” This time, appointed metropolitan himself, Dionysius, on the way back to Kyiv, is captured by Vladimir Olgerdovich and dies in 1384 in “nyatia,” according to the chronicle, that is, in prison, having outlived Dmitry Konstantinovich of Suzdal by only a year. The archbishopric he created died out on its own as the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod principality disintegrated politically. In the same year, when one of the still resisting Suzdal princes, “fathers”, was caught by Moscow governors in the “Tatar places” and wilds, in Suzdal the “Passion of the Lord”, taken by Dionysius in 1382 from Constantinople in 1382 from Constantinople, was accidentally found walled up in a wall - silver a kivot with images of several holidays and an inscription somewhat reminiscent of Lawrence’s final postscript. “The divine passions,” the inscription says, “were transferred from Constantinople by the humble Archbishop Dionysius to the holy archbishopric of Suzdal, Novgorod, Gorodets... under the holy Patriarch Nile, under the Grand Duke Dmitry Konstantinovich.” The same list of cities as Lawrence’s in the title of Dionysius, the same name for Prince Dmitry Konstantinovich “great”, as if Moscow did not exist. The find was triumphantly transported to Moscow as a trophy. A similar fate awaited the Chronicler Laurentius: also intended, according to the plan of its compilers, to challenge Moscow for its primacy, it served, however, almost to strengthen Moscow’s own chronicle tradition: at least, Muscovites quickly adopted what was new in it in a purely literary respect. Similar to the hagiographical revision of the article of 1239 by the Suzdalian Lavrenty, the compiler of one of the Moscow vaults also makes his hagiographical additions to it from the life of his Moscow princely patron, Alexander Nevsky. At the same time, Tver began to build its chronicle in the form of a kind of collection of its own princely lives. The Smolensk inquiry officer Abrahamka imitates Lavrentiy in the afterword. Finally, the entire Laurentian Chronicle as a source is used by the compilers of large all-Russian collections by Photius and his successors.

The Laurentian Chronicle is the most valuable monument of ancient Russian chronicles and culture. The latest and highest quality edition of her text is the publication of 1926-1928. , edited by academician. E. F. Karsky. This work has long become a bibliographic rarity, and even its phototypic reproduction, undertaken in 1962 under the supervision of Academician. M. N. Tikhomirov (circulation 1600 copies), could not satisfy the needs of historians, linguists, cultural workers and simply readers interested in Russian history. The reissue of Volume I of the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles, carried out by the publishing house “Languages ​​of Russian Culture”, is intended to fill this gap.

The manuscript is stored in the Russian National Library under the code F. p. IV. 2. The parchment codex, in small “ten”, on 173 sheets, was written mainly by two scribes: the first scribe copied ll. 1 rev. - 40 rev. (first 8 lines), second - ll. 40 rev. (starting from the 9th line) - 173 vol. The only exceptions are ll. 157, 161 and 167: they are inserted, violate the natural order of ruling and have spaces at the end, which indicates the scribe’s inability to proportionally distribute the text on the sheet area. Text on page 157-157 vol., 167-167 vol. copied by the third scribe (however, his handwriting is very similar to the handwriting of the first scribe), and on ll. 161-161 vol. - the second scribe, but it was continued (from the end of the 14th line of the back of the sheet) by the third scribe. The first 40 sheets of the manuscript are written in one column, the subsequent ones - in two columns.

The main (second) scribe named himself in the postscript on ll. 172 rev. - 173: it was the monk Lavrenty, who rewrote the chronicle in 1377 for the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod Grand Duke Dmitry Konstantinovich, with the blessing of the Suzdal Bishop Dionysius. After the name of the scribe, the chronicle received the name Laurentian in scientific literature.

Currently, gaps are found in the manuscript of the Laurentian Chronicle: between pp. 9 and 10 are missing 6 sheets with the text 6406-6429, after l. 169-5 sheets with text 6771-6791, after l. 170-1 sheet with articles 6796-6802. The contents of the lost sheets can be judged from the Radzivilovskaya and Trinity chronicles, which are similar to the Laurentian chronicles.

There is another judgment in the literature - not about the mechanical, but about the creative nature of the work of Laurentius and his assistants on the chronicle in 1377. Some researchers suggest, in particular, the reworking of the story of Batu’s invasion of Rus' as part of the Laurentian Chronicle. However, an appeal to the Trinity Chronicle, regardless of the Laurentian Chronicle transmitting their common source, does not confirm this opinion: Trinity in the story about the events of 1237-1239. coincides with Lavrentievskaya. Moreover, all the specific features of the story about Batu’s invasion as part of the Laurentian Chronicle (ideological orientation, literary techniques of the compiler) fit organically into the historical and cultural background of the 13th century. and cannot be taken beyond the chronological framework of this century. A careful study of the textual features of the story about Batu’s invasion of Rus' as part of the Laurentian Chronicle leads to the conclusion that it was created in the early 80s. XIII century

Little is known about the fate of the Laurentian Chronicle manuscript itself. On a contaminated l. 1, you can make out the entry “Book of the Rozhesvenskovo Volodymyr Skago Monastery,” which is not very confidently dated to the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th century. But in the 18th century. the manuscript ended up in the collection of the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral, where a copy was made of it in 1765 at the Novgorod Seminary (stored in the BAN under the code 34.2.32). In 1791, from Novgorod, among other manuscripts, the Laurentian Chronicle was sent to Moscow and came to the chief prosecutor of the Synod, gr. A. I. Musin-Pushkin. In 1793, A. I. Musin-Pushkin published the Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh from this manuscript, and at the beginning of the 19th century, the count presented the manuscript as a gift to Emperor Alexander I, who donated it to the Public Library. This happened at least before 1806, since on September 25, 1806, the director of the library A. N. Olenin presented a copy of the Laurentian Chronicle to Count S. S. Uvarov (the copy is stored in the BAN under the code 11/32/10: tray entry on l 1 was made by the hand of A. N. Olenin, the manuscript itself was copied by archaeographer A. I. Ermolaev - it should be noted that paper with the dates 1801 and 1802 was used).

The record of the ownership of the manuscript of the Laurentian Chronicle by the Vladimir Nativity Monastery served as the basis for the assumption that the monk Laurentius wrote in Vladimir and that his work remained in the possession of the Nativity Monastery. Meanwhile, clear traces of the Laurentian Chronicle being found in the 17th century are being discovered. in the Nizhny Novgorod Pechersk Monastery, where it was directly used in the compilation of a special Pechersk chronicler. The Pechersk Chronicle is known to us in two lists: 1) RSL, f. 37 (collected by T. F. Bolshakov), No. 97, 70-80s. XVII century; 2) State Historical Museum, collection. Moscow Assumption Cathedral, No. 92, con. XVII century If we take into account that Dionysius, before his installation as bishop, was the archimandrite of the Pechersk monastery and that in this monastery the chronicle of Lawrence was preserved until the 17th century, we can reasonably assume that the grand ducal code was copied in 1377 in the Nizhny Novgorod Pechersk monastery by local monks.

When publishing the Laurentian Chronicle, the Radzi Vilov Chronicle was used in different readings.

The Radzivilov Chronicle is stored in the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg under the code 34.5.30. Manuscript in 1, on 251 + III sheets. The chronicle is located on pp. 1-245, the watermarks of this part of the manuscript - three types of a bull's head - are reproduced in the album of N.P. Likhachev under Nos. 3893-3903 (but the reproduction is not entirely accurate). On ll. 246-250 rpm Additional articles were rewritten in a different handwriting and on different paper (“The Tale of Daniel the Humble Hegumen, Who Walked His Legs and Seen His Eyes”, “The Word of St. Dorotheus, Bishop of Tours, about the 12 Apostle Saints”, “The Word of St. Epiphanius, the Tale of the Prophets and Prophetesses” ), filigree - two views of a bull's head under a cross - are reproduced in the album of N.P. Likhachev under Nos. 3904-3906. “Judging by the paper, the time of writing the Radzivilov list should most likely be attributed to the last decade of the 15th century,” N. P. Likhachev came to this conclusion. We believe that the dating can be significantly clarified. According to the observations of N.P. Likhachev, sign No. 3864 from documents of 1486 “is completely similar in type to the signs of the chronicle.” If we talk about signs No. 3896-3898, then they literally coincide with the signs of the Book of 16 Prophets (RSL, f. 304 / I, No. 90) - according to our updated data (in N.P. Likhachev’s album the signs of the Book of Prophets are reproduced under No. No. 1218-1220 with distortions. The Book of the Prophets was written by Stefan Tveritin from October 1, 1488 to February 9, 1489. Thus, paleographic data allows us to narrow the dating interval to 1486-1488. There are numerous additions in the margins of the chronicle, which, according to The observations of A.V. Chernetsov are characterized by the same linguistic features as the main text, and which can be dated back to 1487. 3 Taken together, the results presented make it possible to date the Radzivilov Chronicle to around 1487. Additional articles on pp. 246 -250 vol. (which, by the way, differ in the same linguistic features as the text of the chronicle) can be attributed to the 90s of the 15th century.

The Radzivilov Chronicle is obverse (decorated with more than 600 miniatures), and this determines its outstanding significance in the history of Russian culture. At present, the most substantiated version seems to be the Western Russian origin of the Radzivilov Chronicle, in the contact zone of the Belarusian and Great Russian dialects - most likely in Smolensk (A. A. Shakhmatov, V. M. Gantsov). An analysis of the stylistic features of the miniatures (which experienced significant Western European influence) and their content inclines to the same opinion.

The nature of the notes in the margins of the chronicle shows that the manuscript was created in an urban environment, in which the veche orders of ancient Russian cities, their freedoms and privileges were approved. Later records from the end of the 16th century - early XVII V. in the Old Belarusian language indicate that the manuscript at that time belonged to representatives of the small gentry, residents of the Grodno povet. At the end of the manuscript there is a note that the chronicle was donated by Stanislav Zenowevich to Prince Janusz Radziwill. Consequently, around the middle of the 17th century. The chronicle passed from small holders into the possession of the highest stratum of the Belarusian nobility. Through Prince Boguslav Radziwill, who had close family ties with Prussian magnates, the chronicle entered the Königsberg Library in 1671. Here Peter I got acquainted with it in 1715 and ordered a copy of it to be made (now: BAN, 31.7.22). In 1761, when Russian troops occupied Königsberg, the chronicle was taken from the Königsberg Library and transferred to the Library of the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg.

The Radzivilov Chronicle brings the narrative up to 6714, and due to the fact that the sheets were mixed up in the original, the events from the end of 6711 to 6714 turned out to be stated earlier than the news of 6711-6713. According to the research of N. G. Berezhkov, articles 6679-6714. in the Radziwill Chronicle (as well as in the Laurentian) they are designated according to the Ultra March style, therefore, 6714 is translated as 1205.

A comparison of the Laurentian Chronicle with the Radzivilov Chronicle and the Chronicler of Perey and Slavic of Suzdal shows that the similar text of these chronicles continues just until 1205 (6714 in the Ultra-March dating). Following the end of the general source in Laurentian, the date 6714 is repeated, but in the March designation, and then follows a text that differs significantly from the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl of Suzdal; Radzivilovskaya generally ends with article 1205. It can therefore be assumed that a certain stage in the history of Vladimir chronicles is associated with 1205. At the same time, from the observations of A. A. Shakhmatov on articles for the 70s. XII century it follows that the Lavrentievskaya was based on an earlier version of the code of 1205 (in the Radzivilovskaya and the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl of Suzdal, tendentious additions of the name of Vsevolod the Big Nest were made to the news about his brother Mikhalka).

The possibility of reconstructing the Trinity Chronicle was substantiated by A. A. Shakhmatov, who discovered that the Simeonovskaya Chronicle from the very beginning (but it begins only in 1177) until 1390 is similar to the Trinity Chronicle (judging by quotes from N. M. Karamzin). Major work on the reconstruction of the Trinity Chronicle was undertaken by M.D. Priselkov, but in the light of the latest discoveries of new ancient Russian chronicle monuments, the reconstruction of the Trinity Chronicle should be revised and clarified.

The Trinity Chronicle, by the nature of its news, was obviously compiled at the Moscow Metropolitan See, but due to the chronicler’s predilection for inner life The hand of the monk of the Sergius monastery is recognized in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. An analysis of the stylistic manner and ideological orientation of the compiler’s work allows us to more accurately determine the identity of the compiler of the chronicle code of 1408 - he turned out to be the outstanding writer of Medieval Rus' Epiphanius the Wise, who, as a monk of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, served as the secretary of Metropolitan Photius Simeon Chronicle under 6909; the inscription was published by acad. A. S. Orlov in “Bibliography of Russian inscriptions of the XI-XV centuries.” Ed. Academician Sciences of the USSR, 1936, pp. 81-82. Shakhmatov A. A. A note on the place of compilation of the Radzivilov (Koenigsberg) list of the chronicle. M., 1913; Gantsov V.M. Features of the language of the Radzivilov (Koenigsberg) copy of the chronicle // IORYAS, 1927, vol. 32, p. 177-242.

At the end of the fourteenth - at the beginning of the fifteenth century in the territory modern Russia Chronicle writing is developing very rapidly. Numerous codes date back to this time, the compilers of which were the smartest personalities of that period. The authors of these works collect, translate and edit existing chronicles, adding their own edits and thoughts.

According to tradition, each new book chronicle at the beginning had information about life Kievan Rus. Often the authors referred to The Tale of Bygone Years or quoted some passages from it. Therefore, with each new collection, an uninterrupted chain of legends about the mother of Russian cities continued. Chroniclers turned their attention not only to golden-domed Kyiv, but also to others Suzdal, Ryazan, Novgorod, Moscow, Vladimir.

An important document that captured the life of the ancient world is the Laurentian Chronicle. It is named after Lawrence, the monk who, together with his assistants, wrote it in 1377. The place where the vault was created is considered to be as evidenced by the corresponding inscription on the pages of the chronicle. Thus, the first Russian chronicle is a copy of the previous lost code and contains data on events before 1305.

The Laurentian Chronicle begins with the words “The Tale of Bygone Years,” which glorifies the greatness of Rus'. Also included in the code is the “Teaching” of the Kyiv prince Vladimir Monomakh, who was famous for his wisdom and prudence. In it, the prince calls on his compatriots to stop strife, forget grievances and stand together for a just cause. Further, the Laurentian Chronicle sadly talks about the difficult struggle of the Russian people with the Mongol-Tatars, the painful death of its princes and the heroism of ordinary people.

This chronicle was written on the eve of the memorial. Therefore, it contains the aspirations of the people for victory over the invaders, a call for unity. Between the lines one can feel the aggravation of relations between the Golden Horde and Moscow. Therefore, we can safely say that this work was aimed at raising the patriotic spirit of the people.

The Laurentian Chronicle is a monument of writing. The date indicated by the author is 1377 according to the Old Russian calendar, calculated as 6885 from the creation of the world. For the most part, she paints the camp of things in Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' from 1164 to 1304. But it also contains news about the southern principalities of the country.

The ancient chronicle has always attracted the attention of historians, cultural experts and other scientists who are interested in antiquity. Of course, the original is not available to the general public - it is carefully stored in the archives of the Russian national library, which is in St. Petersburg. The carefully restored parchment is taken out several times a year for study and inspection.

Not so long ago the site named after. B. Yeltsin put up a digital scan of the chronicle so that anyone could see this important historical document. Each person can not only try to read the text in ancient Slavic, but also become familiar with its contents in modern Russian.

Laurentian Chronicle: the mystery of sheet 167

As noted in the previous article, 3 leaves were replaced in the Laurentian Chronicle. Lavrenty himself had nothing to do with this replacement - sheets 157, 161 and 167 were written in handwritings different from his handwriting, and the texts on sheets 157 and 167 were written by one hand, and on sheet 161 by the other. Consequently, the replacement of sheets 157 and 167 was carried out at one time, and sheet 161 at another.

Sheet 157 describes the events of the “summer of 6738” (1230), when relations between Mikhail of Chernigov and Yaroslav Vsevolodovich sharply worsened. To resolve the conflict, a delegation arrived in Vladimir consisting of: Metropolitan of All Rus' Kirill, Bishop of Chernigov Porfiry, abbot of the Kyiv Monastery of the Holy Savior Peter Akerovich. “Having listened to Yaroslav, his elder brother Gurya, and his father, the metropolitan and bishop Porfiry, and made peace with Michael,” reconciliation took place. Sheet 167 outlines the events recent years life of Alexander Yaroslavich. What could connect both Alexander and Mikhail at the same time? Only one thing - the Makarievsky Council of 1547, at which they were both canonized! By the way, Mikhail of Chernigov is also revered in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

Sheet 161 describes the events associated with Batu’s invasion of the Vladimir Principality, that is, with Yuri Vsevolodovich, who was canonized along with his sons by Patriarch Joseph in 1645. Let us note that Yaroslav Vsevolodovich was canonized only in 1981.

Considering the above, let us again turn to the Laurentian Chronicle and consider the events from 1253 to 1263, including those described on the inserted sheet 167.

“In the summer of 6760” (1252), Andrei Yaroslavich, having quarreled with his older brother Alexander, fled to Riga. The reconciliation of the brothers took place in 1256 after Andrei, returning from “emigration,” helped the Galicians take away power in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from Alexander Yaroslavich. As a token of gratitude for the service, the Galicians, having seated Roman Danilovich on the grand-ducal throne in Novogrudok, assigned Andrei to Gorodets (Polotsk), that is, they simply “threw” him away - he had to go and apologize to his older brother.

The fact that in 1256 Vasily (the eldest son of Alexander Yaroslavich), expelled by the Galicians from Novogorodk (Novogrudok), went to reign in Novgorod the Great, and Andrei Yaroslavich - in Gorodets (Polotsk), the Laurentian Chronicle reports in the last lines of sheet 166: “ In summer 6764 (1256). The princes went to Gorodets and to Novgorod. Prince Boris went to the Tatars, and Prince Alexander sent gifts. Boris, having been Ulavchia, gave gifts and came to his homeland with honor. The same winter, Prince Oleksandr went to em with judgment and with nougorodtsi and won, and brought a lot, and arrived with honor in his homeland.” (The text located on the inserted sheet 167 is underlined)

Ulavchiy is Batu’s youngest son, Ulagchi, who is mentioned in the chronicle twice more (in 1257 and 1258) on the same inserted sheet 167. “Rashid ad-din” indicates that Batu died in 650 AH. , which almost exactly corresponds to the summer of 6761. In turn, Rubruk, upon returning, arrived at Batu and spoke with him on September 16, 1254, therefore, Batu died no earlier than the autumn of 651 AH. After the death of Batu, his sons, Sartak and Ulagchi, appointed as his successors, died one after another in 652 AH. , which corresponds to the year 6763. I have no doubt that their rapid departure was “facilitated” by Batu’s younger brother, Berke, who was expelled from Persia by Hulagu precisely in 652 AH. Having killed the legitimate heirs of Batu, Berke became the main ruler in Desht-i-Kipchak (Polovtsian steppes). Thus, in 1256 (especially in 1257 and 1258) neither Ulagchi nor Sartakh were already alive - another evidence that Batu had nothing to do with Batu, and he and his family were simply “ "drew" into the history of Rus' already at the end of the 13th - beginning of the 14th centuries to justify princely civil strife. By the way, not a word is said about Burke in the Laurentian Chronicle!

The words “Prince Boris went to the Tatars” mean that the son of Vasilko Konstantinovich, grandson (by mother) of Mikhail of Chernigov, Prince of Rostov Boris Vasilkovich also became the master in Pereyaslavl Russky, next to which was the capital of the “Tatars” - the city of Kanovich.

Further: “In the summer of 6765 (1257) she arrived in numbers and destroyed the entire land of Suzhal and Ryazan and Murom, and installed foremen, and centurions, and thousanders, and temniks, and went to the Word. It’s nothing like abbots, monks, priests, kriloshans, who look at the Holy Mother of God and the Vladyka.” Foremans, centurions, thousanders and temniks are military commanders, so here we are talking about recruiting the army, and not about collecting taxes. Consequently, Alexander Yaroslavich began to gather an army to expel the Galicians from Lithuania. As a result: “In the summer of 6766 (1258) ... the princes went to the Tatars - Oleksandr, Andrey, Boris, Yaraslav Tfersky, honoring Ulavchiy, and all the governors, and released them to their homeland.” That is, in 1258, the sons and great-nephew of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, having forgotten past feuds and recruited an army, gathered in Kanovich (the capital of the “Tatars”), from where they headed to Novogorodok (the capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) to expel the Galicians from there. “...It’s the same winter and the Chislitsa arrived in Volodymer. And the number and princes went to Novugorod the Great - Alexander, Andrey, Boris, and then they went again to Volodymer. Alexandra kept the nougorod and honored and a lot. Oleksandr, having given them a row, went with honor to his homeland,” the Galicians were expelled from Novogrudok, but military duty has spread to Veliky Novgorod - more serious battles are ahead.

“In the summer of 6767 (1259) Alexander came from Novogorod to the Holy Mother of God in Rostov...” - Alexander Yaroslavich came from Novogrudok to Rostov to supervise the process of recruiting troops for the Battle of Durbe, which took place in the summer of 1260. All the events of this year are described in the chronicle in two words and one number: “In the summer of 6768,” and that’s all! The following describes the events of the summer of 6769. So the reason for replacing sheet 167 was found - to remove from the chronicle the mention of the participation of Alexander Nevsky (at that time Mindaugas) in the Battle of Durbe, note, in a battle larger than the Battle of the Ice. The presence of such information could have a negative impact on the process of canonization of Alexander in 1547.

In the Austrian annals the Battle of Durbe is mentioned as a battle between the Teutonic Order and the Tartars who invaded Prussia: “1260. Hoc anno Tartari multa mala fecerunt in Pruzia. Contra quos congregati sunt fratres de domo Teutonicorum, in die sancte Margarete simul pugnantibus occisi sunt fratres de domo Teutonicorum...” (“1260. This year the Tatars attacked Prussia. The brothers of the Teutonic Order took up arms against them, fought in battle on the day of St. Margaret, and the brothers of the Teutonic Order were defeated...")

Thus, the “children of Tarkh and Tara” (tartare) for a long time discouraged the brothers of the Teutonic Order from fighting with Russia.

“Troinat” also took part in the battle, consisting of:

Andrey Yaroslavich (Tovtivil) - Alexander's brother;

Vasily Alexandrovich (Voishelk, Troyden) - Alexander’s eldest son;

Timofey Alexandrovich (Dovmont) is the second son of Alexander.

After the battle, Alexander Yaroslavich renounced Catholicism and returned to Orthodoxy. The need for a large army and its support disappeared and in the Grand Duchy of Vladimir the positions of tax collectors were abolished, which is reported with pathos in the chronicle: “In the summer of 6770 (1262) ... kicked out of the cities: from Rostov, from Volodymer, from Suzhdal, from Yaroslavl " In Yaroslavl, the tax collector, monk Zosima, was even killed, but solely because of his moral decay: “...he’s a drunkard and a stud-speaker, a profane talker and a blasphemer.” This fact is described at the very beginning of the surviving sheet 168.

..
On sheet 169 the battle is described in detail, for which Alexander Yaroslavich later received the nickname Nevsky: “And the slaughter was great over the Romans. And beat up countless countless of them, and put a seal on the face of the queen himself with your sharp spear.” But it took place “in the summer of 6740,” that is, in 1232, when Alexander was only 12 years old, and not in 1240 (!), as is customary in historical science. On page 170 the events of 1283 and 1284 are already described, i.e. all sheets with descriptions of the events of 1264 - 1282 were removed from the chronicle.

So, the outstanding statesman of the 13th century (not only Rus'!) Alexander Yaroslavich, like his father Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, became a victim of a deviation from the principle: “To Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” To protect his subjects, the overwhelming majority of whom were still pagans (Tartars), from radicals from Christianity (Crusaders), he became Mindaugas - an apostate from Orthodoxy, which led to the subsequent concealment and distortion of his activities for 17 years of his entire 43-year life and gave room for the insinuations of “real historians.”

This is how professional historian, Professor Andrei Burovsky characterizes the activities of Alexander Yaroslavich (I give my comments in brackets):

His contemporaries did not rate his actions so highly. (Which contemporaries? Who specifically?)

Yes, in 1240, at the age of 16, he defeated the army of the Scandinavian Earl Birger. In 1241, he famously fought with the crusaders from the Teutonic Order and on April 5, 1242, defeated them on the shores of Lake Peipsi. (A whole bunch of absurdities: the battle with the Swedes took place in 1232, when Alexander was 12 years old; Birger received the title of jarl in 1248; in 1241, Alexander had not yet fought with the crusaders)

The military exploits of Alexander Nevsky were appreciated in Novgorod, but not excessively. But they called him aggressive, greedy, autocratic and quarrelsome, and three times the veche opened the gates to Alexander Yaroslavovich, saying that “the path is clear before the prince,” and none of his military merits interfered with this. At least, no one in Novgorod considered him a national hero. (What, in 1263 a professor conducted a sociological survey in Novgorod?)

Alexander Nevsky also made a choice: together with the Horde, the Tatar army itself, he actively suppressed the uprising in all the cities of North-Eastern Rus'. Suppressed with incredible, simply frightening cruelty; The warriors of Alexander Yaroslavovich Nevsky, just like the Tatars, cut off fingers, ears and noses, whipped prisoners, burned houses and cities. (Which chronicle says this? Which specific cities did Alexander burn?)

It was then that the veche system ended in North-Eastern Rus'. And self-government and democracy in this part of Rus' was strangled by none other than the Grand Duke of Vladimir Alexander Yaroslavovich Nevsky. (Alexander Yaroslavich was the Grand Duke of Vladimir (1252 - 1263), Grand Duke of Kyiv (1246), Grand Duke of Lithuania (1247 - 1263). It is indecent for a professor not to know basic things.)

Muscovy, which was started by Alexander Nevsky, will become stronger than other Russian states and will be able to crush its “competitors” (why is a separate discussion). And he will carry throughout Rus' the traditions of servility and Asianism. And many aspects of our own history will begin to be hidden from us. And therefore, you will not find stories about how the national hero of Rus'-Russia Alexander Nevsky ravaged Rus' together with the Mongols in any history textbook or in any official reference book of the Soviet era. (The Mongols were in Rus' only in the professor’s fevered imagination. How can you ruin Rus' together with a phantom?)

It is also noteworthy that Lavrenty wrote a chronicle for Dmitry Konstantinovich - Prince of Suzdal from 1356, Grand Duke of Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod from 1365, Grand Duke of Vladimir in 1360-1363, great-grandson of Andrei Yaroslavich (the same Tovtivil, younger brother and murderer of Alexander Nevsky ) - Prince of Polotsk and Gorodetsky, whose descendants, after the murder of Alexander Yaroslavich, with the “permission of the khan” received the Principality of Suzdal.

Novgorod-Sofia arch, etc.

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 5

✪ Laurentian CHRONICLE - 1377 - House of the SLAVS AND ALL PEOPLES

✪ Intelligence interrogation: historian Alexander Skrobach about the founding of Kyiv

✪ THE BIRTH OF RUSSIA I Mikhail Krom

✪ Proof that the Radziwill Chronicle is a FAKE!

✪ Ostromir Gospel The Oldest Manuscript of KIEVAN Rus' XI century

Subtitles

and what do you know about China, for example, so out of the 10 most bloody wars in history, 8 took place on the territory of China, something like this: hello everyone, eaters, welcome to my channel today the focus of our attention will be voila during the song chronicle of 1377 this the most valuable monument of world culture and is stored in the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg they were named after the arctic fox monkova in the tape the narrative in the Laurentian Chronicle was brought to 1300 5 as part of the Lavrin Tyrian chronicle the oldest and surviving list of the stories of the time years of the most ancient has reached us chronicle code Eastern Slavs here are the sheets of an ancient manuscript covered in the ringing of Russian military glory, a golden thread running through the narrative is the universal theme of patriotism and courageous reflection on the fate of the native land, well, let's look more specifically at this manuscript and so voila, what I like about such sites is that we can look and admire in detail to this manuscript, so here are my friends, and in one corner, as you and I notice, we can see this chronicle in its original form, then we, of course, can see the translation of this chronicle, for example, there we take the first page, so so so so let’s move on sheet 2 1 turnover because it’s so beautiful beautiful and voila here comes the old Russian translation more precisely but here’s the old translation and here it's already underway the modern translation of this text below, whoever doubts this authenticity can easily enlarge the picture and here you are, you can read all the stories of bygone years, yes please, here are the stories of past years, well, let’s look at the translation of where the Russian land came from and who became the first to reign in Kyiv and how the Russian arose earth so let's start with the story of the streams of 1 of the sons, but they also divided the land between Shem Ham and Japheth, and the east went to everyone, this is Persia, and so on and so on and so on throughout India and so on and so on, here by the way there is a huge list of what everyone got, please note that it’s very interesting how much here it describes the countries, how many peoples, respectively, this is well, this is just beautiful, this is interesting and I think that each of you will start reading, so let’s go directly with you, let’s go directly to the content, here you go, content, thanks to those who came up with this site and here are examples, let’s look at the Slavs what can we see about the Slavs, here we look please, the same boor and Japheth divided the land, cast lots and decided not to join anyone along with their brother and everyone lived in their own part there was one people and when all the people on earth multiplied they planned they built a pillar to the sky it was this in the days of no one on and the facts of falika no one on and falika and gathered in the place of the hay field senor fields to build a pillar to the sky and the city around it Babylon and they built that pillar for 40 years and it was not finished and the Lord God came down and sees the city and the pillar and the Lord said here is one mouth and one people and God mixed the peoples and divided them into 70 and two peoples and scattered them all over the earth, which by the way, this is how it was destroyed into a pillar and so on, so we will glorify we will glorify here and now after a long time the villages of the Slavs along the Danube where is the land now Hungarian and Bulgarian and from these Slavs the Slavs spread across the earth and were called by their names where who sat in what place so for example alone and so on and so on but interesting interesting please can you read in Old Church Slavonic that is please here is everything and that is translate all this but everything has been done for us, so calmly, my friends, let’s move on and look at studying this management chronicle, I think you will be interested in there will be a link under the video to no advice. and the Russian Federation and by the way, you know that the ugliest fish in the world was the blob fish, something like that, well, thumbs up, subscribe to the channel and I will continue further book as bye bye

History of discovery and publication

No later than the end of the 16th century and until the beginning of the 18th century, the Laurentian Chronicle was kept in the Nativity Monastery in the city of Vladimir. The manuscript then ended up in a private collection. In 1792, it was purchased by Count Musin-Pushkin (after his name in old historiography, for example, from N.M. Karamzin, the Laurentian Chronicle was called Pushkin list). The latter gave it to Alexander I. In 1811, the emperor transferred the chronicle to the Imperial Public Library (now the Russian National Library), where the manuscript remains to this day.

• First published in full in 1846 in the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles (volume 1).
• In 1872, the manuscript was partially published using the phototype method (the chronicle was published only up to 1110, that is, only the “Tale of Bygone Years”)

Features of the publication of the Laurentian Chronicle as part of the “Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles”

On sheets 172ob and 173 there is a colophon made by the monk Lawrence, who completed writing the manuscript on March 20, 6885 (1377) under the Grand Duke Dmitry Konstantinovich and Bishop Dionysius of Suzdal and Novgorod.

On the final sheets 173 and 173 vol. There are also some records.

News chronology

According to the calculations of N. G. Berezhkov, the Laurentian Chronicle for the years 1110-1304 contains 101 March years, 60 ultra-Martov years, 4 years below March years, 5 empty, 26 not preserved.

Groups 6619-6622 (1110-1113), 6626-6627 (1117-1118), 6642-6646 (1133-1137) are ultramartian. 6623-6678 (1115-1170) in general March. 6679-6714 (1170-1205) are generally ultramartian. But 6686 (1178), 6688 (1180) March.

The third group of years: from repeated 6714 to 6771 (1206-1263) March, but among them 6717 (1208), 6725-6726 (1216-1217), 6740 (1231) are ultra-March. Read after the gap 6792-6793 (1284-1285) March, 6802-6813 (1293-1304) ultra-Mart.