The Laurentian Chronicle is the most important historical source. Laurentian Chronicle
Annals of Lavrentievskaya- chronicle of the XIV century, preserved in the only parchment list (GPB, F.p.IV.2), rewritten in 1377 by the monk Lavrenty by order of the Grand Duke of Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod Dmitry Konstantinovich. The text of L. was brought to 6813 (1305). In six places, omissions of the text are found: 1) 6406 (898) - 6430 (922); 2) con. 6596 (1088) - early. 6597 (1089); 3) beginning. 6705 (1197); 4) 6711 (1203) - 6713 (1205); 5) 6771 (1263) - 6791 (1283); 6) 6795 (1283) - 6802 (1294) The first and fifth omissions are due to the loss of leaves in the manuscript; the second, third and fourth, obviously, belong to the scribe of the manuscript himself (Laurentius) or his immediate predecessor; the origin of the sixth omission is debatable: it may have been a defect in the immediate original or in the manuscript itself. Obviously out of place (even if it belonged to the chronicle text), in the middle of article 6604 (1096), placed in L. Teaching of Vladimir Monomakh, which is not read in any other manuscripts. The initial 40 sheets of L. are written in statutory handwriting, the next - in semi-statutory, but three sheets of the manuscript (l. 157, 161 and 167) are not completely written (although their text is consistently continued on the following sheets), other than before them (statutory), handwriting, on parchment with a different line line. L. belonged to early XVIII v. Vladimir Nativity Monastery, then was brought to St. Petersburg, and in 1792 acquired by A. I. Musin-Pushkin, who then presented it to Alexander I (the manuscript was placed in the Public Library). Already in 1804, the first attempt was made to publish L., but it was not completed, the second edition (1824) was also not completed; the first complete edition of L. (in PSRL) was carried out in 1846.
Since its discovery for science, L. has constantly attracted the attention of historians. It was widely used (along with two other "charate" chronicles - the Chronicle of Novgorod first according to the Synodal list and Trinity) N. M. Karamzin in the "History of the Russian State" (calling it "Pushkinskaya" - after the name of the owner). Before late XIX v. L. researchers were especially attracted by its initial part - the Tale of Bygone Years contained in it, edited by Sylvester. The first work devoted to L. as a whole was the study of I. A. Tikhomirov, who tried to identify individual sources of L. - “tales” and “traveling notes”; he came to the conclusion that L., “in addition to the Tale of Bygone Years and the South Russian chronicles, included news that were first recorded primarily in Vladimir (until the death of Vsevolod III), and then in Rostov, Suzdal and Tver; there are also several news from Kostroma and Yaroslavl, Pereyaslavl and Ryazan.
A. A. Shakhmatov put the question of the origin of L. on new ground in his response to the work of I. A. Tikhomirov. A. A. Shakhmatov pointed out that L. not only was a set itself (I. A. Tikhomirov understood this), but was also based on earlier sets. In order to determine these archetypes-protographers, it was therefore necessary to compare L. with other early chronicles, and above all with the Radzivilov Chronicle and the Troitskaya Chronicle. Such a comparison revealed that L. is especially close to Troitskaya, Radzivilovskaya is also similar to L. (up to 6711 (1203)), however, unlike Troitskaya, Radzivilovskaya has editorial differences from L. A. A. Shakhmatov throughout concluded from this that the basis of L. - Troitskaya and Radzivilovskaya (and similar chronicles) was the Vladimir annalistic code of con. XII - beginning. XIII century, but in different editions. The difference in the presentation of events after the death of Andrei Yuryevich Bogolyubsky (1175) suggests that L. was based on an earlier edition of the Vladimir code (1185 - according to A. A. Shakhmatov, 1177 and 1193 - according to M. D. Priselkov), which has not yet reflected the tendentious additions related to the policy of Vsevolod Yuryevich the Big Nest (adding the name of Vsevolod to the news about his brother Mikhalka), and at the basis of Radzivilovskaya is a later one (the Vladimir Code of the beginning of the 13th century, which came through the Pereyaslav Code 1216). Comparison of L. with the Ipatiev Chronicle also revealed coincidences between them, but much more rare. A. A. Shakhmatov explained them partly by the mutual influence of the North Russian and South Russian (reflected in the Ipatiev Chronicle) chronicle of the XII-XIII centuries, partly by the fact that the source of L. and Ipatievskaya (not reflected in the Radzivilovskaya) was the all-Russian annalistic code - Polychron beginning of the 14th century Influenced by Polychron at the beginning of the 14th century. A. A. Shakhmatov also explained the coincidence of two news (6725 and 6731 - the beginning of the battle on Kalka) L. and NIL.
An important place in L.'s research is occupied by the work of M. D. Priselkov. After analyzing the final part of L., M. D. Priselkov came to the conclusion that the code of 1305, underlying it, was not the metropolitan code of the beginning of the 14th century. (Polychron), and the grand-ducal chronicle of Vladimir-Tver prince Mikhail Yaroslavich - a number of news from the family chronicler of the Tver prince is contained at the end of L. He also rejected the explanation of the similarity of L. with Ipatievskaya reflection of Polychron in them. The text of the Ipatiev Chronicle reached the end of the 14th century; the presence of similar news in both chronicles (almost all of them are also read in Radzivilovskaya) can most naturally be explained by the mutual influences of northern and southern chronicles in the 12th-13th centuries. The reconstruction of the Trinity Chronicle carried out by him allowed M. D. Priselkov to compare L. and Troitskaya throughout their entire length and establish that they are similar up to 6813 (1305) - that is, until the end of L. He came to the conclusion that in both chronicles reflected the Vladimir grand-ducal vault of 1305; The Laurentian list of 1377 can be regarded as a "simple copy", a diligent but not always successful reproduction of "a very dilapidated copy of the code of 1305". The same set of 1305 was also the basis for the set of 1408 - the Trinity Chronicle.
The conclusions of M. D. Priselkov were mainly accepted in scientific literature subsequent time. The code of 1305, which came down as part of L., reflected the Vladimir annalistic tradition, but it was rather complicated. L. was based on several Vladimir vaults of the 12th-13th centuries, based on various sources. Southern news of the XII century. ascended in the Vladimir vault of the 12th century. to the annals of Pereyaslavl South, where close relatives of the Vladimir Monomashichs reigned, and, possibly, also to its Kiev processing. Northern chronicle writing in Leningrad was also heterogeneous—already from the beginning of the 13th century. in the news of L., the Vladimir annals proper (associated with the son Yuri and Yaroslav Vsevolodovich) and the annals of Rostov (where the eldest son of Vsevolod the Big Nest Konstantin reigned, initially deprived during the division of his father's heritage) were merged. N. M. Berezhkov drew attention to the change in calendar styles in Leningrad, which is important for understanding the relationship of this chronicle with others. Until 6678 (1170) the March style prevailed in Leningrad (as in the Tale of Bygone Years), from 6679 it was replaced by the ultra-March style (when, starting from March, the difference between the date from S. M. and the date of AD equals 5509 years), from the second annual article of 6714 to 6793 (1285) the March one again follows, again changing over the years 6802-6813. (until the end of Leningrad) ultramart. The presence in L. of two articles for 6714 (outlining the events of two different successive years) N. M. Berezhkov explained by the fact that there was a change of styles, and the first article of 6714 was ultra-March, and the second - March. But the text from 6711 to 6713 is absent in Leningrad, and a comparison with the Trinity Chronicle close to L. (the text of which was preserved in the Chronicle of Simeonovskaya) makes it possible to fill this gap; meanwhile, in Troitskaya (Simeonovskaya) from 6708 (1200) the March style is used. Obviously, this was due to the fact that the set of 1305 from the beginning of the 13th century. reflected a new source - the Rostov chronicle, where the calendar style was March. The first article, dated in L. 6714, corresponds to 6713 in Troitskaya, the second - 6714 (according to the March style). One can therefore think that in the code of 1305 the first of these articles was dated 6713, and the date "6714" is an amendment by Lawrence (or his immediate predecessor), who used a defective text, where the years 6711-6713 were missing, and put down annual date by guesswork. In the Radzivilov date, starting from 6711, the Ultra-March style is preserved (in the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl of Suzdal until 6721), which was established in the Vladimir chronicle from 6679 (1170) , and it is this calendar difference that testifies to the change in the source in L. from the beginning of the 13th century.
The dual — Vladimir and Rostov — origin of L. also affected the Tale of the Batu invasion of 1237-1239. This story consists of various elements - Vladimir and Rostov records (dual origin led to the fact that some events are told twice here), literary "common places", special story about the death of the Rostov prince Vasilko Konstantinovich, etc. The combination of these various elements into a single story could occur at different times: shortly after the conquest, when Vladimir was defeated and the center of chronicle writing was moved to Rostov, in the 80s of the XIII century, when , apparently, the Vladimir vaults of the end of the 12th century were combined into a common chronicle. and the beginning of the thirteenth century. (reflected in the Radzivilov Chronicle), or in 1305 when the original was created by L. It seems unconvincing to date this story to the end of the 14th century. - the time of writing the Laurentian list. The reconstruction of the text of the Trinity Chronicle allows us to assert with sufficient certainty that the story of Batu's invasion coincided with L. If we assumed that Batu's story was created in 1377, when writing the list of Lawrence, then it would be necessary to build the Trinity Chronicle to the list of 1377 or to its subsequent reflections. But in a number of cases, Troitskaya conveys the general text up to 1305 better than Lawrence’s list (it did not contain L. passes for 6406-6430, 6596, 6705, 6711-6713, 6771-6791, 6795-6802, it includes names omitted in L. L., in particular, the names of figures of the 13th century) - therefore, it does not go back to the list of 1377, but to the code of 1305.
L.'s studying still demands a number of further researches. The issue of the origin of several L. news, coinciding with the NIL (it was assumed that they were of Ryazan origin, but it is possible that their source was the Novgorod chronicle), about the time of the connection of the Vladimir and Rostov annalistic traditions, has not been resolved. The codicological features of the list of 1377 also deserve attention (several sheets in L. are clearly backdated, but this could be due to accidental circumstances - damage to the sheets during correspondence).
On the whole, L. undoubtedly was an outstanding monument of ancient Russian literature and social thought. The original L. was created under Prince Mikhail Yaroslavich of Vladimir-Tver, the first Russian prince who, after the invasion of Batu, decided to directly resist the khan (1317) and was executed for this in the Golden Horde. Code of 1305 could not oppose Tatar yoke openly, but a number of stories of this code (the story of the invasion of Batu, about the massacre of Prince Roman of Ryazan, which was not preserved in Leningrad due to the defective text, but came down in Troitskaya; about the massacre perpetrated by the Baskak Akhmat in the Kursk principality in 1283-84 .) vividly depicted the cruelty of the conquerors and made a strong impression on readers. Through the set of 1408 (Trinity Chronicle), the set of 1448 (Chronicles of Sofia I and Novgorod IV) and the annals of the Moscow Grand Duke of the end of the 15th century. L. had a profound influence on subsequent chronicle writing.
Ed.: PSRL, vol. 1, 1846; 2nd ed.: L., 1926-1928, no. 1-3 (phototype reproduction: M., 1961); Chronicle according to the Laurentian list / Ed. Archaeological com. SPb., 1872; 2nd ed.: St. Petersburg, 1897.
Lit.: Belyaev I. D. Russian chronicles according to the Laurentian list from 1111 to 1169 - VOIDR, 1849, book. 2, sec. 1, p. 1-26; Yanish N. N. Novgorod chronicle and its Moscow alterations. M., 1876; Tikhomirov I. A. About the Laurentian Chronicle. - ZhMNP, 1884, October, dep. 2, p. 240-270; Shakhmatov A. A. 1) Analysis of Tikhomirov's essay "Review of the chronicles of North-Eastern Russia." SPb., 1899, p. 6-20; 2) All-Russian chronicles of the XIV and XV centuries. - ZhMNP, 1900, November, dep. 2, p. 149-151; 3) Research, p. 245-246; 4) Review, p. 9-37, 365; Priselkov M. D. 1) Chronicle of the XIV century. - In the book: Collection of articles on Russian history, dedicated to S. F. Platonov. Pg., 1922, p. 28-39; 2) "Chronicler" 1305 - Century. Pg., 1924, v. 1, p. 30-35; 3) History of the manuscript of the Laurentian Chronicle and its editions. - Learned. app. LGPI, 1939, v. 19, p. 175-197; 4) The history of Russian chronicle writing in the 11th-15th centuries. L., 1940, p. 60-113; Komarovich V. 1) Laurentian Chronicle. — East. Russian lit., 1945, v. 2, p. 90-96; 2) From observations on the Laurentian Chronicle - TODRL, 1976, v. 30, p. 27-57; Berezhkov N. G. Chronology of Russian annals. M., 1963, p. 41-123; Nasonov A. N. 1) The Laurentian Chronicle and the Grand Duke Chronicle of Vladimir in the first half of the 13th century. - PI, 1963, v. 11, p. 429-480; 2) History of Chronicle XI - early. 18th century M., 1969, p. 80-225; Prokhorov G. M. 1) Codicological analysis of the Laurentian Chronicle. - In the book: Auxiliary. ist. disciplines. L., 1972, v. 4, p. 83-104; 2) The Tale of Batu's Invasion in the Laurentian Chronicle. - TODRL, 1974, v. 28, p. 77-98; Lurie Ya. S. 1) Laurentian Chronicle - a set of the beginning of the XIV century. - TODRL, 1974, v. 29, p. 50-67; 2) All-Russian chronicles of the XIV-XV centuries. L., 1976, p. 17-36; Fennell J.L.I. 1) The Tale of Baty's Invasion of North-East Rus' and its Reflexion in the Chronicles of the XIII-th - XV-th Centuries. - Russia Mediaevalis, München, 1977, t. 3, p. 41-60; 2) The Tale of the Death of Vasil'ko Konstantinovič: A Study of the Sources. — In: Osteuropa in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Festschrift für G. Stökl zum 60. Geburtstag. Koln; Vienna, 1977, p. 34-46.
I AM. WITH. Lurie
The Laurentian Chronicle" is a parchment manuscript containing a copy of the annalistic code of 1305, made in 1377 by a group of scribes under the guidance of the monk Lavrenty on the instructions of the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod prince Dmitry Konstantinovich from the list of the beginning of the 14th century. The text begins with "The Tale of Bygone Years" and is brought up to 1305. The manuscript does not contain news for 898?922, 1263?1283, 1288?94. Code 1305 was the Grand Duke's "Vladimir Code", compiled during the period when the Grand Duke of Vladimir was Prince Mikhail Yaroslavich of Tver. It was based on code 1281, supplemented ( from 1282) 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 to Alexander I, who gave the manuscript to the Public Library (now named after M. .E.Saltykov-Shchedrin), where it is stored.
"Laurentian Chronicle" is one of the oldest Russian chronicles, which is an important historical and literary monument. Eastern Slavs. It received its name after the monk Lavrenty, who, by order of the Suzdal and Nizhny Novgorod Grand Duke Dmitry Konstantinovich, in 1377 rewrote it from the old? a chronicler who recounted events up to 1305.
The Laurentian Chronicle also includes entries from other chronicle sources, thanks to which the events of Russian history are described until 1377. The beginning of the publication of the chronicle dates back to 1804, but only in 1846 it was published in full in the 1st vol. PSRL (2nd reprint. 1872; 3rd reprint 1897). Historians of the 19th century made a great contribution to the study of the complex text of the Laurentian Chronicle, and later? A.A. Shakhmatov, M.D. Priselkov, D.S. Likhachev.
"Laurentian Chronicle" is a valuable source of research into the events associated with the campaign against the Polovtsy of Novgorod-Seversky Prince Igor Svyatoslavich. In the entry under 1186 (erroneously, instead of 1185), a story is placed here, beginning as follows: "That same summer, when Olgovi's grandchildren thought of Polovtsy, they didn't go around that summer with all the princes, but they themselves went about themselves, saying: "We are not princes, but we will also get our own praises? And having taken off at Pereyaslavl, Igor with two sons from Novgorod Seversky, from Trubech Vsevolod brother him, Olgovich Svyatoslav from Rylsk, and Chernigov to help and go into the land of their [Polovtsy]."
The story of the "Laurentian Chronicle" is much shorter than the story of the "Ipatiev Chronicle" about the same campaign of Igor Svyatoslavich, nevertheless, in a number of places it gives details that are not in? The Lay on Igor's Campaign?.
The text of the chronicle, containing the story of the campaign of Igor Svyatoslavich in 1185, was again published in the 1st vol. PSRL (Moscow: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1962, stb. 397?
Sources:
1804, 1824 -- partial edition of chronicle [not completed];
"Laurentian Chronicle", 1st ed., St. Petersburg, 1846 (? Complete collection of Russian chronicles?, Vol. 1);
"Laurentian Chronicle", 2nd ed., no. 1?3, L., 1926?28;
"Laurentian Chronicle", 2nd ed. (phototype reproduction), M., Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1962.
Literature:
Komarovich V.L., "Laurentian Chronicle" // "History of Russian Literature", vol. 2, part 1, M. ? L., 1945;
Nasonov A.N., "The history of Russian chronicle writing in the 11th - early 18th centuries", M., 1969, ch. 4;
Franchuk V.Yu., "On the Creator of the Version of Prince Igor's Campaign against the Polovtsy in 1185 in the Laurentian Chronicle" // "? A Tale of Igor's Campaign? and His Time", M., ? Nauka?, 1985, p. 154? 168;
Shakhmatov A.A., "Review of Russian chronicle codes of the XIV-XVI centuries", M., L., 1938, pp. 9-37;
Priselkov M.D., "The history of Russian chronicle writing in the 11th-15th centuries", M., 1996, pp. 57?113.
Topic tags:
Old Russian chronicles
Chronicle lists
The Laurentian Chronicle also influenced later chronicles - the Trinity Chronicle, the Novgorod-Sophia Code, etc.
News chronology
According to the calculations of N. G. Berezhkov, the Laurentian Chronicle for 1110-1304 contains 101 March years, 60 ultra-March, 4 years below March, 5 empty, 26 have not survived.
Groups 6619-6622 (1110-1113), 6626-6627 (1117-1118), 6642-6646 (1133-1137) are ultramartian. 6623-6678 (1115-1170) March in general. 6679-6714 (1170-1205) 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) - ultra-March. Readable after the gap 6792-6793 (1284-1285) March, 6802-6813 (1293-1304) Ultra March.
Editions
- PSRL. T.1. 1846.
- Chronicle according to the Laurentian list. / Publication of the Archaeographic Commission. St. Petersburg, 1872. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg, 1897.
- PSRL. T.1. 2nd ed. / Ed. E. F. Karsky. Issue 1-3. L., 1926-1928. (reissues: M., 1961; M., 1997, with a new preface by B. M. Kloss; M., 2001).
- Laurentian Chronicle. (Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles. Volume One). Leningrad, 1926-1928
- Laurentian Chronicle (ukr.)
Key Research
- Berezhkov N. G. Chronology of Russian annals. M.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1963.
Notes
see also
Links
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .
- Sandhurst
- Klimova, Ekaterina Alexandrovna
See what the "Laurentian Chronicle" is in other dictionaries:
LAVRENTIAN CHRONICLE- written by the monk Lavrentiy and other scribes in 1377. Based on the Vladimir code of 1305. It begins with the Tale of Bygone Years (the oldest list) ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary
LAVRENTIAN CHRONICLE- LAVRENTIEVSKAYA CHRONICLE, written by the monk Lavrenty and other scribes in 1377. It begins with the Tale of Vsemenngh Years (the oldest list), includes the Vladimir code of 1305. Source: Encyclopedia Fatherland ... Russian History
LAVRENTIAN CHRONICLE- a parchment manuscript containing a copy of the chronicle of 1305, made in 1377 by a group of scribes under the hands of. Monk Lawrence on the instructions of the Suzdal Nizhny Novgorod Prince. Dmitry Konstantinovich from the list of early. 14th c. The text of the code begins with the Tale ... ... Soviet historical encyclopedia
Laurentian Chronicle- a parchment manuscript containing a copy of the annalistic code of 1305, made in 1377 by a group of scribes under the guidance of the monk Lavrenty on the instructions of the Suzdal Nizhny Novgorod prince Dmitry Konstantinovich from the list of the beginning of the 14th century. Text… … Great Soviet Encyclopedia
Laurentian Chronicle- written by the monk Lavrentiy and other scribes in 1377. Based on the Vladimir Code of 1305. It begins with The Tale of Bygone Years (the oldest copy). * * * LAVRENTIEVSKAYA CHRONICLE LAVRENTIEVSKAYA CHRONICLE, manuscript on parchment with a copy of the chronicle ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary
Laurentian Chronicle- Lavr entiev Chronicle ... Russian spelling dictionary
Annals of Lavrentievskaya- - chronicle of the XIV century, preserved in the only parchment copy (GPB, F.p.IV.2), rewritten in 1377 by the monk Lavrenty by order of the Grand Duke of Suzdal Nizhny Novgorod Dmitry Konstantinovich. The text of L. brought to 6813 (1305) in six ... ... Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Russia
chronicle- This term has other meanings, see Chronicle (meanings). The Laurentian Chronicle Chronicle (or chronicler) is a historical genre of ancient Russian literature ... Wikipedia
CHRONICLE- In Russia * XI-XVII centuries. a type of historical narrative literature, which is a record of what happened on a yearly basis (weather records). The word chronicle is derived from the noun leto* meaning ‘year’. Chronicles are... ... Linguistic Dictionary
chronicle- - vault historical notes in the order of years and days of the month. The Russian Chronicle, begun by an unknown Kiev Cave monk (maybe Nestor), was continued by various people. These continuations are named or at the place mentioned in the annals ... ... Complete Orthodox Theological Encyclopedic Dictionary
Books
- Complete collection of Russian chronicles. T. 1. Laurentian Chronicle, A.F. Bychkov. The first volume of the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles, published in 1846, has long since disappeared from scientific use. The Archaeographic Commission tried twice to fill this gap, releasing the second and ... Buy for 1691 UAH (Ukraine only)
- Complete collection of Russian chronicles. Campaign and travel notes kept during the Polish campaign in 1831. 1832. T. 01. Chronicle according to the Laurentian list (Laurentian chronicle). 2nd ed., Politkovsky V.G. The book is a reprint edition of 1872. Although serious work has been done to restore the original quality of the edition, some pages may…
Laurentian Chronicle: textual analysis. Who corrected what and why?
Why do we turn specifically to the Laurentian Chronicle, and not to any other? The answer is simple: this chronicle (annalistic code) is the earliest of all the surviving chronicles known today. It highlights a part that is traditionally considered to be even more ancient, recorded in the XI-XII centuries. This part has been translated into modern Russian. It was published separately under the title The Tale of Bygone Years. It is referred to when writing about the history of Russia. This chronicle most of all attracts historians of different eras. Most of it has been written about her. And, of course, more will be written. But for all that, there is one significant drawback: when studying the chronicle, they most often use not the original, but the text of the Old Russian language already translated into a printed version with a breakdown of sentences, words according to meaning and punctuation marks. In this case, the printed version is somewhat different from the original chronicle. It is also proposed here to conduct a textual analysis of a copy of the electronic version of the chronicle, which is much closer to the original.
First, a few words about the chronicle itself. What do we know about the Laurentian Chronicle today? The fact that it was rewritten, according to the entry on folio 172, by a monk
Lawrence in 1377 in Suzdal at the direction of the Suzdal prince Dmitry Konstantinovich and with the blessing of Bishop Dionysius of Vladimir. Although there are suggestions about the writing of the chronicle under the leadership of Lavrenty in the Nizhny Novgorod Caves Monastery. The basis for such conclusions was the similarity of the Laurentian chronicle with the chronicle of the Caves chronicler, created in the same Nizhny Novgorod, in separate parts. And it is also assumed that two different handwriting of the Laurentian Chronicle testifies to two scribe monks.
We also know that the first date from which the chronicle becomes known is 1765. Then a copy is made of it in the Novgorod Seminary and sent to Moscow. Until that moment, the chronicle, as it turned out, was kept in the archives of the Novgorod Sophia Cathedral. The reason for the interest in the chronicle, I think, was public speaking German historian A.L. Schlözer (1735–1809) the year before. In order to study our history, Schlözer lived in Russia for six years from 1761 to 1767. As early as 1768, a book appeared in Germany under his surname: “The experience of analyzing Russian chronicles (concerning Nestor and Russian history)”. As the name suggests, Schlözer got acquainted with the Laurentian Chronicle in the period up to 1765. In his conclusions, he proceeded from the positions of two other German historians G.Z. Bayer (16941738) and G.F. Miller (1705–1783). Both worked at the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences and Arts, where they were invited after the opening of the Academy in 1724. Both of them were actively engaged in research into the question of the beginning of Russian statehood. The first in 1735 published an article "On the Varangians". The second spoke in 1749 with a dissertation "On the origin of the name and people of Russia." Both referred to the Nestor Chronicle, as the Tale of Bygone Years was then called. An article from the annals about the calling of the Varangians under their pen becomes the main evidence of the alleged inability of the Russian people to independence. The main postulate: the savagery of the Russian barbarians continued until the arrival of the Germanic Varangians, led by the Swedish (and the Swedes are one of the Germanic tribes) Prince Rurik and his brothers at the invitation of the Novgorodians themselves.
Since then, all these three German historians of the XVIII century. are called the founders of the Norman theory of the origin of Russian statehood. Although not everything is so clear. For example, the same Schlozer was extremely critical of the legend of the Varangians.
August Schlözer built his conclusions on the basis of comparative analysis. According to his observations, the first pages of many Russian temporary books have been torn out. Alteration of the chronicles was carried out quite recently during the time of Tatishchev, in the middle of the 18th century. Moreover, the scribes dared to alter even the titles. But a real revolution in the time-keeping took place around the sixteenth century. At that time, not only in Russia, but also in Bohemia, Poland, and Prussia, they began to work fervently in order to "fill the void in their ancient histories with nonsense, often contrary to human reason" 123 . At the same time, a stupid fashion began in Germany, writes the German Schlozer, to bring their noble families out of Italy. Chronicles were rewritten under new trends. Power and bit books appeared everywhere. They include princes, boyars, dukes, and so on. arranged according to the degrees of nobility and ranks. This division was mostly conditional and subjective. The case reached the point of complete absurdity. Military discipline was violated in the army. Subordinates refused to obey the orders of less well-born superiors. Then Bit books began to burn. But in some places in distant monasteries they have been preserved, and now they are presented to the public as historical evidence.
It's funny to read in the Russian Book of Degrees, Schlozer writes further, that Rurik (as according to Schlozer) is a descendant of the Roman August in the 14th tribe. Tales about three brothers and three sisters are composed all over the world and especially in Europe. The story in the annals about the calling of the brothers Rurik, Sineus and Truvor is the same fairy tale as the biblical fairy tale about the flood and the separation of peoples and languages, about the foundation of Kiev again by the three brothers Kiy, Schok and Khoriv, about the coming of the Apostle Andrew to the Kiev mountains. All " ancient history Before the death of Yaroslav in 1054, I consider Russia to be built on fairy tales and scribes’ mistakes” (Ibid., p. 648). The Russians, they are the Normans, who once came out, long before the fabulous Rurik, from Sweden and made up one people with the Novgorodians (Slovenes) and the Chud (Finns). Therefore, there are many Scandinavian names and titles in the annals. Such a conclusion is made by Schlözer in conclusion.
Not everything can be agreed with him. But this is not worth focusing on right now. In this case, we are interested in his critical approach to the annals of Nestor. But even more - the tasks assigned to them. Schlözer urged to investigate suspicious words, lines, to determine whether they really belong to Nestor himself or, after all, to the scribe. As a result, one can figure out where historical truth, and where is fiction, and to carry out the correct grammatical and historical interpretation of words that have several meanings. Perhaps, in justification of his German colleague Muller, Schlözer says with extreme caution that, in fact, he is not the first to doubt the existence of Rurik. Muller was the first. Maybe that's why Muller was not allowed to make a speech at the Academy of Sciences before Empress Elizaveta Petrovna in 1747? asks Schlozer. Like it or not, it doesn't matter. But in criticism of Schlözer, they began to focus on his interpretation of Scandinavian names and names, the position on the unity of the Swedish and Novgorod peoples, instead of actually "carrying out the correct grammatical interpretation of words and finding out where the historical truth is and where the fiction is."
There are no other reports until 1765, about two hundred and fifty years, about the Laurentian Chronicle.
Ivan Vasilyevich (Grozny) will have to admit his belonging to the Rurik dynasty. The revision of all the available chronicle material carried out under him showed the awkwardness of the situation. I wanted to descend from the Roman emperors, but it looked ridiculous. The search for historical chronicles caused unrest in monastic circles and aroused public interest in the chronicles. The content of the Laurentian Chronicle becomes known to foreign nationals visiting Moscow. A summary of the initial Russian history according to the Laurentian Chronicle is retold in his Notes on Muscovy by the already mentioned Austrian diplomat Sigismund Herberstein. Therefore, in the version of the court chroniclers of Ivan the Terrible, Rurik himself becomes a descendant of the Roman Augusts. In the eyes of Ivan the Terrible, this is still better than deriving one's family from the Belskys, or the Shuiskys, or the Zakharyins, which meant nominally becoming equal with them in the rights to the throne. In this regard, Ivan the Terrible adhered to the idea of his royalty by divine chosenness. At the same time, some shortcomings were revealed in the use of persons involved in the census of church books and other archival documents.
A scandalous story around the name of Maxim the Greek has come down to us. In 1525 he was accused of deliberately distorting the meaning of the liturgical books. Maxim Grek tried to shift the responsibility to those with whom he did parallel translation - Dmitry Gerasimov and Vlas Ignatov. Invited from Greece not long before, Maxim Grek did not really know the Russian language yet. In turn, Gerasimov and Ignatov did not know Greek. The translation of the Psalter, which they were assigned, was carried out first from Greek into Latin, and then from Latin into Russian. Latin was their intermediary language, a kind of international language. All three of them, although to varying degrees, knew him. But he was not native to them. In this case, the transfer through the third knee does not guarantee quality. Mistakes are inevitable. But the problem turned out to be much broader than it seemed. It's not about the quality of translated literature. She showed the state of literacy in Russia as a whole. If we know that there were literacy schools at the monasteries, then we do not know that Greek and latin languages. Interpreters were in great demand. The same Dmitry Gerasimov was from Livonia, where they spoke German. That's why he knew German. He has already mastered Latin on his own.
In addition to literacy, the example of Maxim Grek also demonstrates the principle of forming translators. Rarely sent abroad to study. More often they were invited to their place with the conviction that over time a foreigner would definitely master the Russian language. Thus, in Russian monasteries there were many not only Greeks from Athos, but also Germans, Dutch, Swedes. Mature people went to Russia, with a certain amount of knowledge, a mindset and, often, with purposeful missionary tasks. XIV - beginning of the XV century. - the time of attempts to unite the Orthodox and Catholic churches. The activities of Catholic missionaries were encouraged in every possible way by the Pope. Not all of them returned for various reasons. The same Maxim the Greek, already excommunicated and exiled to the Joseph-Volotsky Monastery, constantly asked the tsar to have mercy and let him go home, but he was destined to die in Russia. Still, he was close to the royal court and they didn’t want Europe to know about both good and bad deeds in Russia.
The Laurentian Chronicle was republished in 1872, 1926, 1961, 1997. In 1950, The Tale of Bygone Years was published as a separate edition with translation. In all these editions, titles were placed under the text, suggesting the abbreviation of words; footnotes provided letter designations for words with corrections found in parallel lists of the annals; Explanations were given at the end of the texts. In any case, it was not a copy of the original, that is, in a typographical way, it was impossible to transfer superscript edits, add words, or any signs on the sheet. And comments always have a certain amount of subjectivity.
At the dawn of the flowering of photography, attempts were made to publish the chronicle in a phototype way. But even she did not convey a color picture of parchment.
There was not enough brightness to see scuffs, corrections of letters in words, and so on. Many generations of historians had to be content with the conclusions of academicians A.A. Shakhmatov, M.D. Priselkov and other scientists who had direct access to the original Laurentian Chronicle. And today, references to Shakhmatov and Priselkov are often used, although some of their conclusions are already outdated.
Only in June 2012, an electronic copy of the Laurentian Chronicle appeared on the website of the Russian National Library, of sufficient quality and close to the original. It is already possible to distinguish letters on it in places of scuffs, although not in all, the condition of the parchment itself: blots on it, stitched seams, white spots, and so on.
Today we can look through an electronic copy of the Laurentian Chronicle on the Internet. This means that we have the opportunity to independently compare its information with other data from archaeographic, paleographic and other studies.
The textual analysis of the chronicle offered to the reader in this case is carried out using sociological methods of working with documents. Research always begins with a problem statement, goals and objectives. Here they are formulated as follows. In the Norman question about the beginning of the formation of statehood in Russia, the quite officially established point of view (official because the beginning of statehood dates back to 862) comes from the recognition in various variations of the entry in the Tale of Bygone Years of the legend of the existence of a foreign prince Rurik. The very attitude to the Norman theory easily fits into the Procrustean bed of "floating ideology" in four hypostases:
1. When denying the Norman theory as a whole, the existence of Rurik and his company in the person of a squad of Scandinavian mercenaries is recognized in particular; the legend itself about the calling of the Varangians is recognized on the basis of similar legends in other European countries.
2. When denying, in particular, the role of the personality of Rurik himself, the participation of Rurik's squad is recognized as a prerequisite for resolving the internecine strife of the Russian princes in the dispute for the primacy of possession of the Kiev table, in fact, as described in the annals.
3. While recognizing the Norman theory as a whole, in particular, the role of the Normans in subsequent events in the formation of Russian statehood is denied on the basis of the objectivity and regularity of historical processes in the format of the theory of development and change of socio-economic formations.
4. When recognizing, in particular, the personality of one Rurik, he is generally assigned the role of embryonic participation in the formation of a great-power princely dynasty, as, in fact, this is described in the annals: Rurik appears with his brothers, then the brothers die, he inherits everything alone, then he dies himself. About any of his deeds, whether public or private - the birth of children, marriage, the death of his wife, as in the biographies of other princes - and even some phenomena of a natural nature during his reign as a prince, similar to those in the biographies of other princes - nothing says. Rurik in the annals disappears through one page of complete omissions as suddenly as he suddenly appears, under article 879: “Rurik died and, having transferred his reign to Oleg, his kinsman, he gave him his son Igor, for he was still very small."
In this division of the Norman theory lies the main contradiction - the desire to get away from the influence of Normanism on historical processes in Russia and, at the same time, to preserve the “acquired”, once accustomed view of two ruling dynasties in Russia: the Ruriks and the Romanovs. The goal, based on this contradictory attitude to the Norman theory, is to find out how organically or, on the contrary, inorganically, Rurik and Rurikovich are inscribed in the annals.
In relation to the legend itself, there are several opinions with a version that represents the real basis of the events of the middle of the 9th century. to the denial of such and the version about interspersing the legend of Rurik at a later time during the reconstruction of the chronicle. In the previous sections, it was shown that the real conditions for the appearance of the Normans on Russian soil in the middle of the 9th century. did not have. This will be discussed in the next section with the involvement of more detailed archaeological data. It remains to be assumed that the legend of Rurik was introduced into the chronicle by analogy with similar legends in other countries, either by the first chronicler in the 11th century, or by later scribes.
The main task is to clarify the question: when and who benefited from the appearance in the Laurentian Chronicle, dated 1377, of the legend of Rurik. This cannot be done without the involvement additional sources, of course. But the right of primacy in this matter remains with the annals. Therefore, the object of study is the Laurentian Chronicle - its text, the parchment on which it is written, the design on the sheet, etc. The subject is the features, patterns that appear in repeated marks on the sheets, scuffs, numbering, edits, transfers, etc. .
For the convenience of perceiving the material, the analysis is multilevel. At the first stage, first an external examination of the chronicle is carried out, then a thorough reading of it in order to identify recurring features acceptable for analysis. At the second stage, the identified features are grouped for sampling into separate blocks. In the third section, brief explanations are given. The fourth presents the results of the samples. At the fifth stage, conclusions are drawn for each block of the sample. At the sixth stage, all the results obtained are summarized.
Now in order. First stage: description of the chronicle. An external examination of the electronic copy of the chronicle reveals numerous abrasions with the presence of white, probably greasy spots, on which ink letters were not written. In some places there are torn corners of the sheets and traces of stitched seams on parchment sheets are noticeable. In the text itself, attention is drawn to the use of three types of ink: brown, black and red, as well as two types of handwriting with a change in ink from brown to black, charter and half charter. According to the text of the chronicle, numerous edits are noticeable in the form of adding individual letters above the line; adding words under the last line of the page; omissions of places for adding dates, lines without text, there are many drawn letters and symbolic signs. In some places, the text is highlighted in red ink in seven or more lines. Not all of the above will be included in the sample. What is important are those features that make it possible to determine specific results. For example, torn or worn corners and white spots can be attributed to accidental damage to parchment. They will be ignored. On the other hand, sheets with stitched seams will be included in the sample, because here one can see a systematic approach in the formation of manuscript notebooks.
The second stage: the selection of features and patterns. We group all the features of interest to us into sample blocks. There were twelve of them in total: 1) damaged parchment; 2) use of red ink; 3) lined text; 4) use of drawn letters and symbols; 5) numbering; 6) editing individual words, adding words in the margins of the last line of the sheet, spelling the word "summer" in dates; 7) letters of special use; 8) distortion of names; 9) possible semantic inconsistencies in the text on the sheets and between the sheets; 10) changes, corrections, additions made by proofreaders and modern translators to the text; 11) omissions of dates (years); 12) indicator words.
The third stage: brief explanations of the sample.
1. Parchment (or parchment) was made from the skins of young domestic animals: lambs, calves, piglets. Because he did not break in the bends. It was a rather laborious process using chalk powder, flour, milk and sharp objects to remove fat and meat. To give the product elasticity, the skin was stretched, dried and polished. The quality largely depended on the skill and patience of the master. Excessive effort when scraping or pulling could result in rips or excessive finesse upon drying and, in general, damage to the practically finished product. The leaf format was determined by the skin area of a young individual. The edges have been trimmed. One can imagine the amount of material used per book, for example, the Laurentian Chronicle of 173 sheets, if the production of one sheet required the skin of one lamb. It is not surprising that the holes formed during the processing were skillfully mended. In the picture of the annals, such seams are clearly visible. Sometimes there are several such seams on one sheet. In general, out of 173 sheets, 32 have damage of this nature. For us, the distribution of these sheets according to the text of the annals is important.
2. The most noticeable on the pages of the chronicle, as well as a regular book, are places highlighted in some way, whether in bold or bright print, with sketches. The Laurentian Chronicle uses red ink to mark such places. In Russia, for the manufacture of red ink, the powder of carminous insects, the distribution of which is typical for Central Asia, was used as the main ingredient.
Any person who takes up a pen should be aware that the reader will pay attention, first of all, to the lines or letters highlighted in red ink. Consequently, the chronicler had to single out events, years, and persons that were important from his point of view. It can be assumed that in the process of presenting the material, the writer or copyist either deviated from the rules he had already conceived, or developed them, introducing new elements into the external outlines. In this case, a certain system should be traced. The opposite shows the differences in author's styles. Consistency or lack of system in the use of red ink in the designation of significant places is the most important indicator in determining the authorship of the annals.
The system ones include highlighting the years in red ink in combination: “In the summer + year + the first letter of the next word.” This goes throughout the text, except for folios 157 and 167, where the dates are not highlighted in red ink, but only underlined in red ink in a black frame. Relatively systemic, one can call the red ink highlighting of phrases: “that (same) summer”, “that (same) summer”, “that (same) winter”, etc. Relatively, because these phrases themselves begin to be used in the text not from the very beginning of the chronicle. Sometimes only the first letter is highlighted here, or it is not highlighted at all, or it is highlighted interspersed. And this cannot be called an intentional innovation of the author that arose in the process of writing. The same applies to the expressions: “for memory ...”, “months ... (called)”. The rare mention of the calculation of years by indications cannot be called systemic. It is non-systematic to highlight any significant events or natural phenomena, written in red ink in several lines, because comparison with any similar event or phenomenon will be subjective. Thus, indications, events, natural phenomena highlighted in red ink are not included in the sample. At the same time, the use of red ink is indicative in itself, and the lack of system is already a factor reflecting the author's predilections. Therefore, it is important to determine his attitude to the use of red ink in general and only then to the allocation of individual places, letters, numbers, signs, symbols. According to this principle, this block will consist of five samples.
3. Lined text. The indents from the edges were both practical and aesthetic. Smooth lines look and read better than "jumping" ones. Indents from the edges of the sheet from the side of the line of the intended addition to the notebook are necessary so as not to cover the text. And in order not to stain or greasy the letters when turning the pages, it was necessary to limit the text along the sheet from the edges of the page along the entire perimeter. These norms were dictated by practice. The horizontal line was made at regular intervals. The resulting frame had to be aligned with the dimensions on the subsequent sheet, which was achieved by puncturing with a needle or a knife edge. Thus, the frame had to contain a certain number of lines transmitted to the next sheet. In the text of the chronicle, only after the 40th leaf, the number of lines per page does not change. Up to the 40th sheet on separate pages, the gap between the top two lines is more externally visible than the others and, accordingly, one line on this page more. In fact, the mismatch in the number of lines on the page goes in whole blocks. Horizontally, the number of letters in a line written without pauses and punctuation marks, except for periods, must also be equal or diverge by several letters. However, in the text from the beginning to the end, the number of characters increases by about 8-10 characters. On separate sheets, 157 and 167, there are twice as many of them as at the beginning. However, the selection by the number of characters is limited to this. It doesn't make sense to single it out. Technical performance in itself cannot serve as a basis for any conclusions, but may be an additional help in the system of evidence or refutation of established theories. Therefore, the text line is included among the studied features of the Laurentian Chronicle.
4. Drawn letters, signs and symbols are the element of design that is most subject to creative influence. They may change stylistically or disappear if not included in the book's overall art strategy. But even if they are scattered in a chaotic manner throughout the text, the hand of the author is easily guessed in them. Translated religious literature served as an example for chronicles, teachings, and other secular writings. It especially required the allocation of separate places that separate the canonical terms by meaning, time, manner of execution, and so on. In historical chronicles, such separating elements were often annual, monthly dates, separate expressions such as: “that summer”, “that year”, “at the same time”, etc. In the Laurentian Chronicle, the first letter of such an expression or the entire expression were written in red ink and most often on a new line.
The initial letters of these words loomed beautifully, outlined. Here an individual style of performance was revealed. But here, too, preferences are visible in the choice of the object of selection and the frequency of application. These latter can no longer be attributed to the creative search of the author or copyist. They constitute that feature by which one can distinguish the manner of writing of one author from another. In the Laurentian Chronicle, there are painted letters four lines high, others are smaller and in the middle of the lines. They stand out with their intricate configuration and red ink. Separately, it is worth paying attention to the symbols in the annals. The symbols include the wave sign horizontally and once the same sign, intertwined vertically, neatly and beautifully drawn in the form of a swastika with curved edges. These characters, tall drawn letters and separately the letters "C" and "B" will be used in the sample.
5. Numbering. Today, the need to number arises for everyone who is faced in their work with writing, collecting information, and so on. on sheets of writing paper in A4 size. Unless there is no need to put numbers on the pages in common notebooks. Separate sheets can be confused, lost. They are fastened, hemmed, numbered. For greater convenience in finding the right place in books, essays of the abstract type, they came up with a description on the last page of the content by sections and paragraphs, indicating page numbers.
In the 12th-14th centuries, during the period of the formation of literary skills, the system of ordinal designation of pages was only taking shape. Formally, one chronicler could use different ways of numbering pages in one book: alphabetic, Arabic or Latin systems. On the one hand, it could differ in the manner of execution, for example, on sheets 2 and 3, the numbers in the upper part are not in the center, but closer to the left side; it could differ in its obligations in a particular monastery book workshop - to put numbers above or below the text, as can be seen from the numbering of decimal pages, but, on the other hand, with all this it should not have repetitions, a single handwriting should be preserved . However, in the annals, many erasures are found precisely in the places where sheet numbers are affixed, and at the same time, starting from the tenth, all decimal sheets, except for the hundredth, are duplicated four times. For analysis, not only the numbering itself is important, but also the presence of these abrasions. Unfortunately, not all of them can be identified. The ancient scribes were sometimes very skilled in their work. Traces of their "creativity" are poorly captured, but they can be represented according to the intended trend. In addition to the peculiarities of numbering, erasures, the selection of this block includes individual words in the corners of the sheets, which can serve as original autographs of scribes, as well as original marks in the margins in the form of crosses and plus signs.
6. Editing individual words, adding words in the margins of the last line, spelling the word "summer" in dates.
The Laurentian Chronicle of 1377 was written in accordance with the then accepted grammar, that is, without punctuation marks and separating spaces between words and sentences. In some cases, to highlight the semantic meaning of a separate segment of the text, a dot or three dots were used, placed in the center between the letters. Sometimes a new offer opens after the name of the year with capital letter and red ink. But basically, the medieval reader had to distinguish words by meaning on their own.
The Russian proverb “What is written with a pen cannot be cut down with an ax” dates back to the times when there were no printing presses and people wrote on parchment with goose quills. The word “feather” is the key here, and the word “cut down” takes on a figurative meaning: something that is difficult to fix. On parchment, unnecessary letters or words were scraped off with a knife. And with the same knife they drew the frames that have already been mentioned. The knife was held by the first chronicler, and the scribe, and the proofreader. It was far from always possible to scrape the right place cleanly. But still there were traces in the form of scuffs. Although, as in the case of the numbering in the electronic version, it is difficult to identify all the places of scuffs, and they are mainly in the margins above and below the text.
There are no strikethroughs or special corrections in the annals. Only in a few cases, one or two words are added above the line, emphasizing the emotionality of what is happening, but in no way affecting the ideological content. In one place on the 13th sheet, “or the owner of the Rusyn” is written twice. Someone noticed this and highlighted it in square brackets. More often there are additions of words in the last line of the page, as if word wrapping is impossible. Even more text edits of individual words with the addition of letters above the line. Sometimes there are more than sixty per sheet (or thirty per page). Moreover, not all misspelled words on the same pages are corrected.
It would be easier to rewrite the text anew than to attach a sheet with a similar number of corrections to the annals. But it seems that the editing was carried out by some other editor and at a later time. Is there any consistency in these edits? Certainly there is. In this case, consistency refers to the repetition of edits of the same words with the same errors. At the same time, it should be understood that these are precisely errors, and not the rules of the grammatical system that were then tacitly accepted. For example, the word "Lord" was written without vowels - "gspd". However, the letter “s” and sometimes “p” often drop out of the same word, and the editor enters “s” at the top. And this is already a mistake.
In itself, the number of edits, which tells us the number of errors on the page, is an additional touch to the personality of the author or copyist. A mistake can be called accidental due to inattention, but a repeated mistake already expresses a person's attitude to the described object. You can understand the typical mistake of a schoolboy who misses the letter “d” in the word “heart” (and in the text of the chronicle, by the way, there are many such mistakes), but writing the words “city” and “brother” without the last letters will be far from typical even for a schoolboy. . Even more surprising are the omissions by the monks, namely, the authors of the chronicle Nestor, Sylvester, Lavrenty, represented themselves as monks, individual letters in words that seemed to set the teeth on edge in their Everyday life, - "s" in the word "cross", "x" in the word "sin", etc. Another factor, besides the consistency in the frequency of edits, is the occurrence of various systemic errors in different parts of the chronicle. The initial part of the chronicle is characterized by edits to the word "speech", where the letter "h" falls out, for last pages- editing the word "prince" without the letter "z".
In this case, for the most convenient perception by the reader of the material, the sample will be presented in a simplified version. It seems inappropriate to paint every error page by page. For analysis, to the already named words "cross", "sin", "speech", "hail", "brother", "prince" we add the word "having created", as well as derivatives from it and words with "Ti", where the missing letter The "t" fits into the word itself, rather than being added at the top. In addition, the sample includes words in which soft sign at the end of the word is corrected immediately to a solid sign.
7. Letters of special use. Acquired skills and passions, moderation and prudence (or lack thereof) are some of the qualities that define a person's personality. Sooner or later, to one degree or another, they manifest themselves in everyday affairs, communication with others, specific actions. You can't hide your own individuality in public. Individuality is especially noticeable at the moment when a person trusts his thoughts to a sheet of paper (or parchment). And handwriting here may not be in the first place. These can be repetitions of any turns of speech or even particles separated from the word, like (in our case, on the example of the Laurentian Chronicle) “qi”: “... asamtsi ...” (102v.), “... qi want me ...” (126) , “... we eat qi, not princes…” (134) Sometimes individuality is manifested in a special spelling of individual letters.
Linguists find in the use of our ancient Slavs a sound scale expressed in more than 50 initial letters. Not all of them were equally used on the territory of Russia. In the Laurentian Chronicle, four letters can be named that stand out in the text: W - o, from; V - y; S; 3 (with a tail in three knees) - h. The last three letters are less common. They replace the letters already used in the same words. Therefore, it is impossible not to notice it. Let's say the spelling of the letter "3" (with tails) turns into the letter "c" in the word "Alek(s)andr". A four-knee vertical line is perceived too catchy. Or the appearance of the letter "V" is far from the first page in different words, does not attach additional meaning to this word and therefore is not entirely explicable. At the same time, if we allow the change of the usual letter "y" to the Latin "V" with carelessly thrown up tails to the top line in all words where this letter can be used, then it would overshadow the entire text on the sheet with its presence. Maybe that's why the letter "V" occurs in different words on average two or three times per sheet, just to emphasize the individual peculiarity of the author (or copyist). The last three letters were included in the sample.
8. Distortion of names. The sample includes two names - Olga and Oleg. Perhaps, from the similarity of sound, a dynasty by a female name, Olgovichi, entered historical textbooks. This misunderstanding is revealed by a careful reading of the Laurentian Chronicle.
Names can change dramatically, and then it was accepted when they are given again at baptism. Names change depending on the traditions of the southern or northern part of Russia: Ivan - Ivanko, Vasily - Vasilko, etc. Names can be diminutive: Vanya, Vanyusha, Vasya, Vasenka. Names can be pronounced with an ironically rude tone: Vanka, Vaska. In any case, they are always recognizable, applicable in everyday life, literature. In the official documentation, the historical chronicle, the names are written in full. And so that there is no confusion with similar names of other people, the names of the fathers, the clan of grandfathers, that is, patronymics and surnames, are added, which are composed by belonging to someone or something. Any distortion of the name can cause discussions in the interpretation of certain events. Unfortunately, in the annals, name distortions are quite common. We will talk about the reasons for this in the part where generalizations and conclusions are made. Now let's say that not only the ancient chroniclers, but also modern translators sinned with this. For example, in the text of the chronicle the name is read Svendel, and in translation it is given Sveneld. For those who do not have the opportunity or desire to look into the original, there is a reason to look for analogies, draw historical parallels, and so on. In this case, we will limit ourselves to two names in the sample - Oleg and Olga.
Sheet 167v. The last sentence on this sheet: “Of course, having rejected Christ and be foolish ... (continued on the next sheet) nin, having entered into the charm of the prophet Ahmed.”
9. Possible semantic inconsistencies in the text on sheets and between sheets. The Laurentian Chronicle repeatedly changed its owners and places of storage. Didn't come to us with full set sheets. It would be difficult to expect the opposite after so many centuries of oblivion, unexpected interest, intense public attention, obsequious research. It would be quite possible to expect even more loss of sheets, or places on the sheets that are greasy from frequent reading, or smeared ink from uncomfortable storage, compared with today's conditions. Suspect this allows the state of some sheets, for example 1,2,4. But even on them almost all the text is readable. The rest, with small blots, technical errors of parchment, do not particularly impede vision. Even, on the contrary, except for one obvious place, it is clear how the text is logically connected over the years, events. One gets the impression that the chronicle was created in a short period of time, as Lavrenty actually states on the last page, by one person (or two, since it is written in two handwritings or three, because sheets 157, 161, 167 stand out in particular) and is a complete manuscript. However, in fact, in the text, especially between sheets, there are semantic inconsistencies. It is difficult to single them out, however, how difficult it is to understand: why, after the missing lines on one sheet, in the further text “the loss of a fighter is imperceptible”, that is, the text of the previous page, where there are many missing lines, coincides in meaning with the text of the next sheet. The task in this part of the sample is to identify similar places or at least some of them.
10. Making changes, corrections, additions by proofreaders and modern translators. In some cases, the events that fell out of the history of the Laurentian Chronicle were compensated from other chronicles. Thus, the events of 899–921 are transferred from the Radziwill Chronicle and the Trinity Chronicle to the Laurentian Chronicle. Sometimes in the translation some additions, clarifications are allowed. Such a practice is quite acceptable for restoring a complete picture of the historical past in educational and research literature, but such literary processing is completely unacceptable without appropriate footnotes and explanations in publications translated from original text. For example, in the Laurentian Chronicle on sheet 25 we read: “And so Yaropolk was killed ... running from the yard to the Pechenegs, and two vacant and, going to his company.” The last words are difficult to understand, even more difficult to translate, therefore literary conjecture is used, and with a peremptory statement: “Varyazhko, seeing that Yaropolk was killed, fled from the courtyard of that terem to the Pechenegs and often fought with them subsequently against Vladimir.” There are not many such places in the translation, but they occur, sometimes having a significant impact on the assessment of an event. The sample contains only a few of such indicative, in our opinion, episodes. They were not randomly sampled.
11. Missing dates. Many chronicles are similar to each other in style of presentation, coincide in content in certain places, and so on. The Laurentian Chronicle differs from others in its programmed sequence. In it, if there is no article under a certain year, then the year itself must be indicated. The chronicler in this regard adheres to a firm rule: if the year is indicated, but nothing is written under it, then nothing can be written, because the year is already indicated.
Otherwise, the scribe may have the opportunity to insert something of his own under an unspecified year. Therefore, the dates in the annals are distinguished with meticulousness almost all and in order in red ink. And those unspecified cause a lot of controversy and judgments. These years are given in the sample.
12. Words-indicators. Last block The sample turned out to be the most capacious in terms of the amount of information. It would be possible to generalize something, as was done in similar cases in previous blocks of the sample, and thereby simplify the visual perception of the material presented. But in this case, the tasks are set depending on certain factors. After all, what are indicator words? In any message, story, no matter what volume, whether oral or written, we most often use words about those people or events that we consider the main ones and the essence of which we want to bring to the attention of the interlocutor. In oral conversation, one's attitude towards someone is already manifested in the intonations of speech, emotions, and facial expressions. The same thing happens in research activities: not only the facts of interest are studied, but also the persons who reported them. Such a person in our case is the author of the annals.
From the opening page of the Laurentian Chronicle, its first author highlights the phrase "Russian land" twice. Throughout the text of the chronicle, the words "Russian" and "land" are used together, as a kind of constant of the Russian spirit. The author of the chronicle always keeps in mind that for the sake of which the chronologically verified historical work was started - the Russian land is strong in the unity of multi-tribal peoples. Proceeding from the patriotic motivation, the “Russian land” becomes the subject of the story. Next to the concept of "Russian land", the expression "Russian prince" ("Russian princes") is often used. The grand ducal dynasty is the subject around which all the main historical events. But what's interesting? The word "Russian" is written differently in the annals: with one "s", through a soft sign - "ss", with two "ss". It could be assumed that the dynamics of the development of the Russian language can be traced in this way, if the transition from one form to another was more or less delimited in the text. However, it is not. In addition to the word “Russian”, according to the same principle, the word “Murom” gets into the sample. Here, as in the word "Russian", there are three spellings, which once again demonstrates to us the image of a chronicler.
These words could be included in another selection block, say, in the sixth, where the editing of individual words is given, or in the eighth, adding proper names to the distortion of personal names. However, they stand out in a separate block along with the other two words - Rurik and Gyurgi - because they look in a complex. The sample capacity falls the most on these last two words. If the selection of the first two is built on the basis of comparison, then the selection of the names of Rurik and Gyurgi takes into account certain factors: the frequency of mention, the frequency of change (especially the name of Gyurge - Yurge, Georgy), the frequency of inclination (Gyurgevich, Gyurgevi son) and the degree of obsession (Gyurge’s son, grandson Vladimir Monomakh, Gyurgia - city, Gyurgia bishop, Gyurgia Murom prince, Gyurgia father and his son Vsevolod Konstantinovich). Therefore, to generalize something, to reduce the volume would mean to lubricate the general idea of both the personality of the chronicler himself and the object of the sample - the name of Gyurg.
Fourth stage. Sample.
Block 1. Damaged stitched parchment.
Tab. 1. Sheets are given by numbers
Block 2. Use of red ink.
Tab. 1. Highlighting in red ink events, phenomena line by line, except for the selected years, months and in memory of someone on separate sheets. The top line - the number of lines, below - the designation of the sheets
Tab. 2. Highlighting 4-line-high hand-drawn letters
Tab. 3. Highlighting individual letters: “B”, “I”, “P”, “M”, “C”, etc., in the initial words, in the margins, except for the expression: “That summer (winter, spring, autumn, year etc.) "and according to the scheme:" In the summer + year + the first letter of the next word "
a) wave - 1 turn; 7 (after indicating the year - 861 - before the words: "expelled the Varangians across the sea ..."); 7rev.; 8 (after the words: "be more childish Velmi"); 8rev.;
b) swastika - 8 (after the words: “Be a childish Velmi” and indicating the years 880 and 881).
Rice. 2. Sign (one in the entire chronicle in the form of sharp four ends intertwining with a lock against the background of a shaded triangle) - 8 (on the margins after the year is indicated - 879 - and before the words: “I will die Rurik”).
Rice. 3. Curly letters "B" and "C" (the letter "B" with a lowered tail is included in the sample without taking into account similar spelling in dates):
43; 44; 45; 47rev.; 48; 50; 52; 55; 85; 88rev.; 94; 99; one hundred; 102; 104rev.; 105; Yubob.; 119; 120; 126rev.; 134; 143rev.
Block 5. Numbering.
Tab. 1. Visible wear
List 1. Numbering by location
a) top, centered to the right of the 1st-2nd line:
sheets 2 (closer to the left corner) 2; 3 (closer to the left
corner) 3; 4 4; 5 5; 6 6; 7 7; 8 8; 9-19; 20–41; 42-172;
From the book Slavic legends about the first princes. Comparative historical study of power models among the Slavs author Shchavelev Alexey SergeevichChapter II. Plot-Motivational Analysis of Early Historical Descriptions Let us therefore not expect an exhaustive history and theory of the Glass Bead Game... In essence, it depends only on the discretion of the historian how far back in time he relates the beginning and prehistory of the Glass Bead Game. After all,
From the book Essays on the History of Civilization author Wells HerbertChapter Two The fossil record 1. The first living beings. 2. Natural selection and species change 1 We do not know for sure how life began on Earth. Biologists have many ideas and assumptions on this subject, but, according to the general belief, life originates in a warm,
From the book On the Beginning of Human History (Problems of Paleopsychology) [ed. 1974, abbr.] author Porshnev Boris FedorovichChapter 1 ANALYSIS OF THE CONCEPT OF THE BEGINNING OF HISTORY
From the book HISTORY OF RUSSIA from ancient times to 1618. Textbook for universities. In two books. Book one. author Kuzmin Apollon GrigorievichFrom The Tale of Bygone Years. In the translation of A. G. Kuzmin according to the publication of “Behold the Tale of Bygone Years” (Laurentian Chronicle) (Arzamas, 1993), after the flood, the three sons of Noah divided the earth, Shem, Ham, Japhet. And Shem got the East... Ham got the South... Chiafet got the northern countries
From the book True Story ancient Russia the author Belyakov AntonChapter 2 THE CHRONICLE OF JOAKIMOV So where did the Russian land come from? The problem of studying the initial history of the Russian state lies in the absence of alternative PVL sources. They can be replaced by archeology, but it is the lines about the calling of Rurik and his Varangians
From the book New anti-Suvorov author Veselov VladimirChapter 33 WHY? In the diplomatic war of the 1930s, Germany's position was the most disadvantageous. Being in the center of Europe, it stood at the center of all conflicts. Whatever war broke out in Europe, Germany almost inevitably had to become a participant in it. V. Suvorov.
From the book Apology of History, or the Craft of the Historian the author Block Mark From the book Selected Works on the Spirit of Laws author Montesquieu Charles LouisCHAPTER XV - That it is sometimes useful for the law to correct itself The laws of the twelve tables permitted the killing of a thief of the night, and also of a day thief, if the latter defended himself during the persecution, but required that the person who killed the thief shout and call
From the book The Expulsion of the Normans from Russian History. Issue 1 author From the book CAUCASIAN THREAT: history, modernity and perspective author Korabelnikov A. A.Chapter One ANALYSIS OF EVENTS OCCURRING IN THE SOUTH OF ANCIENT RUSSIA Studying historical documents today, we inevitably find ourselves under the influence of the chronicler's subjective view of what is happening. Each chronicler, of course, tried to present his people in the most
From the book The Battle of the Varangian Pillars author Seryakov Mikhail Leonidovich From the book Mystery Theater in Greece. Tragedy author Livraga Jorge Angel From the book Source Studies author Team of authorsChapter 1 Source analysis and synthesis Source analysis is a system of research procedures aimed at establishing the information potential of a historical source, identifying and evaluating its information, as well as the possibilities of its use
