Libmonster ID: EE-1287
Author(s) of the publication: A. G. KUZMIN

In solving the question of the time when the first historical works appeared in Russia, an important place belongs to establishing the origins of the Novgorod chronicle. In the last century, the beginning of the Novgorod chronicle tradition was usually attributed to the XI century (approximately to the middle of it)1 . Some authors have suggested the possibility of chronicle records appearing in Novgorod as early as the tenth century. 2 A. A. Shakhmatov dated the first Novgorod record to 1017, and the first chronicle to 1050 .3 The idea that the first Novgorod chronicle was compiled in the 50s of the XI century was developed on the basis of new material by B. A. Rybakov [4]. However, many modern experts (including followers of A. A. Shakhmatov) doubt the existence of the Novgorod chronicle earlier than the 12th century .5
Skepticism about the possibility of the existence of the Novgorod chronicle of the XI century stems from a certain assessment of the nature of the Russian chronicles, which consists in the desire to reduce the entire chronicle to one tree, coming from a common root. The recognition of the existence of the Novgorod chronicle parallel to Kiev inevitably undermined the idea of a single tree and required a rethinking of the general approach to the study of chronicle materials. In this paper, the task is to provide an additional argument in favor of the very fact of the existence of the early Novgorod chronicle, as well as some clarifications regarding its composition. As for the way of its following according to all-Russian or Novgorod chronicle works, the solution of this question at this stage cannot go beyond preliminary assumptions.

A close acquaintance with the chronicle material shows that even for the preliminary distribution of texts in their interrelationship, it is not necessary to use the following methods:-

1 Cf. S. M. Solovyov. The history of Russia since ancient times. Book II. Moscow, 1960, p. 4. 99; I. Senigov. Historical and critical studies on the Novgorod Chronicles and Russian History by V. N. Tatishchev, Moscow, 1887, p. 41, etc.

2 I. I. Sreznevsky. Articles on ancient Russian Chronicles (1853-1866). St. Petersburg, 1903, pp. 6-7; K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin. On the composition of Russian chronicles up to the end of the XIV century. St. Petersburg, 1868, p. 63, etc.

3 A. A. Shakhmatov. Research on the most ancient Russian chronicle Codices, St. Petersburg, 1908, pp. 491-515, etc.

4 B. A. Rybakov. "Ostromirova chronicle". Voprosy Istorii, 1956, No. 10; izd. Drevnyaya Rus', Moscow, 1963, pp. 193-206.

5 Wed. D. S. Likhachev. Russkiye letopisi i ikh kul'turno-istoricheskoe znachenie [Russian Chronicles and their cultural and historical significance], Moscow, 1947, pp. 88, 89, 93. Study of the Russian chronicle. "Auxiliary historical disciplines". I. L. 1968, p. 28. Novgorod code of the XI century. not in the constructions of M. D. Priselkov and A. N. Nasonov. By the time "after 1108" refers to the first Novgorod chronicle M. Kh. Aleshkovsky (M. Kh. Aleshkovsky. The Tale of Bygone Years, Moscow, 1971, p. 120). M. N. Tikhomirov found A. A. Shakhmatov's arguments insufficient, but B. A. Rybakov's research prompted him to reconsider his attitude to this issue (cf. M. N. Tikhomirov. Istochnikovedenie istorii SSSR [Source Studies of the History of the USSR], Vol. I. M. 1940, p. 55 and the same work of the 1962 edition, p. 52].

page 59

monographic studies are required. It is by no means accidental, for example, that B. A. Rybakov's major study of the chronicle

The twelfth century 6, having resolved a wide range of issues, left even more of them for further special investigations. This inevitably follows from the very nature of the chronicle and the representativeness of the preserved material; individual articles, phrases, and fragments of phrases may contain independent works, chronicles, or even traditions that were only accidentally preserved in later codices.

The Novgorod chronicle, as well as the Novgorod script in general, has been studied extremely insufficiently. In Soviet times (apart from S. N. Azbelev's study of the annals of the seventeenth century), only I. M. Trotsky and D. S. Likhachev were engaged in it7 . But both authors, of course, could not cover all the issues related, for example, to the genealogy of the Novgorod vaults, not to mention other aspects that require a parallel study of the chronicle texts and the historical epochs reflected in them. This is partly due to the complexity of the source material: a comparative textual comparison of the usual order does not allow us to establish the stages of composing vaults in Novgorod and does not even make it possible to determine the nature of the relationship between the chronicles that have actually come down to us. A detailed internal analysis of texts is required, with maximum involvement of non-written materials.

Although the Novgorod First Chronicle occupied an exceptional place in the constructions of A. A. Shakhmatov, and its relation to the Tale of Bygone Years was, in his opinion, "the main question of our historiography"8 , there is little indisputable data related to its history. The chronicle has been preserved in two editions. The senior version-the Synodal list-is brought up to the 30s of the XIV century. with additions up to 1352. But according to palaeographic data, part of the missive before 1234 was probably written in the XIII century .9 However, the beginning before 1016 is lost in the list. The younger version of the chronicle continues until 1446 and is known from two lists of the middle of the XV century. In addition, there is a fragment of the chronicle in the list of the XVI century, reaching up to 1015, and in its volume approximately corresponding to the lost part of the Synodal List.

The main question in the history of the composition of the Novgorod I Chronicle is the time and conditions for the appearance in Novgorod of the chronicle material that A. A. Shakhmatov referred to as the "Initial Set" 10. The scientist solved this question depending on his entire concept of the history of chronicles and was never able to completely overcome numerous contradictions. He attributed the addition of the Synodal Codex to the middle of the fourteenth century, on the grounds that it supposedly reflected the "Polychronism" of the early fourteenth century .11 Later, however, he agreed with the dating of the main part of the list to the XIII century, as a result of which the question of the place of the chronicle in its general scheme remained open. Novgorod material

6 Cf. B. A. Rybakov. Russian chroniclers and the author of "Words about Igor's Regiment", Moscow, 1972.

7 I. M. Trotsky. The emergence of the Novgorod Republic. Izvestiya, an. VII seriya, l. 1932, N 4; izd. Experience in analyzing the first Novgorod Chronicle. Ibid., l. 1933, N 5; his. Elements of the druzhin ideology in the Tale of Bygone Years. "Problems of source studies". Issue 2. M.-L. 1936; D. S. Likhachev. "Sofiyskiy vremennik" i novgorodskiy politicheskiy perevorot 1136 g." Istoricheskie zapiski " (Historical Notes), vol. 25, Moscow, 1948, etc.

8 V. Parkhomenko. Із листування з акад. О. О. Шахматовим. "Україна", кн. 6. Киев. 1925, стр. 128.

9 "Novgorodskaya I letopis srshego i mladshego izvodov" (NIL). Moscow-l. 1950, pp. 5-7; cf. B. M. Lyapunov. Research on the language of the Synodal List of the 1st Novgorod Chronicle, St. Petersburg, 1900, pp. 16-17.

10 Refers to the text of the younger version in the part before 1016 and from 1052 to 1074.

11 A. A. Shakhmatov. Obozrenie russkikh letopisnykh svodov XIV-XVI vv. M-l. 1938, pp. 128-131 and others.

page 60

According to the Synodal list of A. A. Shakhmatov, he traced it back to the Sofia Metropolitan Chronicle and its processing at the Church of James. The author paid special attention to the observation of D. Prozorovsky, who established the connection between izvestia of 1144 (under which the chronicler refers to himself) and 1188 (when the death of the priest of the Church of James - Herman Voyata is reported)12 . In the initial part of the chronicle, according to A. A. Shakhmatov, the "third edition" (readings of the Ipatiev chronicle)was used Stories of bygone years. In the part from 1075 to 1333, according to A. A. Shakhmatov, the younger version was traced back to a common source with the Synodal List, or even to this list itself .13 As for the initial part of the chronicle, it was assumed that it preceded both the text of the Tale of Bygone Years and the lost readings of the Synodal List. The defectiveness of the Synodal List prompted the compilation in the XV century. (based on it) a new chronicle, and the chronicler compensated for the lost pages by extracting them from another monument .14
In this case, it is hardly necessary to focus on the refusal of A. A. Shakhmatov to search for the socio-political meaning of the proposed rework. In principle (in a specific, special case) this could also be the case, and arguments about the historical conditions of the appearance of alleged vaults are not always sent from actual texts. But the author had too little data for the actual juxtaposition of the two versions. The scientist, apparently, was mistaken, believing that the lost part of the older version "contained a more or less complete text of the Story of bp. years" 15 . On the contrary, it is safe to say that the lost part of the volume approximately corresponded to the lists of the younger platoon 16 . I. Senigov and, more recently, D. S. Likhachev drew attention to the illegality of contrasting the Synodal List with the lists of the younger platoon .17 A. A. Shakhmatov himself, in the end, had to admit that the compiler of the main part of the Synodal List (in the 13th century) was familiar with the chronicle containing the so-called Initial Codex18 . The author did not have time to correct his basic construction in the light of this recognition. He settled on the assumption that the thirteenth-century arch, which contained the Initial One, was Kievan, not Novgorod.

12 Ibid., pp. 129-132; cf. D. Prozorovsky. Who was the writer of the first Novgorod chronicle? "Journal of the Ministry of National Education "(ZHMNP), part 75, St. Petersburg, 1852, pp. 21-23.

13 Cf. A. A. Shakhmatov. Review, p. 129; same name. Kiev initial arch of 1095. "Academician A. A. Shakhmatov", Moscow, l. 1947, p. 128, etc.

14 A. A. Shakhmatov. Kiev initial Code of 1095, p. 127, etc. The articles of the younger version of the Novgorod First Chronicle for 1052-1074 were included by A. A. Shakhmatov in the supposed "Initial Set", obviously due to a misunderstanding: they go back to one of the already rather faulty editions of the Tale of Bygone Years; (cf. A. G. Kuzmin. Russian chronicles as a source on the history of Ancient Russia. Ryazan. 1969, pp. 52, 63-64).

15 A. A. Shakhmatov. Kiev initial Code of 1095, p. 123.

16 The text of the Tale of Bygone Years in the part up to 1015 is approximately 125 thousand characters (handwritten). On the 128 pages of the Synodal List, they could fit a little more than 100 thousand. The commission list gives about 93 thousand characters of the chronicle text and over 20 thousand characters of introductory articles, the Trinity List-about 92 thousand characters. But on the first pages of the Synodal List, introductory articles could also be placed, and the passage between its beginning and the end of the Trinity List contained about 2 - 3 thousand characters. By the way, the Trinity List in the presentation of the strife of 1015 follows the Story of bygone years, and the Synodal List contains some data of the Story that are unknown to the younger izvod.

17 and. Senigov. Edict op., pp. 52-80; D. S. Likhachev. "Sofiyskiy vremennik".., pp. 252-255.

18 A. A. Shakhmatov. Kiev Initial Code of 1095, p. 148. The article of 1204 is clearly connected with the promise of the author (or editor?) preface bring the story to the attention of Alexios and Isakios, under whom Constantinople was captured by the Crusaders. This circumstance was repeatedly pointed out in the XIX century.

page 61

Similar conclusions were reached by I. M. Trotsky, who spoke more confidently about the attraction of the Kiev source in Novgorod in the XIII century .

Trotsky also made a number of interesting observations about the composition of the Novgorod First Chronicle. According to his scheme, the younger izvod most fully represents the Lord's chronicle. This edition, by the way, does not know information about Voyat and the indicative account. The Synodal list, in addition to the Vladyka's code, used the material of the Yuryevsky Monastery. At the same time, a break in the first group of Yurievskiye Izvestiya forced the author to assume a historical work in the late 30s-early 40s of the XIII century 20 . Let us add that the chronicle could not have ended with an unfinished phrase from 1234 (the handwriting of the 13th century in the Synodal List), and the all-Russian material in both editions continues until 1238 .21 We can also recall a long-standing observation of I. A. Tikhomirov: in the Tver collection, the Novgorod source continues until 125522, and its readings in some cases are more original than the text of the Novgorod I Chronicle 23 . All this suggests that it was around the middle of the 13th century that many features of both versions of the Novgorod I Chronicle were determined .24
In this case, there is no need to establish the nature of the southern source, which was connected with the Novgorod chronicle in the XIII century. It is important to note that this is obviously far from the earliest stage of the Novgorod chronicle, and special attention to the all-Russian material may have negatively affected the attitude to the Novgorod tradition itself. Already some discrepancies between the two versions suggest the existence of different-time and diverse treatments of local material. E. Yu. Perfetsky believed that in the XII century in Novgorod there was a parallel lordly and princely chronicle 25 . And in terms of identifying independent editions or traditions, the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles are of particular interest. In the Novgorod I Chronicle (both versions), the Kiev source can be traced in parts up to 1115, but in the news of the XI century there are significant interruptions. In the Sofia-Novgorod vaults, the events of the reign of Yaroslav are very fully presented, and in some cases they contain additional information in comparison with the History of bygone years. These chronicles obviously used that novgo-

19 I. M. Trotsky. Elements of druzhinnaya ideology.., p. 20, etc. The author was not familiar with the latest work of A. A. Shakhmatov.

20 I. M. Trotsky. The experience of analyzing the first Novgorod Chronicle, pp. 352-361, etc.

21 Wed. A. A. Shakhmatov. Review.., pp. 130-131; V. T. Pashuto. Essays on the history of Galician-Volhynian Rus', Moscow, 1950, pp. 22, 46-57.

22 I. A. Tikhomirov. About the collection called the Tver Chronicle. ZHMNP, part 188, St. Petersburg, 1876, p. 264.

23 Wed. A. Popov. Review of chronographs of the Russian edition. Issue I. M. 1866, p. 93.

24 The intention to bring this account to the last Byzantine emperors indicates a time somewhere between 1204 and 1261, when the Latin Empire existed. It is very likely that the chronicler was close to Archbishop Anthony, who made a trip to Constantinople at the beginning of the XIII century. The chronicler sympathizes with Anthony, who was repeatedly expelled by the Novgorodians. The time of Antony's illness (1232) is indicated with an accuracy of one day. Anthony was bishop of Przemysl in 1220-1225, which explains his interest in the affairs of southern Russia. The hero of the Battle of Kalki, Mstislav Udaloy, reigned for a number of years in Novgorod, and from 1219 in Galich. From the standpoint of this prince, the chronicle describes the battle. The author of this article has already paid attention to the Novgorod origin of the "preface" (A. G. Kuzmin. Edict op., p. 46 - 50, 60 - 61, 63 - 67, 94 - 97, 140 - 142 Of particular importance is the fact that individual readings of the chronicle depend on the Hellenic Chronicler of the second edition or Tolkovaya Palea. It can also be noted that the treatment of chronicle articles of the 30s of the XIII century is consonant with many provisions of the "preface".

25 E. Y. Perfetsky. Russian chronicle codes and their relationships. Bratislava. 1922, pp. 59-73. The author attributed the beginning of the "princely" Novgorod chronicle to the second quarter of the XI century.

page 62

the family code, which is reflected in the Novgorod I Chronicle (including the preface), but the initial part of them is based on some additional source.

The oldest lists of the Sofia I Chronicle date back to the 15th century, and the general text of the Sofia-Novgorod codices dates back to 1418. In other words, the basis of the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles is older than the younger version of the Novgorod I Chronicle, but younger than its older version. It is significant, however, that neither one nor the other chronicle can explain the original readings of the Sofia - Novgorod vaults. Their differences from the Novgorod I Chronicle are largely due to all-Russian information. The latter, in particular, continue until the second half of the XII century, namely, until 1185 (Igor's campaign against the Polovtsians in a version close to the Lavrentiev chronicle). E. Y. Perfetsky believed that if the Lavrentiev and Ipatiev chronicles go back in their general part to the codex of 1193, then the codices of the XV century are based on the chronicle compiled in 1189.26 Apparently, there is not enough data to accurately indicate the time when this chronicle was compiled. But a general assessment of the correlation of these texts (taking into account the secondary impact of the Lavrentiev Chronicle tradition on the Sofia-Novgorod vaults) is very likely. It can be noted that a number of information from the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles does not correspond in the Lavrentiev and Ipatiev chronicles, but is available in the vaults of the XV-XVI centuries. with a certain Rostov coloring.

You should also pay attention to one more feature of the Sofia-Novgorod gadflies. It was while preparing them for publication that P. M. Stroev came to the conclusion that our chronicles were compilable. Indeed, repetitions are sometimes found on the same page. In other words, this is an example of a mechanical summary on a chronological canvas. But for the historian, the literary shortcomings of the chronicle are treated with incomparable dignity, since the intervention of the later compiler is essentially limited to a few mistakes made in the mechanical rewriting, perhaps some abbreviations. At one time, A. A. Shakhmatov attached some importance to the fact that the compiler of the Sofia I Chronicle had the "Kiev Chronicler"in his hands27 . It is relatively rare for a chronicler to mention a source. However, the nature of the references did not attract the attention of A. A. Shakhmatov. Meanwhile, they give an idea of how this chronicler worked. It is noteworthy that he does not include in his text the information that is available in the Kievan Chronicle 28 . Apparently, the list was intended to serve as a supplement to the Kievan chronicle that the scribe had. Regardless of whether the Sofia Chronicle was conceived as material for compiling a new set, or someone made extracts for themselves, having in mind their other manuscripts-its purely compilatory nature is obvious, and this is its value.

It is very significant that, in accordance with the Synodal List, the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles mention Herman Voyat, whose name is unknown.

26 Ibid., pp. 23-31, etc.

27 A. A. Shakhmatov. Review.., pp. 212-213. "Chronicler" is mentioned in articles of 1077-1090.

28 Wed. " In the summer of 6585 poide Izyaslav with Lyakhy. A written in Kiev " ("The Complete collection of Russian Chronicles "(PSRL). Vol. V, issue I. L. 1925, p. 147). In "Kievsky", that is, in the Tale of Bygone Years, this plot is described with certain details. The same applies to the events of the following year ("In the summer of 6586 Oleg the son of Svyatoslav ran. Search in Kiev"): without referring to the "Kiev" chronicler, it is impossible to understand what is being said. Having given a report about the murder of Gleb Svyatoslavich under 6587, the chronicler explains that " the murder of Gleb was written in Kiev on the sixth day." The years 6589, 6590, 6592-6594 are generally omitted with reference to the" Kiev " Chronicler (PSRL, Vol. V, issue I, p.148). The main source of the Sofia Chronicle contained defects characteristic of the Lavrentiev list. This is evident from the chronological confusion under the years 6596-6598. The dates of the "Kiev" chronicler coincide with the Ipatiev chronicle.

page 63

it fell out of the lists of the younger platoon, and in accordance with the latter, they keep a comment under 1049 about the construction of the Church of Boris and Gleb Sotka Sytinich "now" on the site of the burnt wooden Sophia (this comment is not in the Synodal List). Sotko Sytinich founded the church in 1167, and A. A. Shakhmatov on this basis dated the vault of "Herman VOYATA" to 116729. D. S. Likhachev pointed out that this church was consecrated in 1173, and in general questioned the stage allocated by A. A. Shakhmatov 30 . Indeed, there can be no mandatory date in this case either. But Sotko Sytinich was obviously a contemporary of the chronicler who processed some Novgorod records of the XI century. This chronicler may well have been Herman Voyat, who died in 1188, and there is no reason to believe (as A. A. Shakhmatov thought) that he left his studies long before his death.

Of course, the middle of the 13th and second half of the 12th centuries do not exhaust the periods of active compilation work of Novgorod chroniclers. Obviously, even under Vsevolod Mstislavich or shortly after his exile (1136), the code was compiled with the involvement of the Southern Russian chronicle (before 1115). There may have been other stages, the selection of which will require a particularly careful analysis of the content of known texts and possible related materials. Therefore, for the time being, we will confine ourselves to stating the position that when referring to the Novgorod I and Sofia-Novgorod chronicles, they can be considered practically equivalent. This provision also applies to lists in the History of Bygone Years.

At one time, N. N. Yanish came to the conclusion that the Novgorod I Chronicle of the younger generation, in the part up to 1078, is a compilation of materials from the Tale of Bygone Years and local sources, and in the part from 945, the text of the Sofia I Chronicle seemed to him more complete and primary. 31 Indeed, almost all the differences between the Novgorod I Chronicle and the Tale of Bygone Years within these chronological limits are also found in the Sofia I Chronicle. At the same time, the Sofia Chronicle (as well as the Novgorod IV and some later codices) contains significant additions in comparison not only with the Novgorod I Chronicle, but also with the Tale of Bygone Years. To resolve the issue of their independence from the Initial Chronicle (The Tale of Bygone Years), it is important to highlight indisputable cases of the primacy of readings of the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles. At the same time, it is necessary to take into account the probability of reflecting several editions of ancient monuments (including the Tale of Bygone Years) in the vaults of the XV century. In other words, the priority in relation to some news items cannot be automatically transferred to others placed in a particular article. It is necessary to group them by some fairly objective criteria. Primacy in most cases can be established only on the basis of internal logic and reliability of news.

One of the most important events of Yaroslav's time was the campaign of 1043 against the Greeks led by Vladimir Yaroslavich (Prince of Novgorod) and Vyshata (voivode of Yaroslav). A report of this campaign is available in Byzantine sources .32 Their data can therefore be used to correct certain chronicle data. In the Novgorod I Chronicle, this plot is omitted, but in the Tale of Bygone Years

29 Wed. A. A. Shakhmatov. Review.., pp. 129-132, etc.

30 D, Likhachev Village. "Sofiyskiy vremennik".., p. 252. The author finds the very comparison of news taken from the "various trunks" of the Novgorod chronicle illegitimate. But this consideration is justified only in the sense that not only Herman Voyat could be a contemporary chronicler of Sotko Sytinich.

31 N. N. Yanish. Novgorod Chronicle and its Moscow alterations, Moscow, 1874, p. 32.

32 Wed. G. G. Litavrin. Once again about the Russian campaign against Byzantium in July 1043. "Byzantine Vremennik". XXIX. Moscow, 1968, pp. 105-107, etc.

page 64

and in the Sofia-Novgorod vaults, it is described in some detail. The design of the story was completed, apparently, relatively late, since Vyshata is defined as "father Yanev". Meanwhile, this voivode was quite famous in itself, and the chronicler who worked at the end of the XI - beginning of the XII century showed special attention to Yan. D. S. Likhachev noted a contradiction in the version of the description of the events of the Tale of Bygone Years: after a storm broke the ships, allegedly " taking the prince into the ship Ivan Tvorimirovich, voivode of Yaroslavl"33 . However, the voivode of Yaroslav was not Ivan Tvorimirich, but Vyshata. D. S. Likhachev allowed the connection in this case of the readings of the so-called Initial Code (1095), where Ivan Tvorimirich was called the voivode, and the oral story of Yan, which highlighted Vyshata. But an appeal to the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles eliminates the need for such an assumption: their text in this case is quite clear.

A TALE OF BYGONE YEARS

SOFIA I CHRONICLE

And poide Volodimer in lodi, and pridosha to the Danube, and poidosha to Tsesaryugrad; and there was a great storm, and the ships of Russia were broken, and the prince's ship was broken by the wind, and the prince was taken into the ship Ivan Tvorimirich, voivode of Yaroslavl. Other same howl Volodimeri vyverzheni bysha on breg, the number of 6000, and who wants to go to Russia, and not go with them no one from the squad of the prince. And he said, "I will go with them"; and I will go out of the ship to them, and he said,"If I live, then I will be with them, if I go, then I will be with the squad." And poidosha wants to go to Russia. And byst news Grkom, as the Sea beat Russia, and the ambassador of the king, named Monomakh, in Russia olyad 14; Volodimer same seeing with druzhinoyu, as go on it, vzspyativsya beat olyadi Grechskyy, and vzvratisya in Russia, vsedshe in his ship.

And Vladimir went to Constantinople in lodia. And past the threshold, and priidosha to the Danube, rekosha Rus Vladimir: "Let's stand here on the field"; and Varangians rkosha: "Let's go under the city." And Vladimir the Varangian obeyed and from the Danube went to Tsaryugrad with a howl by sea. When the Greeks saw it, they went out to the sea and began to submerge the veils of Christ with the relics of the saints in the sea. And by God's wrath the sea was stirred up and the thunder was great and strong. And byst storm is great and nachashasya lodii razrushati. And razbi karabli, and pobegosha Varyazi vzspyat. And Prince Vladimir of Karabl smashed the wind, and barely Ioan Tvorimirich Prince Vladimir landed in your ship and the governor of Yaroslavl. The rest of the howl of the Vladimerovs erupted bysha on Breg, numbering 6000, stasha on breze nazi and wanting to go to Russia. And no one from the prince's squad went with them. Vyshata same voivode, seeing his squad standing, and reche: "I'm not going to see Yaroslav." And vysede yisrael to voem and reche Vyshat: "I'm going with them", rka: "If I live with Nima, if I get sick, then with the squad." And poidosha wants to go to Russia. And byst news of the Greek, as the sea beat Russia. And the tsar sent an ambassador named Monamakh, following Olyadi through Russia 14. But Vladimir, seeing his howl, as if he were walking along them, turned around and beat up the Greek olyadi. And vzvratishasya in Russia 34 .

The story ends in both versions identically: the soldiers who found themselves on the shore, along with Vyshata, were captured by the Greeks, taken to the Tsar-

33 D. S. Likhachev. The Tale of Bygone Years, vol. II, Moscow, l. 1950, p. 378.

34 Letopis po Lavrentievskogo listu (further-LL). SPB. 1897, pp. 150-151; PSRL. T. V, issue I, pp. 128-129. Olyadi-rooks, ships.

page 65

hail and are blinded there. Vyshata himself returned to Russia three years after the conclusion of peace.

In this case, K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin drew attention to the primacy of the text of the Sofia I Chronicle. From the text of this chronicle, in particular, it follows that Ivan Tvorimirich was not a voivode. He is mentioned because it was on his ship that the prince and the voivode found salvation. The whole story (with the possible exception of the clerical insertion about the "swaddling clothes") is in relief in the Sofia I Chronicle.

It is noteworthy that in the Tale of Bygone Years, the Varangians are not mentioned. But the report of the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles is also quite reliable in this case. The participation of Varangian mercenaries in the campaign is recorded in Greek sources. Mikhail Attaliat, among other things, reports that among the participants of the campaign was a detachment from the northern islands of the ocean, that is, obviously, from the Slavic-Norman islands of the Baltic Sea .36 In the Sofia Chronicle, from the very beginning, it is said that Yaroslav gave Vladimir "many warriors: Varyasi, Rus". Then these two groups are as if opposed to each other. The Varangians, in particular, are indirectly responsible for the failure, since it was they who encouraged the prince to go by sea from the Danube. B. A. Rybakov sees in the story "a bright anti-Varangian article"not without reason .37 It should also be noted that the author of the article, apparently, was not familiar with the Varangian legend of the origin of Russia and did not identify "Rus" with "Varangians".

Contrary to popular belief, the chronicler's informant in this case could not be Yan or even Vyshata, but the Novgorodian Ivan Tvorimirich. After all, in the annals, in fact, only one moment of the campaign was reflected: the wrecked prince and Vyshata were picked up by a Novgorodian. Here on the ship, Vyshata had been generous in volunteering to go overland with those who were stranded on the shore without any supplies. The soldiers who came ashore are primarily Novgorodians. Accompanying them, Vyshata refuses to return to Yaroslav (along with the squad of the Kievan prince attached to him). What happened next with Vyshata, the chronicler, in fact, does not know. He notes only the fact of his return from captivity in a few years.

Thus, article 1043 allows us to make a number of important assumptions. The most important of them is the obvious priority in this case of the text of the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles over the Tale of Bygone Years. Further. This text does not need to be associated with the work of the Kiev chronicler (according to A. A. Shakhmatov, Nikon) 38 . Neither Vyshata nor Yan can be considered as informants of the narrator. As such, it is more likely to recognize Ivan Tvorimirich or one of the Novgorodians who escaped the capture of the remaining soldiers (along with Vyshata) on the shore. B. A. Rybakov's assumption that the text is of Novgorod origin39 is highly probable. It is the Novgorodians who are the main actors in the events. At the same time, it is necessary to take into account the later editing, which is expressed in the insertion of an essentially Greek - Philic legend about the "swaddling clothes of Christ", as well as in the reminder that Vyshata is the father of Yan. Vyshata itself was closely connected with Novgorod. After the death of Vladimir Yaroslavich, he finds himself in the service of his son Rostislav 40 .

The chronology of Yaroslav's reign is extremely complicated. In fact, only the date of the campaign against the Greeks has an exact designation according to Constantinople.-

35 K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin. Decree op., pp. 43-44, appendix.

36 V. G. Vasilyevsky. Proceedings. T. I. St. Petersburg, 1908, p. 308.

37 B. A. Rybakov. Ancient Russia, p. 204.

38 Cf. A. A. Shakhmatov. Search results.., p. 444.

39 B. A. Rybakov. Ancient Russia, p. 205.

40 PSRL. Vol. II. M. 1962, stb. 152 (Vyshata together with Rostislav flees in 1064 to Tmutarakan).

page 66

Even then, in the Novgorod IV Chronicle, the story is placed under 6549 (1041), which may indicate that there is no absolute chronology in the original chronicle story, which included the story of the campaign. In the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles, some events are duplicated. Thus, the foundation of the Kievan Sophia in the Novgorod chronicles is mentioned twice: under 1017 (6525) and 1037 (6545) years. The arrival of the Pechenegs to Kiev is also mentioned twice (6525 and 6544), 41 although it is quite obvious that we are talking about the same events. The dates 6544-6545 appeared under the undoubted influence of data from the Tale of Bygone Years. But the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles also reflected a special source, which itself was used only to a certain extent by the Initial Chronicle. This source turned out to be torn apart by other materials (as is usually the case in chronicle vaults). One cliff of this kind was pointed out by A. A. Shakhmatov. In the Initial Chronicle, immediately after the announcement of Mstislav's death in Chernihiv, it is said that "go Yaroslav to Novugorod, and plant your son Volodimer Novegorod, put a Jew bishop; and at this time a son was born to Yaroslav, naming his name Vyacheslav" 42 . In the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles, this is reported under the year 1034 (6542) 43 . Further, both chronicles speak of the battle with the Pechenegs, and Yaroslav's actions to strengthen Kiev, and the construction of churches by him. The article 6546 (1038) in the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles is a continuation of the story placed under 1034: "In the spring Prince Yaroslav is great to Kiev, but in the winter go to yatvyagy, and do not take them mozhakhu"44 . In the Tale of bygone Years under the same year there is a laconic message: "Yaroslav ide na yatvyagy" 45 .

It is quite possible that Yaroslav's return from Novgorod to Kiev is dated in the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles in 1038 under the influence of the Initial Chronicle: 1036-1037 are filled with important events from the chronicler's point of view. But, eliminating one contradiction, the chronicler admits another: Yaroslav is engaged in the arrangement of Kiev affairs when he (according to the logic of the chronicle) was not in Kiev. Apparently, one of the editors of the Tale of Bygone Years also noticed this contradiction: he omitted the reference to Yaroslav's return to Kiev. In other words, the Kievan chronicler processed the same source that was preserved in a more original form in the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles. The Sofia-Novgorod chronicles, more fully transmitting this source, also took into account the editorial board of the Tale of Bygone Years. In these circumstances, it is not easy to determine the volume of the proposed Novgorod source. The main criterion is precisely the very fact that the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles contain more or less significant additions in comparison with the Initial Chronicle.

The first significant differences from the text of the Tale of Bygone Years in the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles are related to the description of strife in the Russian land after the death of Vladimir. Article 6523 (1015) in the Tale of Bygone Years is borrowed mainly from the Legend of Boris and Gleb, including also some inclusions from the Korsun legend46 . At the same time, the description of the events of the feud (1015-1019) reflects the actual chronicle records, both Kiev and Novgorod,

41 Wed. PSRL. Vol. V, issue I, pp. 88 and 127.

42 LL, p. 147.

43 PSRL. Vol. V, issue I, p. 127; vol. IV, part I, issue I. Ptgr. 1915, p. 114.

44 Ibid., vol. V, issue I, p. 127.

45 LL, p. 150.

46 Wed. N. N. Ilyin. The chronicle article of 6523 and its source, Moscow, 1957 (on the correlation of the chronicle article and the Legend); N. K. Nikolsky. Materials for the history of Old Russian Spiritual Writing, St. Petersburg, 1907, pp. 2-3.Unfortunately, both authors did not take into account the interlaced distribution of fragments of these two monuments.

page 67

Thus, article 6524 (1016) ends with the message that Yaroslav "eede Kyev on the table of otni and dedni", which is consistent with the title of the article: "The beginning of the reign of Yaroslavl Kyev" 47 . But then, under 6527 (1017), the laconic news is given: "Yaroslav Ida in Kiev and the church pogora" 48 . In the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles under the same year, it is reported that " Pechenezi came to Kiev and sekoshasya near Kiev, and barely in the evening Yaroslav Pechenegy overcame, and otbegosha was put to shame. And lay Yaroslav the great city of Kiev and set up the golden gate and lay down the Church of St. Sophia " 49 . It is possible that in this case we are dealing with extracts from the same source, but not equally meaningful. The author of the text included in the Tale of Bygone Years attributed the Pecheneg raid and Yaroslav's construction activities to 1036-1037, but apparently did not pay attention to the fact that it was from Novgorod that Yaroslav went to liberate Kiev from the besieging Pechenegs. In the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles, on the contrary, the editor took into account that an article of the previous year had already reported on Yaroslav's reigning in Kiev, and spoke only about the Pecheneg attack and Yaroslav's construction activities.

To characterize the source of both chronicles about the battle with the Pechenegs and Yaroslav's construction activities, it is extremely important to establish the actual course of events. This is one of those cases when textual issues can only be resolved depending on the historical content of records. At one time, S. M. Solovyov preferred the Sofia Chronicle, pointing out the parallel in Titmar of Merseburg about the Pechenegs ' attack on Kiev. K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin was inclined to the same decision. N. N. Yanish solved this question more thoroughly and more confidently in favor of the primacy of reading the Sofia Chronicle. 50 A. A. Shakhmatov, on the contrary, preferred the dates of the Tale of Bygone Years, seeing in the Novgorod chronicle itself a break between 1017 and 1036 .51 The idea of the creation of the Oldest Arch in 1039 on the occasion of the completion of St. Sophia Cathedral suggested confidence in the dates of the Initial Chronicle. D. S. Likhachev shares a similar view 52 . However, N. N. Ilyin, who returned to this issue, again recognized the primacy of the version of the Sofia Code 53 . Some arguments (previously known or newly used) have an absolute value. This is especially true of the testimonies of Titmar of Merseburg, who died at the end of 1018.

As it appears from the description and commentary of one of the compilers of the Tale of Bygone Years, the battle took place on the place where the Kievan Sophia was later built. But the" monastery " of Sofia was already known in Kiev to Titmar of Merseburg, who described the campaign of Boleslav in 1018 . Gallus Anonymous reports that Boleslav "struck the golden Gate with a drawn sword." 55 The very performance of the Pechenegs around 1017 is also known to Titmar of Merseburg, and they acted at the instigation of Boleslav 56 . Titmar also knows that Sofia Pogo-

47 LL, p. 138.

48 Ibid., p. 139.

49 PSRL. Vol. V, issue I, p. 88.

50 p. M. Solovyov. History of Russia. Book I. M. 1959, p. 324; K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin. Op. ed., pp. 38-39: N. N. Yanish. Op. ed., p. 67.

51 A. A. Shakhmatov. Search results.., pp. 491-515, etc.

52 D. S. Likhachev. The Tale of Bygone Years, vol. II, p. 363.

53 N. N. Ilyin. Op. ed., pp. 117-123, etc.

54 "Titmari Merseburgensis Chronicon", V. 1966, p. 474. Cf. N. N. Ilyin. Op. ed., p. 117; A. Poppe. Russian Metropolitanates of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. "The Byzantine Chronicle", Vol. XXVIII, Moscow, 1968, p. 87 (on the "monastery" in the meaning of the cathedral).

55 Gall Anonymous. Chronicle, Moscow, 1961, p. 36.

56 Wed. N. N. Ilyin. Edict. op., p. 121 and others; V. D. Korolyuk. Western Slavs and Kievan Rus. Moscow, 1964, p. 242.

page 68

rela a year earlier, this echoes the deaf indication of the Initial Chronicle under the year 1017. Titmar's account of Yaroslav's capture of a Polish city in 1017 can be compared with the Novgorod chronicles describing Yaroslav's campaign to Berestoy that year . In other words, the data on Yaroslav's active activities immediately after his reigning in Kiev are confirmed by contemporaries.

There is nothing surprising in the fact that Yaroslav showed special energy in strengthening Kiev in the first years, when the struggle with Svyatopolk and the Poles and Pechenegs who supported him was in full swing. It is very likely that Yaroslav, who was not popular with Kievans, tried to enlist the support of the top clergy, which was served by the construction of the Hagia Sophia. It is possible that the events of 1018 interrupted the activities that were started. One might think that for some time Yaroslav generally preferred Novgorod to Kiev .58 But the transfer of some events to the article of 1036-1037 could be related to the nature of the source, which ultimately led to the main data on the reign of Yaroslav: the source hardly had an absolute chronology at all, representing either a complete story or a chronicle dated to the years of the prince's reign. With a fragment of such a chronicle, we have, in particular, the case in the "Memory and Praise of Vladimir" by Jacob Mnich.

You can pay attention to one parallel. Before the dated part of the chronicle in the Tale of Bygone Years is placed a list of the years of the reign of Russian princes. The time of Yaroslav's reign there is marked in 40 years 59 . This figure does not correspond to the actual dates of the Initial Chronicle. But in the Tale of Bygone Years, the description of Vladimir's reign actually ends with 996 - 997 (6504-6505) years. Ya. Dlugosz, by the way, dated Vladimir's death to 1005, which may have reflected just the date 6505 year 60. 6505-997 + 40 years were given just 6545-1037 year. In other words, under 1037, a general description of the reign of Yaroslav was given in some chronicle.

Telling about the defeat of Yaroslav at the Bug in 1018, the Tale of Bygone Years notes that Yaroslav fled "with 4 men to Novugorod, while Boleslav entered Kyiv with Svyatopolk" 61 . In the annals with the Sofia-Novgorod basis in this regard, significant details are given: "And that killed Buda voivode; and others many won, and the hedgehog hands izimashe, tyche rastochi Boleslav on Lyakhom, and he entered Kiev with Svyatopolk and sede on the table Volodimir. And then, Boleslav, lay Predslav, daughter of Volodimerya, and sister of Yaroslav, on your bed. " 62 The accuracy of the clarification is confirmed by Gallus Anonymous, who reports that Boleslav took on the bed of one of Vladimir's daughters, whom the Russian prince had previously refused to give as a wife .63
Some additions in comparison with the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles and the Tale of Bygone Years are contained in the Ustyuzha Chronicle, the special significance of which for the reconstruction of the oldest chronicle was pointed out by M. N. Tikhomirov, and in relation to this plot by V. D. Korolyuk 64 . A tale of bygone years, as well as the Sofia-nov-

57 NIL, p. 15. In the Tale of Bygone Years, the approach to Birch Bark is dated 6530 (1022?) year.

58 Wed. N. N. Ilyin. Op. ed., pp. 118-119.

59 LL, p. 17 (cf. A. G. Kuzmin. Op. ed., p. 81, etc.).

60 Wed. K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin. Op. ed., appendix, pp. 83-84.

61 LL, p. 140.

62 PSRL. Vol. IV, part I, issue I, p. 108; "Ustyuzhsky letopisny svod". Moscow-l. 1950, p. 39 (hereinafter-ULS). In the Sofia I Chronicle, there are some distortions (for example, instead of the voivode Buda, Fornication is called).

63 Gal Anonymous. Chronicle, p. 36.

64 M. N. Tikhomirov. The beginning of Russian historiography. Voprosy istorii, 1960, No. 5; V. D. Korolyuk. Op. ed., pp. 235-236, etc.

page 69

city chronicles, reports that Yaroslav wanted to run "over the sea". But Konstantin Dobrynich with Novgorodians "rasekosha lodya Yaroslavl", and collected money for hiring Varangians: 4 kuna from her husband, 10 hryvnia from the elders and 18 hryvnia from the boyars 65 . Ustyuzhsky svod clarifies that Konstantin dissected rooks " vsovasha... in Volkhov", and indicates the number of Varangians hired - 14 thousand, and the total number of troops is determined at 40 thousand people 66 .

In the Ustyuzha codex, there is an indication that Boleslav sat in Kiev for "one month", which is absent in other chronicles .67 According to Gal Anonymous, Boleslav owned Kiev for 10 months .68 However, special studies make it necessary to recognize the indication of the Ustyuzha Code as reliable: the circumstances left Boleslav to stay in Kiev for only about a month .69 But even if we assume that a mistake was made in the Russian chronicle, it is significant that it generally indicated the time of Boleslav's stay in Kiev.

Speaking about the origin of some readings of the Novgorod-Sofia chronicles, in the article under consideration, A. A. Shakhmatov connected them with the "Life of Anthony", allegedly used in the Initial Code and in the "code of 1423"70 . The main reason for this assumption was the mention in the chronicle of Predslav, where, according to the Kiev-Pechersk patericon, Moisey Ugrin, one of the Pechersk "ascetics", was hiding at one time. A. A. Shakhmatov relied on the chronicles in which the name of Moisey Ugrin was not mentioned. The Ustyuzha code explicitly states that along with Predslav and other Kiev people, Moisey Ugrin, the brother of George, who was killed in 1015 together with Boris, was also brought to Poland .71 Nevertheless, the assumption of A. A. Shakhmatov can hardly be accepted. The Novgorod First Chronicle, on the basis of which A. A. Shakhmatov reconstructed the Initial Vault, does not know this story, and in general there is no data with the help of which it would be possible to raise the question of using the supposed Initial Vault of the Life of Anthony that has not come down to us. According to V. D. Korolyuk, the source of various versions of the chronicle story was a special legend about Predslav 72 . But even for this assumption, there is insufficient data. The assumption of B. A. Rybakov, who connects the stories about Predslav with the Novgorod chronicle of the middle of the XI century, which he called "Ostromirova", is more thorough .73 It is easy to see that Predslav appears in the chronicle in a certain environment: usually we are talking about Yaroslav and Novgorod affairs.

The omission of the episode with Predslava in the Tale of Bygone Years is hardly accidental. In the 70s and 80s of the XI century, a chronicler close to Izyaslav worked in Kiev, who consistently softened attacks against the Polish king .74 In the chronicles with the Sofia-Novgorod basis, a text has been preserved that was not touched by the hand of this chronicler. As for the name of Moses in the Ustyug codex, it may indirectly indicate the literary history of the texts under consideration. From the correspondence between Simon and Polycarp at the beginning of the thirteenth century, it can be understood that Moses was given a special task.-

65 LL., p. 140; PSRL. Vol. V, issue I, p. 88, etc.

66 ULS, p. 39.

67 Ibid.

68 Gal Anonymous. Chronicle, p. 36.

69 Cf. I. Linnichenko. Mutual relations of Russia and Poland to the half of the XIV century. Vol. I. Kiev. 1884, p. 109; V. D. Korolyuk. Op. ed., p. 257, etc.

70 A. A. Shakhmatov. Search results.., p. 279.

71 ULS, p. 40.

72 V. D. Korolyuk. Op. ed., pp. 310-311, etc.

73 B. A. Rybakov. Ancient Russia, p. 202.

74 Cf. A. G. Kuzmin. Old Russian historical traditions. Voprosy Istorii, 1971, No. 10, pp. 58-59, etc.

page 70

there was a certain place in the "Chronicler of Old Rostov"75 . Rostov land, as is well known, has been closely connected with Novgorod politically and economically for a long time. In the middle of the 12th century, for example, the Rostov and Novgorod dioceses (Nestor and Nifont) were particularly close. The exchange of literary materials in such conditions was a natural thing.

Another data system can be used to determine the time when records about Predslav appear. If the personality of the Polish king in various chronicle versions is given as if in an editorial assessment, then information about Predslav was probably interested in a contemporary or a person somehow connected with it. Predslav was taken to Poland, and her further fate is unknown: sources do not mention her. It was probably mentioned in the original story.

Article 1019 (6527) of the year generally coincides in the Tale of Bygone Years and the Sofia - Novgorod chronicles. But in the latter there is an indication of Yaroslav's remuneration of Novgorodians who participated in the campaign against Kiev, after which the "letter"allegedly given to them is given .76 This article ends with Izvestia, the Novgorod origin of which is usually not in doubt: "Kostyantin was then in Novegorod, and Prince Yaroslav was angry with him, and went to Rostov, and in the 3rd summer led him to be killed in Murom, on Retsa on Otsa" 77 . The latter date is probably conditional: events developed over a number of years, and the reference to the "3rd summer" may indicate the method of chronology used in the source under consideration. According to the list of Novgorod princes in the Novgorod I Chronicle (introductory articles), Yaroslav, moving to Kiev, put Konstantin Dobrynich as posadnik in Novgorod, then his son Ilya, then it is said about the imprisonment of Konstantin and the imprisonment of Vladimir 78 . V. L. Yanin, trying to reconcile the conflicting information of sources, suggested the following order of events in the Novgorod land: in 1016-1030, the posadnik Konstantin ruled in Novgorod, in 1030 - 1034, the son of Yaroslav Ilya, and then the governor of the city of Novgorod. his second son Vladimir 79 . However, the author does not provide any source-study justification for his scheme. He attaches importance to the instruction of the Novgorod III Chronicle about the planting of Vladimir in Novgorod in 1030, when the prince was 14 years old. But the chronicle refers to the events of 1034, and it dates the birth of the prince, like all other chronicles, to 1020 80 .

The chronicles that have come down to us do not know anything about Yaroslav's son Ilya. According to the Initial Chronicle, Vladimir was born in 1020, Izyaslav in 1024, Svyatoslav in 1027, Vsevolod in 1030, Vyacheslav in 1036 (during Yaroslav's trip to Novgorod, which in the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles is attributed to 1034). the birth of Vyacheslav is mentioned under 1034, and under 1036 the birth of Igor 81 is mentioned . Message from Letopi-

75 "Paterik of the Kiev Pechersk Monastery", St. Petersburg, 1911, pp. 102, 105, 206; cf. A. G. Kuzmin. Chronicle sources of the Epistles of Simon and Polycarp. "Archeographic yearbook for 1968", Moscow 1970, pp. 80-81.

76 Cf. PSRL. Vol. V, issue I, p. 90. The "charter" is also mentioned under 1034 (ibid., p. 127), in which again one can see a mixture of different editions of homogeneous material.

77 Ibid., p. 123.

78 НІЛ, стр. 470.

79 V. L. Yanin. Novgorodskie posadniki [Novgorod Posadniki], Moscow, 1962, pp. 48-49.

80 "Novgorod Chronicles", St. Petersburg, 1879, pp. 179-180. In general, one can operate freely with names and events only on the assumption that they were once recorded in a chronicler or documents contemporary with the events.

81 V. N. Tatishchev. Russian History, vol. II, Moscow, l. 1962, p. 4. 77; vol. IV. M.-L. 1964, pp. 147-148.

page 71

the statement that Yaroslav was 76 years old in 1054 seems to be biased. He was clearly younger than 82 . But even if it is true that the Lavrentiev Chronicle indicates that in 1016 he was 28 years old, 83 even in this case, we will have to assume that the years of the prince's youth remained out of the chronicler's field of view. Ilya's early death is probably the only reminder of them. But when clarifying this question, it is necessary to take into account the possibility that Ilya is the Christian name of Vladimir. To solve the problem of the correlation between the Tale of Bygone Years and the Sofia-Novgorod Chronicles, article 6529 (1021) is important, which tells about the struggle of Yaroslav with Bryachislav. From the materials of the northern sagas, it can be assumed that Bryachislav occupied the Kiev table around 1019-1021, although, of course, it is necessary to take into account the conventionality of these chronological dates .84 The Sofia I Chronicle reports under 1020 about the victory of Yaroslav over Bryachislav 85 . There is no news of this in the Tale of Bygone Years, and in the Sofia Chronicle it does not contain any specific data. But the description of the clash of these princes in 1021 is quite detailed. A laconic account of it is found in the Novgorod I Chronicle 86 . But the nature of the primary record can be judged only on the basis of a comparison of readings from the Tale of Bygone Years and the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles.

A TALE OF BYGONE YEARS

SOFIA I CHRONICLE

Come Bryachislav, son of Izyaslavl, grandson of Volodim, to Novgorod, and zaya Novgorod, and poim Novgorodets and their estates, poide Polotsk again; and I came to him to Sudomiri retse, and Yaroslav Isaev in 7 day postizhe and that, and win Yaroslav Bryachislav, and Novgorodets return Novugorod, and Bryachislav ran Polotsk.

Prince Bryachislav, son of Izyaslavl, grandson of Volodimerus, went with the howl of Isobeska to Novgorod and took Novgorod. And We will take Novogorodtsy and their estate, and all Polon and cattle, and we will go to Polotesk again. And I will come to him to Sudomira retsa, great are Prince Yaroslav, having heard that news, and gather together many howls from Kiev, in the seventh day you will find that and defeat Bryachislava, and let Novgorod go to Novugorod, and he is full of otya, eliko byasha of Novogorod volost. And Bryachislav ran to Polotsk. And ottole called Bryachislava to her and gave him two cities: Vsvyach and Videbesk and said to him:"Wake up with me for one." And vevasha Bryachislav with the Grand Duke with Yaroslav all the days of his life 87 .

As you can see, the original readings of the Sofia Chronicle contain such realities that make us prefer them as being closer to the original record. Of particular importance is the message about the transfer of the cities of Usvyat and Vitebsk to Yaroslav Bryachislav - important cities

82 Cf. A. G. Rokhlin. Results of anatomical and radiological examination of the skeleton of Yaroslav. "Brief Reports" of the Institute of History of Material Culture, vol. VIII. 1940.

83 LL, p. 39 (Radzivilovsky list). In the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles, his age is defined as 18 years. But in this case, he could only be illegitimate (in 988 AD). Vladimir was baptized and married a Byzantine princess).

84 N. N. Elijah N. Op. ed., pp. 86-95; B. A. Rybakov. Russian chroniclers and author of "The Lay of Igor's Regiment", p. 453, etc.

85 PSRL. Vol. V, issue I, p. 123.

86 NIL, pp. 15 and 180.

87 LL., pp. 142-143; PSRL. Vol. V, issue I. p. 123.

page 72

strategic points on the way "from the Varangians to the Greeks". It is not without reason that researchers believe that the struggle for these cities was the main content of the clashes that unfolded around 1021 .88
In the articles of 1023-1024 in the Tale of Bygone Years, you can catch traces of combining different sources, one of which is filled with sympathy for Mstislav, and the other gives a description of events from the position of Yaroslav. In particular, the description of events in the Suzdal land in 1024 may be Novgorod: Yaroslav went from Novgorod to suppress the uprising, and he also returned there from the campaign. In this connection, the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles again contain some noteworthy differences from the text of the Tale of Bygone Years. So, speaking about the uprising in Suzdal, these chronicles specify that at the instigation of the Magi, "women" (according to the Tale of bygone Years, simply "old children") were beaten, who "let the famine go". When describing the famine, it is added here that " give the husband his own wife, but feed yourself with servants." Having suppressed the uprising, Yaroslav "charter that land" 89 . When describing the Battle of Listven (Yaroslav and Mstislav), it is specified: "And Byasha autumn". Mstislav encourages his soldiers: "Let us go against them; that is self-interest." 90 About Yakun, the leader of the Varangians, it is said that he fled across the sea "and there you will die." Mstislav in some chronicles is called "Fierce" 91 . The last detail is probably another evidence (along with the mention of Moisey Ugrin) in favor of the intersection of Novgorod and Starostovskaya traditions. The fact is that such a nickname Mstislav was known to Simon and Polikarp 92 . As for the Tale of Bygone Years, Mstislav is generally assessed positively in it, and therefore such a characteristic of him would be inappropriate .93
Article 6538 (1030) of the year in the Tale of Bygone Years is contradictory in itself, indicating a combination of different sources and events at different times. It tells about the capture of Belz by Yaroslav, the birth of his son Vsevolod, the victory of the prince over Chud and the construction of the city of Yuryev, and finally about the death of Boleslav and the uprising in Poland. 94 Boleslav the Brave, as is known, died in 1025, but the uprising probably took place after the death of Boleslav the Forgotten in 1037 or 1038. 95 It is also difficult to combine two campaigns in one year: one to the borders of Poland in South-Western Russia, the other - in the north-west, also connected with the construction of the city. Obviously, Yaroslav's campaign on Chud could primarily interest the Novgorod chronicler. Therefore, it is very significant that it is the northern plot that is being developed in the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles. "And come," it says here, after a report about the construction of Yaroslav Yuryev, "to Novugorod, collect 300 books from the elders and priests' children." Here is an extremely important news from the point of view of the beginning of the Novgorod chronicle: "Archbishop Akim of Novgorod has passed away, and his disciple Ephraim, who also participated in it, has died." 96
The cited text is usually given by all authors who insisted on the existence of the Novgorod chronicle of the XI century. And, of course,

88 Cf. A. N. Nasonov. "Russkaya zemlya" i obrazovanie territorii Drevnerusskogo gosudarstva ["Russian Land" and the formation of the territory of the Old Russian State]. Moscow, 1951, pp. 85-86, 151; L. V. Alekseev. Polotsk land, Moscow, 1966, pp. 240-241.

89 PSRL. Vol. V, issue I, p. 124.

90 Ibid., pp. 124-125 (there is no mention of "greed"in the Tale of Bygone Years).

91 Ibid., vol. IV, part I, issue I, p.iz.

92 "Paterik of the Kiev Pechersk Monastery", p. 3.

93 The Tmutarakan plots in the Tale of Bygone Years are probably related to the author's work of the 70s-80s of the XI century (A. G. Kuzmi n. a.). Old Russian Historical Traditions, pp. 68-71).

94 LL, p. 146.

95 Wed. V. D. Korolyuk. Op. ed., pp. 280-282.

96 PSRL Vol. V, issue I, p. 126.

page 73

any disagreement with this opinion should, in turn, be justified by the possible defect of the comment. It should be noted that its meaning is not entirely clear. It is generally assumed that Ephraim filled the see after the death of Joachim, but was not confirmed in the rank of bishop. A few years later (if we ignore the conventionality of the chronology available in the chronicles in this regard) Yaroslav appointed Luka Zhidyata bishop of Novgorod. But the comment may also have a more local meaning: the author simply explains that he (perhaps one of the 300) was trained by Ephraim, who, in turn, was a disciple of the first bishop of Novgorod. In both cases, it is indisputable that the commentary belongs to a Novgorodian who lived in the XI century and perceived the events of the second quarter of this century quite consciously.

Izvestiya 6539-6541 (1031 -1033) in the Tale of Bygone Years have a southern origin (the campaign of Yaroslav and Mstislav "on Lyakhy", the construction of cities by Yaroslav on Rosi and the death of Evstafy Mstislavich).But in the Novgorod-Sofia chronicles under 1032 there is again a message of clearly Novgorod origin: "And then Ulep left Novagorod for the Iron Gate, and again there were few of them" 97 . V. N. Tatishchev adds that "the Novgorodians were defeated from Yudgor" (yugrov)98. The "Iron Gate" was indeed located in the Ugra region. The addition of V. N. Tatishchev is all the more interesting because under the same year he speaks about the birth of Yaroslav's daughter. Under 1032, one original news item is also available in the Tver collection, which combines both Novgorod and Prorostov records. It indicates that the cities of Korsun and Trepolsky were built by Yaroslav on the Roshi River . Of course, there is no reason to assume that this entry is also of Novgorod origin. But, perhaps, in this case, another line of intersection of the Starostovsky and Novgorod chronicles is revealed. In this connection, V. N. Tatishchev's reference to the fact that the feud between Yaroslav and Mstislav began in 1023 due to the fact that the Tmutarakan prince was not satisfied with the cession of Murom to him and demanded some more districts may also be relevant. 100
Apparently, the influence of the Novgorod source is not exhausted by the izvestiya considered: only those readings in which the priority of the Sofia-Novgorod vaults is quite obvious are highlighted here. In a number of other cases, the Tale of Bygone Years conveyed its Novgorod source quite fully, and their texts are almost identical. Such is the story of the events in Novgorod at the "Poromoni Dvor" (beating of the Varangians) in 1015, such are the reports of Yaroslav's campaigns in Lithuania and Mazovia in the 40s. Clearly Novgorod origin has a message about the campaign in 1042. Vladimir Yaroslavich on em, during which all the horses of the soldiers fell from the pestilence. News about Yaroslav's campaign against Lithuania in 1044 and the construction of city fortifications in Novgorod in the same year, the Tale of Bygone Years does not know at all 101 . But since the mid-40s of the XI century, the nature of the relationship between the chronicles has changed somewhat. If for the previous decades the original readings in comparison with the Tale of Bygone Years give only the Novgorod-Sofia chronicles and some vaults of the XV-XVI centuries, and the Novgorod I Chronicle contains brief extracts from the same Tale of Bygone years, now the convergence of Novgorod I and Sofia is planned-

97 Ibid.

98 V. N. Tatishchev. Op. ed., vol. II, p. 77.

99 PSRL. T. XV. M. 1963, stb. 146.

100 V. N. Tatishchev. Ukaya, Op., vol. II, p. 76. The first edition of the " History "does not contain this specification. The second edition, as is known, was most influenced by the Rostov Chronicle. In addition, V. N. Tatishchev had several other sources, more complete than the known chronicles, that preserved the Rostov material.

101 PSRL. Vol. V, issue I, p. 129.

page 74

SKO-Novgorod chronicles in their opposition to the Tale of bygone Years. Thus, the news of Yaroslav's campaign against Lithuania in 1044 is also found in the Novgorod I Chronicle, and the construction of city fortifications in Novgorod is logically attributed to Vladimir, and not to Yaroslav (as in the Sofia-Novgorod chronicles).102 . At the same time, individual entries seem to have a mixture of chronological styles.

In addition to the campaigns of Yaroslav and Vladimir during the last period of their reign, in the Tale of Bygone Years, we can also highlight the message that in 6553 (1045) "Volodimer laid down Saint Sophia in Novegorod" and the record of 6560 (1052): "Volodimer, the son of Yaroslavl's elders, passed away in Novegorod, and was laid in Saint Sophia, yuzhe be created it himself " 103 . The first news is also succinctly recorded in the Novgorod chronicles. In the second case, the Synodal List adds the date-October 4, and in the younger version of the Novgorod I Chronicle, as well as in the Sofia-Novgorod codices, the day "week"is also indicated 104 . The message about the fire of Novgorod Sofia is available only in the chronicles of the Novgorod group, and these chronicles themselves differ from each other. According to the Synodal list, in 6553 (1045?) "sgora sveti Sofia, in subotu, on matins, at the hour of 3, in the month of March at 15", after which it is said about the laying of St. Sophia by Vladimir 105 . The latter fact is also mentioned in other chronicles under the same year. But the news of the fire in them was issued under the year 6557 (1049). At the same time, they give a curious discrepancy: "In the month of March 4, on the Sabbath day, on Mount St. Sophia; beashe is honestly built and decorated, 13 verhy owned, and that stood St. Sophia kon'ets Piskupli street, and now put a Hundred church of the stone of Boris and Gleb over Volkhov" 106 .

If the topographical commentary dates back to the end of the 12th century, then the record itself bears signs of modernity. In 1049, March 4 actually fell on a Saturday. March 15 fell on a Saturday not in 1045, but in 1046. This circumstance forces us to give preference to writing the younger version. But the Synodal List indicates the time of the fire. It is therefore possible that we are talking about two separate records of the same event, with a difference of notation in four years, known to a number of chronicle texts .107 If the fire occurred in 1049, then, obviously, the laying of the new cathedral should also be attributed to this time. Under 1050, the chronicles of the younger group report that "Saint Sophia was accomplished in Novegorod, by the command of Prince Yaroslav and his son Volodimir and Archbishop Luka" 108 . The Synodal List and the Chronicle of Bygone Years do not know this izvestia 109 .

The record of Vladimir's death is the last in the Tale of Bygone Years, the origin of which can be attributed to Novgorod 110 . In the Sofia-Novgorod codices, however, there is information that can be considered as a continuation of the same source as

102 НІЛ, стр. 181.

103 ll., pp. 151 and 156.

104 NIL, pp. 16 and 181; PSRL. Vol. V, issue I, p. 130.

105 НІЛ, стр. 16.

106 Ibid., p. 181; PSRL. Vol. V, issue I, p. 130.

107 Cf. A. G. Kuzmin. Russian Chronicles, pp. 81-89, etc.

108 NIL, p. 181. The Sofia-Novgorod chronicles also mention the consecration of the church and indicate the day: "The Ascension of the Precious Cross" (PSRL. Vol. V, issue I, p. 130).

109 Note that this entry differs in character from Izvestia 6553. Only Vladimir was active there, and here Yaroslav is in the first place and the bishop is mentioned, who, obviously, was also involved in the laying of the temple.

110 The report about Volkhov's backward movement in 1063, which A. A. Shakhmatov attached special importance to as evidence of the Novgorod record, rather speaks of something else: it is about the time when Novgorod was visited by a Kiev chronicler or one of his informants (cf.V. 3avitnevich, M. D. Priselkov. Essays... "Works" of the Kiev Theological Academy. 1914, p. 8).

page 75

and records of Yaroslav's time. Immediately after the message about the death of Yaroslav, they attributed several additional news items: "According to this, Smolenskii was divided into three parts. And come Izyaslav to Novogorod and plant Ostromir in Novegorod. And ide Ostromir na Chyud with Novgorodtsy, and ubisha and Chyud, and many pade Novgorodets with him. And paki Izyaslav ide na Chyud and vzya osek Kedepiv, in other words Solntsa ruka " 111 . Obviously, this is a summary of several years ' worth of data. The division of Smolensk was made around 1060, after the death of Igor Yaroslavich there [112], Ostromir is mentioned as early as 1057 [113]. In the Novgorod source proper, there was apparently no absolute chronology. If we take into account the possibility of shifting the chronology by four years, then under 1054 there could also be information from 1058.

Under 1060, the Tale of Bygone Years refers to the campaign of Yaroslavichs and Vseslav of Polotsk on Torkov. In the Novgorod chronicles under the same year there is a message about another large enterprise of Izyaslav: "Then go Izyaslav to Sosoly and give tribute to the commandment for 2000 hryvnias; they also vouchsafed and banished the tributes; in the spring, when they came, they fought our villages about Yuryev, and the city and mansions pozhgosh, and a lot of evil stvorish, and Pleskova doidosh fighting. And isidosha against them pleskovice and novgorodtsy on the Sich, and the fall of Russia 1000, and Sosol beshisla " 114 .

Combining two large enterprises under one year is again artificial. To resolve the issue of the origin of records, you should take into account their presence in the lists of the younger type. Further, the Novgorod records in them and in the Sofia - Novgorod codices mostly coincide, while in the Tale of Bygone Years they do not exist at all .115 However, this group of news items is also presented in the Sofia-Novgorod codices more fully than in the Novgorod I Chronicle . In the Synodal List and the Sofia-Novgorod codices, there is an accurately dated news of the victory of the Novgorodians with Prince Gleb over Vseslav on October 23, 1069 "on Friday, in chas 6 days""at the Menagerie on Kyozeml" 117 . The specified date actually fell on a Friday. Accurate dating in the 11th century almost certainly attested to the clerical origin of the record. This is also indicated by the reference given here about the" finding " of the Cross of Vladimir "at St. Sophia of Novegorod, under Bishop Fyodor."

Thus, we are dealing with a number of Novgorod records from the second decade to the 60s of the XI century. These records may go back to different sources. One of them may be a secular chronicle (or story) of the reign of Yaroslav. The author is quite independent in relation to the prince 118 and has a very negative attitude towards him-

111 PSRL. Vol. IV, part I, issue I, p. 118.

112 Ibid., Vol. XV, stb. 153.

113 Cf. B. A. Rybakov. Ancient Russia, pp. 196-197 (chronicle data are verified by an entry in the "Ostromir" gospel). A. A. Shakhmatov attributed the death of the posadnik to 1060, to the time after the division of Smolensk (A. A. Shakhmatov. Search results.., pp. 524-525). But the order of the original records could have been different. V. N. Tatishchev dated the planting of Ostromir in 1055, and his (not Izyaslav) campaign to the city of Sunny Hand-1056 (V. N. Tatishchev. Op. ed., vol. II, p. 82; vol. IV, p. 152).

114 NIL, p. 183; PSRL. Vol. V, issue I, p. 132, etc.

115 This refers to precisely dated information about the Novgorod bishops: about the slander of Luka by his serf Dudika (1055), Luka's return to Novgorod and punishment of Dudika (1058), Luka's death "on the Kopys" on October 15, 1060 (PSRL. Vol. IV, part I, issue I, p. 118, 120; NIL, pp. 182, 183. There is no last news in the NIL).

116 Cf. instruction on the delivery of Stephen (1061) and his death from his own serfs in Kiev in 1068.

117 НІЛ, стр. 17; PSRL. Vol. IV, part I, issue I, p. 126.

118 Cf. B. A. Rybakov. Ancient Russia, pp. 198, 201-202, etc. The scientist connects the source with the Novgorod posadniks and dates its design to the time after the death of Yaroslav.

page 76

He is going to join the Varangians. The anti-Varangian sentiments of the Novgorod chronicler are easy to understand if we consider that before the death of Yaroslav, Novgorod was forced to pay tribute to them .119

Another possible Novgorod source was of ecclesiastical origin. It contained the exact dates recorded in the Constantinople era (while the secular narrative apparently did not have an absolute time reference). A number of subsequent decades are represented only by ecclesiastical data, and many of them, probably, retrospectively already in the XII century reproduced the events of the XI century.

The tale of bygone years is familiar only with one Novgorod source, which reached the 50s of the XI century. Further, for a long time, the Novgorod chronicle was not used in Kiev. They were not familiar there, in particular, with the Novgorod episcopal chronicle. This in itself speaks in favor of the existence of a Novgorod historical work of the middle of the XI century. But this work has been preserved most fully not in the Novella, but in the Novgorod - Sofia vaults. In turn, these vaults lead us to the Novgorod chronicle, compiled in the last third of the XII century and using the Old Russian chronicle. It is very possible that it is in the tradition of the latter that the earliest Novgorod records are most fully preserved. The very fact of their existence allows us to raise the question of the origin of some of the information recorded in the lists of the Novgorod I Chronicle 120 .

119 Since the tribute was paid precisely before Yaroslav's death, it can be assumed that it was not the real threat from the Varangians, but Yaroslav's political obligations, that put Novgorod in a position of dependence on them.

120 Lists of posadniks begin with the name of Gostomysl, who was attributed to the time of Rurik's "vocation". This part of the annals is legendary in all its parts. But, starting with the planting of Ilya Yaroslavich in Novgorod, the lists become quite reliable, and they partially coincide with the indications of the Novgorod chronicle identified above. Quite a documentary character is the message about the principality in Novgorod after the death of Vladimir Mstislav Izyaslavich, who had to flee to Kiev after the defeat "on Cheryokhi". The rest of the list is directly confirmed in the texts of the Novgorod chronicles.

page 77


© library.ee

Permanent link to this publication:

https://library.ee/m/articles/view/THE-BEGINNING-OF-THE-NOVGOROD-CHRONICLE

Similar publications: LEstonia LWorld Y G


Publisher:

Anna KostabiContacts and other materials (articles, photo, files etc)

Author's official page at Libmonster: https://library.ee/Kostabi

Find other author's materials at: Libmonster (all the World)GoogleYandex

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

A. G. KUZMIN, THE BEGINNING OF THE NOVGOROD CHRONICLE // Tallinn: Library of Estonia (LIBRARY.EE). Updated: 20.01.2025. URL: https://library.ee/m/articles/view/THE-BEGINNING-OF-THE-NOVGOROD-CHRONICLE (date of access: 17.02.2025).

Found source (search robot):


Publication author(s) - A. G. KUZMIN:

A. G. KUZMIN → other publications, search: Libmonster EstoniaLibmonster WorldGoogleYandex

Comments:



Reviews of professional authors
Order by: 
Per page: 
 
  • There are no comments yet
Related topics
Publisher
Anna Kostabi
Таллинн, Estonia
81 views rating
20.01.2025 (27 days ago)
0 subscribers
Rating
0 votes
Related Articles
ATTITUDE OF THE WORKING PEOPLE OF THE NATIONAL REGIONS OF RUSSIA TO THE QUESTION OF POWER ON THE EVE OF OCTOBER
17 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
V. O. KLYUCHEVSKY. UNPUBLISHED WORKS
17 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
BELARUSIAN-LITHUANIAN CHRONICLE
18 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
NOVGOROD ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPEDITION: RESULTS OF THE FIRST FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY. ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF NOVGOROD ; NOVGOROD COLLECTION. 50 YEARS OF EXCAVATIONS IN NOVGOROD
18 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
MOROZOV STRIKE
19 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
STARITSKY MUTINY
Catalog: История 
19 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
G. Z. IOFFE. KOLCHAK ADVENTURE AND ITS COLLAPSE
20 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
SHLISSELBURG PRISON IN 1884-1906
Catalog: История 
23 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
BORIS GEORGIEVICH WEBER
23 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
INTERNAL TROOPS AT THE FINAL STAGE OF THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR
23 days ago · From Anna Kostabi

New publications:

Popular with readers:

News from other countries:

LIBRARY.EE - Digital Library of Estonia

Create your author's collection of articles, books, author's works, biographies, photographic documents, files. Save forever your author's legacy in digital form. Click here to register as an author.
Library Partners

THE BEGINNING OF THE NOVGOROD CHRONICLE
 

Editorial Contacts
Chat for Authors: EE LIVE: We are in social networks:

About · News · For Advertisers

Digital Library of Estonia ® All rights reserved.
2014-2025, LIBRARY.EE is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map)
Keeping the heritage of Estonia


LIBMONSTER NETWORK ONE WORLD - ONE LIBRARY

US-Great Britain Sweden Serbia
Russia Belarus Ukraine Kazakhstan Moldova Tajikistan Estonia Russia-2 Belarus-2

Create and store your author's collection at Libmonster: articles, books, studies. Libmonster will spread your heritage all over the world (through a network of affiliates, partner libraries, search engines, social networks). You will be able to share a link to your profile with colleagues, students, readers and other interested parties, in order to acquaint them with your copyright heritage. Once you register, you have more than 100 tools at your disposal to build your own author collection. It's free: it was, it is, and it always will be.

Download app for Android