Completion of Stalin's Cycle A feature of the social sciences, among other things, is that the objects of their study usually speak for themselves. On the one hand, this is a blessing, but on the other hand, it is a source of additional difficulties and delusions. Because of this, the focus of the study

The origin of Svyatopolk the Accursed has been a subject of discussion among historians since the middle of the century before last, although the Tale of Bygone Years seems to call Svyatopolk's father Yaropolk, and not Vladimir, who took Yaropolkov's wife on his bed after the murder of her husband, and the Legend of the murder of Boris and Gleb reports Yaropolk's paternity is already obvious. And only in one ancient Russian monument - Reading about Boris and Gleb of Nestor, which also contains detailed information about the "second Cain", nothing is said about Yaropolk's paternity and Vladimir is named the parent of the murderer of Boris and Gleb. Nevertheless, even S. M. Solovyov considered Svyatopolk to be Vladimir's own son. Textual arguments in favor of the version about the unreliability of the news of the Tale of Bygone Years about Yaropolk and his wife, a Greek monk, not as the parents of Svyatopolk, were brought about a hundred years later by N. N. Ilyin. He noticed that these news, contained in articles under 6485 and 6488, are interpolations that violate the coherence of the chronicle text. Recently, L. Müller recognized these reports as inserts. L. Muller believed that the ancient Russian chronicler - the author of the insert about Svyatopolk and his father and mother - confused the Russian prince with his Polish namesake, prince Sventepulk, whose mother was, indeed, a nun, the daughter of Margrave Tiedrich. (Sventepulk and Svyatopolk were in the property, since Sventepulk's half-brother Boleslav was the father-in-law of the Russian prince.) Accordingly, Svyatopolk, as born of a nun who broke her vow, appeared to be the offspring of sin - the origins of the fratricide committed by Svyatopolk were allegedly discovered even in the circumstances associated with his conception and emergence. However, this bold assumption is unprovable. The historian S. M. Mikheev convincingly showed that the news of the Tale of Bygone Years under 6488 about the pregnancy of Svyatopolk's mother should be understood more as an indication of the paternity of Vladimir, and not Yaropolk; in the Old Russian original it is written: “Volodimer is the wife of his brother Grekinya. and it is not idle”, this statement means literally: “Vladimir began to sleep with his brother’s wife, a Greek woman, and she became pregnant”6. The author of the Tale of the Murder of Boris and Gleb understood this chronicle phrase as an indication of the paternity of Yaropolk, and not Vladimir, and therefore wrote that Vladimir took Yaropolkov's wife already pregnant with Svyatopolk. It was beneficial for the author of the Tale to whitewash Vladimir, not recognizing him as the father of the accursed Svyatopolk. The idea that the origin of Svyatopolk from Yaropolk (“from two fathers” and from a mother who violated a monastic vow) was “nothing more than a hagiographic motif”, designed to discredit the “second Cain” and break the “discrediting” family connection between him and the baptist of Rus', was expressed by the Polish historian A. Poppe. But in contrast to S. M. Mikheev, A. Poppe considers the hagiographic text of the news of the birth of Svyatopolk from Yaropolk to be primary in relation to the chronicle. Both L. Muller, and S. M. Mikheev, and A. Poppe, also settled in the birth of Svyatopolk a Greek woman - a former nun, suggesting that in reality she was a "Chechina" - one of Vladimir's wives, named in the chronicle article under 6488 (in the version of this article known to us, the birth of only one son from Vladimir, Vysheslav, is attributed to the “Czekhina”). I will dwell first on the textual arguments of the supporters of the version of Vladimir's paternity. The news about Yaropolk's wife really breaks the whole text of the annalistic article about the feud between the Svyatoslavichs: “And Olga was buried in the place of the city of Vruchoga. and this is the grave of the ϵth and until this day, oh Vruchiy. and taking power ϵgo Yaropolk. oh Yaropolka is the wife of Grekini bѣ. and more was blueberries. bѣbo brought ѡ͠ts ϵgo S͠toslav. and I give for Yaropolk beauty for the sake of her face. Hearing Volodymyr in Novgorod. like Yaropolk oubi Olga. afraid of running across the sea. and Yaropolk put his own posadniks in Novgorod. and bѣ Volodya ϵdin in Rus'. The message about the Greek woman in this fragment is clearly inappropriate.

BORISOGLEB CYCLE

TO THE PROBLEM OF EDITIONS OF THE TALE OF TIME YEARS. I

ETHNO-LINGUISTIC ACCESSORIES OF THE "RUSSIAN MOVA" DURING THE TIMES

OF THE GRAND PRINCIPALITY OF LITHUANIA AND THE COMMON

MOYSIENKO.................................................................. ................................................. .........................................53 GREEK ORIGINAL "WRITING ABOUT THE RIGHT FAITH" BY KONSTANTINE THE PHILOSOPHER: STRUCTURAL ORGANIZATION AND POLEMICAL TASKS

L. V. LUHOVITSKY .............................................. ................................................. ...................79 IN SEARCH OF OUR PAST: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES OF BULGARIAN CATHOLICS IN THE 18TH CENTURY Author: N. V. CHVYR............ ................................................. ...... CZECH CULTURE OF THE HUSITE PERIOD IN THE WORKS OF DOMESTIC HISTORIANS IN THE END OF THE 40S OF THE XX - THE BEGINNING OF THE XXI CENTURY Author: I. I. BUCHANOV......................... ................................................. ................................................. ............................. A. A. CAKE. North-Western Khazaria in the context of the history of Eastern Europe (second half of the 7th - third quarter of the 10th century) Author: T. M. Kalinina...................... .......... Holy princes-martyrs Boris and Gleb Author: A. E. Musin.......................... ...................... J. BOUBIN. Petr Chelcicky. Myslitel a reformator Author: L. M. Garkusha.................................. E. P. SERAPIONOVA. Karel Kramař and Russia. 1890 - 1937 Author: V. I. Kosik. PRAGUE FORUM OF YOUNG SLAVISTS Author: Yu. V. Kirillov, D. K. Polyakov................................. ................................................. ................................................. ................ ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF INNESA ILYINICHNA SVIRIDA.................................. ................................. ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF LYUDMILA NORAYROVNA BUDAGOV ................... ........................................... DIFFERENCES IN DESCRIPTIONS OF EVENTS AND RELATIONSHIPS s) S. M. MIKHEEV Source Slavic studies, № 5, 2007, C. 3- ARTICLES Heading Place of publication Moscow, Russia Volume 63.3 Kbytes Number of words Permanent address of the article http://ebiblioteka.ru/browse/doc/ DIFFERENCES IN DESCRIPTIONS OF EVENTS AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE TEXTS OF THE BORISOGLEB CYCLE Author: S. M. MIKHEEV About the bloody events of 1015-1019 that followed the death of Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich of Kyiv, in addition to the annals, two ancient Russian hagiographic monuments narrate: Nestorovo "Reading about the life and death the blessing of the blessed martyrs Boris and Gleb "(hereinafter - Read.) and the anonymous "Legend and Passion and Praise to the Holy Martyrs Boris and Gleb" (hereinafter - Tale). The chronicle describes in detail the death of Boris and Gleb and the struggle between Yaroslav and Svyatopolk. In Cheten. and Skaz. stories about the murder of Boris and Gleb are more extensive, and the struggle between Svyatopolk and Yaroslav is consecrated in less detail.

The description of these events in all three sources is somewhat different, although the parallels between the sites have never raised doubts among researchers about their close dependence on each other. Meanwhile, the problem of the history of the texts of the Borisoglebsk cycle remains debatable in science.

The question of the relationship between the "Tales of the Miracles of the Holy Passion-Bearers Roman and David" 1 with that part of Chten., which describes the miracles that occurred after the death of Boris and Gleb, has been studied in most detail. Unfortunately, the study of this issue does little to resolve the problem of the correlation of the chronicle, Skaz. and that part of Read., where we are talking about the civil strife of the Vladimirovichs.

Much more copies have been broken about the time of the canonization of Boris and Gleb (see references), which is also not directly related to the topic of interest to us.

A. A. Shakhmatov devoted to the question of the relationship between the texts of the Borisoglebsk cycle the largest chapter of his "Research on the most ancient Russian annals" . The researcher suggested that Mikheev Savva Mikhailovich Jr. Researcher Isl RAS.

Sometimes researchers include the "Tale of Miracles" in the composition of the Tale, since in manuscripts these monuments are almost always adjacent - "The Tale of Miracles" is placed after the Tale. However, such a combination is not entirely correct - the first part of the Tale of Miracles, in which Boris and Gleb are consistently called Roman and David, contains a text that is certainly older than the Tale.

pp. a quarter of the 11th century. an annalistic legend about Boris and Gleb was written, which was included in the "Ancient Chronicle Code" (hereinafter - Ancient St.). The event side of this version of the story about Boris and Gleb, according to A. A. Shakhmatov, was reflected in Chten almost unchanged, which makes it possible for us to reconstruct the Ancient. St. . At the end of the 11th century, according to A. A. Shakhmatov, on the basis of the Ancient. St. The "Initial Chronicle Code" (hereinafter - the Beginning of St.) was compiled, in which the actual part of the legend about Boris and Gleb was significantly modified under the influence of various new sources attracted by the editor of the chronicle - for the most part, local legends. According to A. A. Shakhmatov, this vault was also used by Cheten around 1115.

Later, the concept of A. A. Shakhmatov was criticized. However, none of the subsequent researchers studied in such detail as A. A. Shakhmatov, the ratio of actual sources of information about the civil strife of 1015 - 1019. and her background.

In this article, I want to raise again the question of the significance of differences in the description of events for the problem of the relationship between the texts of the Borisoglebsk cycle.

Let us first turn to the differences of the anonymous Skaz. and chronicles.

In the presentation of the factual side of events Tale. almost everywhere according to PVL.

Meanwhile, it should be noted the absence in Skaz. some specific information of the annals, which was pointed out by A.I.

the legend does not know these narrow terms and replaces them with broader and more characteristic of the literary language of his time: men and a ship. The replacement of narrow concepts by broader ones is quite natural and easy (so we can freely replace the narrow name frigate with the broad name ship);

as for the reverse substitution, it was hardly possible: it was not at all necessary for the chronicler, who, moreover, liked to flaunt the book word ".

The most significant contribution to the comparison of chronicle and Skaz. introduced by A. A. Shakhmatov.

“I reject in the most decisive way the possibility of borrowing a chronicle legend from a hagiographic one subject to our study (Skaz. - S. M.), wrote A. A. Shakhmatov. “A hagiographic legend does not contain anything significant that would not be in the chronicle;

it differs from the chronicle legend in one rhetoric...;

so, long speeches and lamentations are inserted in it, first by Boris, then by Gleb;

long reflections are attributed to Svyatopolk himself after he killed Gleb. The chronicle is full of definite facts;

there is little rhetoric in it;

in essence, the rhetoric broke through only in Gleb's dying lament. We know the value of the facts reported by our chronicle;

if the chronicler was able in one way or another to present a long series of events of the 10th and 11th centuries, then it is natural to attribute to him the inclusion in the letter of the facts relating to the murder of Boris and Gleb;

these facts are consistent with others reported by him earlier and appearing in him later.

A. A. Shakhmatov also noted the absence of "grounds for the assumption of a common source, which would guide, on the one hand, hagiographic, and on the other, chronicle legend." According to the researcher, “with the exception of common pages with the chronicle of facts, only rhetoric and lyrics will remain in the life;

consequently, to assume for life a source different from the chronicle, not identical with the chronicle, seems completely superfluous;

rhetoric and lyrics could have been directly composed by the compiler of the life" 2.

Recently, to compare the annals and the Tale. contacted N. I. Milyutenko.

The researcher noted that in contrast to the chronicle with its "stingy imagery" in Skaz. we find more definitions, participial turns, antitheses and repetitions, a much larger role in the narrative of Skaz. quotes play. Analyzing the use in the texts of the Borisoglebsk cycle of the epithets saint and blessed in relation to Boris and Gleb, N. I. Milyutenko demonstrated that these definitions are rare in the annals, and made the assumption that they were originally absent in the annals and were inserted into the text along with other late interpolations .

Both features identified by N. I. Milyutenko seem to support the conclusion of A. A. Shakhmatov about the impossibility of developing from Skaz. to chronicle.

Let us now consider in detail several similar fragments of the Chronicle and Skaz., in order to test the conclusions of previous researchers using these examples.

Under 6496, in most Russian chronicles, a detailed list of the sons of Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich is read:

"Volodimir himself and s (s) n (o) vi him * and his land * for oh him s (s) n (o) v * 12 * Vysheslav * Izyaslav * S (vya) topolk * and Yaropolk * Vsevolod S (vya) toslav * Mstislav * Boris and * Stanislav * Pozvizd * Sudislav * and put Vysheslav in * a Izyaslav in * a C (vya) topolk in * Yaroslav in * and the dead elder * Vysheslav in * and put Yaroslav in * a Boris in Ro S. A. Bugoslavsky, who consistently compared in his dissertation the entire similar text of the Tale and Chronicle, came to the following conclusions: "A detailed comparison of Sk[az]. with a chronicle] testifies that the author Sk[az]. almost rewrote all the material of the chronicle story about the death of the brothers. He omits very little (see passages 3, 5), but more often he disseminates what was said in the annals in rhetorically extended turns (excerpts 6, 7, 9, 11, 21, 22), sometimes from short messages The chronicle builds whole episodes with artistically created details (excerpts 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21). However, given independent work, moving away from the chronicle text or trying to combine other articles of the L[etopisi], author Sk[az]. is lost, often falls into contradictions. He does not know how to coordinate the factual details he created with the presentation of his source, he loses the thread of the chronological narrative (see passages 11, 12, 17, 18, 21, 22) ".

hence hagiographic commonplaces are random and few in number. The author of the Tale diligently outlined the entire text of the chronicle article, occasionally deviating from its phraseology, omitting only a few sentences. Having set himself the task of writing the life of B[oris] and G[leb], the author of the Tale could not confine himself to the historical material of the annalistic article of 6523 and its few hagiographic passages;

he had to turn to the general hagiographic literary material. The author of the Tale puts lengthy prayers and speeches into the mouths of his heroes, which emphasizes their non-resistance to evil and respect for generic concepts, obedience to elders, love for one's neighbor, piety and religious disposition. The description of the death of the brothers, laconic and simple in the annals, the author of the Tale expands into figurative episodes, where his unconditional artistic talent was manifested. The author of the Tale shows the greatest independence in lyrical places - in prayers.

All these observations of S. A. Bugoslavsky are undoubtedly correct.

pp. * From (vya) tostava to Vsevolod in "3.

Mstislav It is easy to see that the brothers who are first on the list get the most significant reigns. From this it follows that Vladimirovichi are listed in this list by seniority. About Vysheslav - the first in the list - it is specifically said that he was the eldest of the brothers.

Under 6488, another list of the sons of Vladimir is given in the annals. This list is very different in structure from the one quoted above: it is supplemented by an indication of the mothers of the Vladimirovichs, the children are listed in a different order. In the Novgorod First Chronicle of the younger edition (NovgІml)4, in the Lavrentiev (Lavr.) and Radzivilov (Radz.) Chronicles we find approximately the same text. I bring it to NewgIml:

but Volodimer with the lust of a woman, and were led by him:

to the south, plant on the idea there is a settlement of Peredslavino, from which 4 sons were born: Izyaslav, Mstislav, Yaroslav, Vsevolod, and daughters;

from Svyatopolk, and from Vysheslav, and from another Svyatoslav, "5.

Mstislav, and from Boris and The second list has several features, the meaning of which is not entirely clear. Firstly, the question arises why instead of twelve sons, as in the list of 6496, only ten and two daughters are listed here. Secondly, it is not clear why the Vladimirovichi are not in the list of 6488 according to their seniority. In the list of 6496, Vysheslav is named the first son. That is, if the author of the list, Mr., wanted to compile a list by seniority, then first of all he should have reported that Vysheslav was the son of Vladimir from a Czech.

I. N. Danilevsky drew attention to the connection between the list of 6488 and the biblical list of the sons of Jacob in the Book of Genesis: “Jacob had twelve sons.

Leah's sons: Jacob's firstborn Reuben, after him Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar and Zebulun. Rachel's sons: Joseph and Benjamin. The sons of Valla, Rachelin's servant: Dan and Naphtali. The sons of Zilpah, the maidservant of Lina: Gad and Asher "(Gen. 35: 22 - 26).

The fact that the children of Vladimir are distributed in the list of 6488 according to their mothers, like the sons of Jacob, according to I. N. Danilevsky, speaks of the desire of the chronicler to connect the heroes of his story with biblical characters.

In my opinion, in addition to the very fact of the distribution of Vladimir's sons (and daughters) by mothers, the structural similarity that the lists have is of great importance. With the parallel arrangement of the sons of Jacob and Vladimir in Table 1, indicating the mothers (subject to the order of their listing in the biblical and chronicle lists), cells are formed that clearly correspond to each other.

Wed . In all lists except the Ipatiev list Ipat.

instead of Yaropolk, Yaroslav is indicated. In Lavr. Svyatopolk and Yaroslav are listed in reverse order. In Radz. missing text after the words of Vysheslav in up to the words of Yaroslav in inclusive.

In the older version, the part of the chronicle, which includes the text of the list, is missing.

Wed . In several lists Ipat. instead of the second Mstislav there is a pass. In the Ipatiev list, Stanislav is attributed here in the margins. In all chronicles except Lavr. instead, it is erroneously read "from the other".

p. Only when looking at this table it becomes clear why the chronicler needed to supplement the list with two daughters and list older sons after the younger ones. It was precisely the correspondence of the number of children from each of the wives that was of decisive importance in compiling the chronicle list6.

For us now it is not important what idea the chronicler wanted to convey to his reader, drawing the parallel described above7. It is important that in Skaz. the list of Vladimir's sons differs in its structure from chronicle lists:

"Because then Volodymyr sons 12, not from a single wife, not from their mothers, in them was Vysheslav, and after him Izyaslav, 3 - Svyatopolk, even the murder of this evil This mother was a black woman, a grkyni, and sang Yaropulk Volodymyr, brother Volodymyr, and raised the beauty of her face, and conceived from her this Svyatoplek okannaago. Volodymyr, the filthy one, having killed Yaroplk and give his wife a drink, I am not an idle being, from her this okanny Svyatoplk was born. And be from two father and brother I exist, but Volodymyr does not love him, as if I do not exist from myself to him. And from Ro 4 the sons of Izyaslav, and Mstislav, and Yaroslav, and Vsevolod. And from another Svyatoslav and Mstislav, and from Boris and reigning, we’ll say elsewhere. It’s the same, it’s about them, and there is. Put this late Svyatoplek in the reign, and Yaroslav - and Boris - I’ll stop talking a lot, but don’t forget to write too much. "

There are two contradictions in our text. Firstly, the correspondence of the number of children from each of the wives was not observed in the case of Rachel. Secondly, Svyatopolk was placed in front of his elder brother Vysheslav. To clarify the reasons for these contradictions, a detailed examination of the chronicle information about the Greek mother of Svyatopolk is necessary. Such a consideration within the framework of this article, unfortunately, is impossible.

N. Danilevsky.

page A. A. Shakhmatov suggested that in this fragment the Tale. glued together two chronicles of Vladimirovichs - 6496 and 6488. According to A. A. Shakhmatov, “according to the chronicle, the compiler of the hagiographic legend reported that Vladimir had 12 sons from several wives;

Vysheslav is named the elder (cf.

Pov. temp. years under 988), the second - Izyaslav (cf. ibid.), the third named Svyatopolk (in the Rev. vr. l. under 988 he was also named third, in the Radz. and Ipat. lists);

at the same time, we read: “this mother, before the guardian of Grkyni, was living ...” (cf. Pov. vr. l. under 977 and 980). The appeal from article 988 to article 980 had the consequence that extracts continued already from this article: “and from Ro 4 the sons of Izyaslav, and Mstislav and Yaroslav and Vsevolod, and from another Svyatoslav and Mstislav, and from Boris and” (cf. exactly the same in Pov.

under 980)" .

Identified by A. A. Shakhmatov, the peculiarity of the structure of the list of Vladimirovichs in Skaz. can be illustrated in Table 2.

So, an analysis of the lists of the sons of Vladimir in various texts of the Borisoglebsky cycle convinces us that Skaz. from chronicle 8.

I do not intend to make a further detailed comparison of the chronicle with the Tale, since practically the rest of the text of these monuments can be interpreted both in favor of the primacy of the chronicle and in favor of the primacy of the Tale, however, such an interpretation will almost always be purely hypothetical.

I am not aware of any arguments that can outweigh the above evidence that the text of Skaz. based on chronicle text.

pp. Let us now consider the relationship between the annals and Chten.

Nestor's "Reading" differs from the chronicle primarily in that in it we do not find most of the specific information known from the chronicle. This feature is expressed in Chten. much stronger than in Skaz. Instead of listing the sons of Vladimir, the author is Chten. briefly reports: there were many sons at Vladimir, instead of listing their tables, he says: Let the prince send his sons to his own region, as if he himself gave them. Instead of the Pechenegs in Chten. warriors appear.

Not in Chten. details of the burial of Vladimir. Alta and Smyadyn, where Boris and Gleb were killed, respectively, are not mentioned at all. The golden hryvnia and the beheading of Borisov's servant George are not mentioned. The retinue corresponds to Nestor's howls that exist with him [Boris]. Vyshegorodsky men, listed in the annals by name, in Chten. simply called the servants of Svyatopolk.

Instead of Novgorod we find midnight countries. The leader of the murderers sent by Svyatopolk, Gleb Goryaser, is not mentioned. The cook Gleba Torchin is called by Nestor simply the old man the cook. Yaroslav's struggle with Svyatopolk is briefly spoken of: and the other brothers were persecuted9.

In addition, Nestor's story in places looks more logical than in the annals.

So, there is no double description of the murder of Boris (this feature will be discussed in more detail below), there is no story about the somewhat chaotic movements of Gleb before his murder, which we find in the annals.

Nestor also has some details that are not in the annals: about Vyshgorod it is specified that it is 15 stages from Kyiv, about Kyiv - that it is the capital10.

Comparing Cheten. with the chronicle, A. A. Shakhmatov wrote: “So, the connection of Nestor’s legend with the chronicle is obvious;

even common phrases can be noted in them.

It is especially important that the course of the story is the same in both tales. This connection can, of course, be explained in three ways: Nestor used the annals;

the chronicle used Nestor;

Nestor and the chronicle used one common source.

I cannot recognize the first explanation as consistent, if by chronicle we mean the beginning. vault or Tale vr. years. I will not put forward the argument that this chronicle is younger than Nestor's legend;

I deny the very possibility that Nestor knew the chronicle legend in the form in which it has come down to us, as part of at least the Primary Code;

I deny it because I definitely would not understand the reasons for Nestor's sharp deviation from the actual one. A. A. Shakhmatov believed that there was no indication of the exact place of Boris's death in Ancient. St., as in Chten. According to the scientist, "if it was in the Ancient Code, Nestor would not have had reason to omit it: instead of saying" and the youths themselves will stay on that day, "he could put:" on the day of you "". Obviously, A. A. Shakhmatov did not attach much importance to the fact that in Chten. almost all similar specific details are missing.

A. A. Shakhmatov also believed that the name of George's servant was not reported in Ancient. sv.: "I doubt that Nestor would deliberately withhold his name, if he knew it;

It seems to me that this would be contrary to the usual hagiological methods. It is one thing not to name the accursed murderers or to omit the name of that lord of the city, whose son was awarded healing, and another thing is to hide the name of the saint of God.

One gets the impression that Cheten. was created, among other things, for readers who are not familiar with Russian realities.

page of a part of the chronicle legend that has come down to us, if this latter was known to him ".

Here are all the differences Cheten. from the annals with which A. A. Shakhmatov substantiated this point of view.

Firstly, A. A. Shakhmatov believed that Nestor reports the reign of Boris in Vladimir-Volynsky, although according to the annals, he received Rostov. This opinion of A. A. Shakhmatov is based on the interpretation of the following phrase by Nestor:

ambassador and [i.e. Boris] then the father and the region of Vladimir to the south will give him, but leave the saint with you. A. A. Shakhmatov understands the word Vladimer here as a toponym.

Meanwhile, S. A. Bugoslavsky explained this passage as follows:

"[P]rying into account Nestor's consistent method of not naming proper names, even important ones for his story, like Kyiv, Vyshgorod, Yaroslav, the Glebov killers, on the other hand, knowing that Nestor uses factual material only from chronicles and legends, we believe that "Vladimer" here is the prince's own name (Nestor does not avoid him), and not the name of the region;

the word "Vladimer", thus, is an appendix to the word father, but it is delivered, from the point of view of the modern language, out of place. Therefore, in Reading there is nothing new here in comparison with the Tale and Chronicle ". This is the assumption of S.A.

Bugoslavsky is confirmed when referring to the manuscript tradition: in a number of manuscripts, the words Vladimer will give him more are missing.

Secondly, A. A. Shakhmatov considered Cheten to be a serious discrepancy. and the annals in the description of events that, according to Nestor, Vladimir left Gleb with him in Kyiv, although according to the annals, Gleb was given an inheritance by Murom. This difference in the texts was also analyzed by S. A. Bugoslavsky: “Nestor here retreats from Sk[az], which names the destinies of B[oris] and G[leb];

he says that Vladimir kept Boris and Gleb at his place "outside the same child of the best." If Nestor had said this about Gleb alone, we might think that his statement goes back to a different source;

but he says that Boris, too, stayed with his father;

below, however, and Nestor reports that B[oris] was sent "to the region";

therefore, in this digression one could see only a literary motive: Nestor wanted to paint a picture of the pious cohabitation of both brothers (see XVI;

Below Nestor (XVI;

196) nevertheless, according to Sk[az], makes Boris come to his father, who was afraid that Svyatopolk would not shed the blood of the righteous ".

Thirdly, A. A. Shakhmatov attributed Chten. from the annals is that, according to Nestor, Gleb met his killers when he went from Kyiv to the north in boats, and not from Murom to Kyiv - first on horses and only then in boats - as the chronicle reports. A. A. Shakhmatov considered the plot to be Chten.

initial in relation to the chronicle, but did not give any arguments in favor of this opinion. In my opinion, reverse development is easier to imagine:

Nestor could simplify the plot of his source in order not to describe the strange movements of Gleb, since he considered such a description unnecessary.

Here S. A. Bugoslavsky refers to the words "Sitsa to him [Boris], praying all the hours, and the saint obey him, and do not leave blessed Boris, but listen to him day and night" .

pp. All these observations force us to abandon the point of view of A. A. Shakhmatov, who argued that the chronicle, similar in its factual data to the PVL, could in no way be the source of Chten.

Leaving aside for the time being the question of the primacy of the chronicle or Chten., let's compare the two hagiographic monuments that tell about the murder of Boris and Gleb.

Researchers have long paid attention to the fact that in Chten. and Skaz. we find a number of parallel readings that do not have prototypes in the text of the annals. This suggests that either the author is Chten. used Skaz., or vice versa. Most of these parallels are associated with rhetorical embellishments, but there are also intersections in the presentation of the event series.

A. A. Shakhmatov and S. A. Bugoslavsky drew diametrically opposite conclusions about the relationship between Chten. and Skaz.

S. A. Bugoslavsky defended the opinion about the dependence of Chten. from Skaz.: "Almost all the parallels we have considered (especially our passages 1, 5, 7, 9, 16, 18, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 38, 39) indicate Nestor's direct dependence on the text of the Tale.

Here there can be no question of a common source Cht[en]. and Sk[az]. However, parallels 14, 19 and 21 bring the Reading closer to the annals. Therefore, Nestor also knew the annalistic narration about B[oris] and G[leb] (below we will show that he also uses other places in the annals). The entire factual side of the Tale with subsequent miracles was used by Nestor in part with changes;

he sets out his Reading in the same sequence in which the story of the Tale is conducted (some digressions in the Tale of miracles are noted above). Therefore, the Legend was the main source of Reading12. The legend was invariably before the eyes of Nestor during his work on the "life" of B[orys] and G[leb], because he also used it in relation to the text. However, he did not consider it to meet the requirements of the Byzantine hagiographic style;

that is why he set about his Reading;

therefore he does not borrow text from prayers and speeches actors Legends, therefore, he diligently reworks both the factual and stylistic side of his main source.

Meanwhile, all the conclusions of S. A. Bugoslavsky can be reversed exactly the opposite. Giving a long list of textual parallels Chten. and Skaz. , the researcher only in one case tries to prove the primacy of the text Tale: dependence Read. from Skaz. S. A. Bugoslavsky saw in various indications of the time of the reign of Vladimir, contained in the introductions to these monuments:

"Sitse ubo was a little before these 13, I exist self-driving the whole land of Volodymyr" (Skaz.).

“Be more, speech, a prince in your years, volodya of all the Russian land, named Vladimir” (Reader).

In this case, together with D.V. Aynalov, we will not have to create a story about B[oris] and G[leb] that has not come down to us and is not mentioned anywhere, allegedly written by Metropolitan. John I (see IORYAS, vol. XV (1910), book 3, pp. 41 - 42). All references to "unknown author" ("speech") refer to anon. Sk[az]. and etc.

famous monuments. In our article about Nestor mentioned above, these references and their sources are written out (chap.

here those puzzling questions that arise if we assume that Sk[az].

uses Reading. (Note by S.A. Bugoslavsky. - S.M.) In some lists, a page has been added. According to the scientist, the words in tyi years, of course, should have been written later than the expression malm before now. This conclusion S.A.

Bugoslavsky does not seem conclusive to me.

All other parallels between Chten. and Skaz., cited by the researcher, prove only the close connection of these monuments, but not that Nestor used the "Tale".

Meanwhile, not wanting to believe in the possibility of reverse development of texts, S.A.

Bugoslavsky asks the opponents of his point of view the following questions:

"If we assume that the anonymous Legend used the Reading, using the annalistic story as well, as Academician A.I. Sobolevsky and Academician A.

A. Shakhmatov, then we would have to answer such questions 14. Why did the Legend not reflect a single fact and expression that are the product of the personal creativity of St. Nestor, or taken by him from other sources besides the annals? Why, having a ready-made life, more complete and close to hagiographic samples, the author of the anonymous Tale nevertheless based his story on the chronicle, drawing from Nestor only individual expressions scattered in different places of the life and creating from them an integral Praise (at the end of the Tale), while did he have to unravel the obscure places of his source? Why did the legend of the miracles of St. Nestor;

if we assume that the Tale of the Murder and the Tale of Miracles were written by the same author, then why did he not accept the detailed edition of the miracle about the dry-handed wife, which Nestor heard from the healed woman herself, but transmits it from another less informed source? Why is the author of the Tale where St. Nestor does not agree with the chronicle, did he refer to this latter, and not to Reading? Why, finally, the author of the Tale, if he used the Reading, where the Praise at the end, after the Tale of Miracles, inserted it in the middle of the work, highlighting the Tale of Miracles in a separate story?

4. First, as already mentioned, S. A. Bugoslavsky revealed that many of the discrepancies of Chten. with the annals are explained by the tendentiousness of the hagiographer.

Obviously, this fact could also be revealed by the compiler of the Tale. Secondly, the question of S. A. Bugoslavsky is not entirely correct, since the author of Skaz. often contaminated the information of the chronicle and Nestor, which differed in content, which will be demonstrated below.

So, probably, the theory of S. A. Bugoslavsky about the primacy of Skaz. towards Chten. was based on his a priori opinion about the time of the compilation of the Tale. and Chten., derived from a comparison of the "Tale of Miracles" with the second part of Chten.

Thus, the problem of correlation Skaz. and Cheten. requires further research.

Consider one interesting feature, which is available in all the main versions of the story about the murder of Boris - a kind of bifurcation of the murder16.

This is how the final part of the murder of Boris in the Lavr is described, which, apparently, quite accurately reflected the beginning in this segment. St.17:

1) "and prayed to him * climbed on his own * and now attacked like a divi near the tent * and nasunush and spears * and bored Boris 2) and his servant * fell on him probodosha with him * for this we love Borisom * byache lad be born with (s) n Ouguresk * the name of Georgi * his beloved great Boris * more he put the hryvnia on the great gold * in the same place before him * and beaten and other youths of Borisov are many * Georgevi is not able to this * remove the hryvnia from his head * and tacos removed [hryvnia * but rejected the head] and not this in the corpse * 3) Boris, having killed the ocannia in the tent * put him on a stake and carried him * and still breathing him * the same okanny C (vya) poplar as if still breathing * two ambassadors The Varyag will finish him off * the one who came * as if he is still alive * alone he took out the sword through it and to the heart * and thus died bl (a) f (e) nyi Boris ".

Three unequal parts can be distinguished in this fragment: (1) a description of Boris being wounded by spears in a tent (22 words), (2) more detailed description the murder of his servant George (77 words) and (3) a description of the murder of Boris by two Varangians, spe This plot has already been discussed in my report (see).

The story about the murder of Boris does not have serious differences in the oldest lists of the PVL and in NovgIml.

Most likely, as A. A. Shakhmatov suggested, it was read in approximately the same form in the Beginning. St. .

The division into paragraphs and their numbering in Arabic numerals behind parentheses here and below in the text of the sources are mine. - CM.

Words in square brackets are missing from Lavr. Text pasted from Radz. In the Ipatiev list Ipat.: that hryvnia * and the head away, in the Khlebnikov list (Khlebn.) Ipat.: the hryvnia that * head away. In Novg_ml: rejecting his head away (Commission (Commiss.) list), reject his head away (Academic (Academic) list).

In Radz., in Commiss. and Troitsk. Novg_ml - In Ipat. see more. In Acad. Novg_ml Tolst. Novg_ml Reconstruction by A. A. Shakhmatov. In Lavr. no words in square brackets, in Radz. and Novg_ml and in Ipat. and seen, in Khlebn.

page sent by Svyatopolk, who learned that Boris was still alive (52 words).

In the text Chen. the episode with the finishing off of Boris by two Varangians seems to be absent, although instead there is a motive for finishing off by "one of the destroyers":

1) "And they, like divi, attacked n and lowered the stench of their sulits.

2) And behold, from the servants standing by him, fall on him, they also pierced that one, 3) and the blessed dead being, gone out.

4) Blessed one, jump up, having been, gone out of the tent 5) and praying to heaven, speaking the verb. (Prayer of Boris.) 6) Behold, he reksha, one from the destroyer, flow, strike at his heart, and so blessed Boris will betray his soul in God, on July 24th day ".

7) In the Tale. a similar snippet looks even more complicated:

1) "And the shining of weapons and swords that flow to the shrine And without mercy, the most gracious and many-merciful holy and blessed Christ's passion-bearer Boris was pierced: putting on copies of the end of Putsha, Talts, Elovich, Lyashko.

but, his youth, turning on the blessed one, the river: "Yes, I will not stop 2) my dear lord, but where your beauty fades, I will be able to cut off my belly." Byashe was born Ugrin, named George, and put gold on hryvnia, and we love Boris more And the same and pierced.

3) And as if you were hurt, and run away and shatara in 4) And start saying standing around him: "Who are you standing with sight? Coming closer, let us stop."

5) Hearing this, the blessed one began to pray and had mercy on them, saying: “My dear and beloved brothers, give me a little time, so I will pray to my God.”

6) And to heaven with tears and sighing, begin to pray with these verbs. (Prayer of Boris 22.) 7) And we touched our eyes to them and fell down, and shedding tears, saying: "Brothers, come, finish your service, and be peace to my brother and to you, brethren." Yes, if I hear his words, from tears I can’t utter a word, from fear and sadness bitter and many tears;

and with a bitter sigh, pitifully say ahu and weep, and every one in his soul groans. “Alas for us, our dear and precious and blessed prince, the driver of clothes naked, life of old age, the pointer of the unpunished! "Who does not perceive the great mind of humility, who does not see and hear it?" 8) And abie sleep, betraying your soul to God alive, Julie on the 24th day, before the 9th of August.

p. 10) And there were many servants;

but George is not able to take off the hryvnia, and the head, otvrgosh and could not know him.

11) Blessed Boris is in the tent, having put him on a stake, carried him, - and, as if on a forest, begin to bow his holy head. And behold, Svyatoplak sent two Varangians, and a probodost and a sword in the middle, and taco died.

This text turns out to be longer and more complex in structure than the texts of the annals and Chten.

Let's compare all the given texts in Table 3 (the numbers in the columns indicate the number of words in each of the selected segments).

Table Episodes Beginning Read. Tale.

wounding Boris with spears N 22 15 wounding a servant (George) N2 (47+ 15 killers leaving the tent cf. N N3 - Boris running out of the tent cf. N N4 - "him" running out of the tent cf. N N5 - calling the killers to finish N6 - - Boris Boris's request for prayer N7 - - Boris's prayer N8 - 97 Boris's call to the killers N9 - - to finish him off and the killers' humble speech death of Boris cf. N cf. N N 10 13 date of death cf. N N - Boris 11 +30) murder servants of Boris, N - cutting off the head of George finishing off Boris and his N 52 21 death indication of the date of death cf. N N - Borisa 14 The revealed ratio of stories about the murder of Boris makes me ask two questions: (1) why in the texts listed above we are faced with the repeated murder of Boris;

(2) why the ancient Russian scribes (whose stories are obviously dependent on each other) so modified their sources when describing the murder of Boris.

A. A. Shakhmatov suggested that the description of finishing off Boris by the Varangians was taken "from some legend". The researcher believed that the episode with the finishing off of Boris by the Vikings was absent in Ancient. St., therefore, there was no bifurcation of the murder. According to the scientist, later this text was superimposed by a local legend about the murder of the prince in the Dorogozhich tract between Vyshgorod and Kyiv, and the compiler of St. I needed to insert into my story the motive of finishing off Boris in order to put together two different versions of the murder. Thus, according to A. A. Shakhmatov, the description of the murder of Boris in Chten. - one of the clearest examples of the reflection in this monument of an earlier chronicle story than the one that has come down to us.

Descriptions of the murder of George and the cutting off of the head of George in the annals are a single text.

Page NN Ilyin also wondered about the origin of the bifurcation of the murder of Boris. In his opinion, the description of the murder was influenced by the fact that "on the way" on the forest "some kind of confusion occurred, the cortege stopped, and observers saw from a distance near the deceased, wrapped in a tent, two Varangians with drawn swords" 24.

Unfortunately, all these considerations are not very convincing.

In my opinion, the study of the history of the origin of the source can help solve the problem of the bifurcation of the description of the murder of Boris. I've had to deal with this issue before. This plot has come down to us not only in ancient Russian texts, but also in the story of the murder of King Burislav in the Old Icelandic "Eimund's strand", which tells that before killing Burislav, Eimund, with his brother Ragnar and several Icelanders, pulled up his tent on a rope, tied to a large tree, throwing a rope over a golden ball at the top of Burislav's tent. The plots of Old Russian and Old Icelandic stories are quite dissimilar, but each of them is close in its own way to the plot of the ancient Scandinavian legend about the death of the Svean king Agni, known from Snorri Sturluson's Ynglinga Saga. According to this legend, Agni was hung on a tree with a rope tied to a golden hryvnia around his neck. The proximity of the plots suggests that the Old Russian and Old Icelandic stories about the murder of Boris go back to the same source. It was a story based on an allusion to the legend of the death of Agni. Obviously, the Scandinavians were named the killers of Boris in this narrative (for more details, see).

The logical explanation for the bifurcation of the murder of Boris in the light of the foregoing seems to be the following: in the initial recording of the Old Russian story about the murder of Boris, two main oral sources were used, dating back to the original oral narrative about the murder of Boris. In the more complete of these sources, information was already lost that the murderers of Boris were Scandinavian mercenaries25. The second source was rumors that the killers were two Varangians26.

Obviously, Nestor changed his source a lot because of the desire to clear the narrative of excessive specificity. The plot of the dark chronicle narration, which first spoke about the attack on Boris (who was in the tent) near the tent, and then about the repeated murder of Boris, who was being taken from the place of the first murder, by one of the two Varangians27, was turned into Chten. on the other hand, N. N. Ilyin compared the bifurcated description of the death of Boris with a similar episode in the lives of St. Wenceslas: “In the legends about Vyacheslav, as well as in the story of the murder of Boris and Gleb, we find: , and his insidious proposals to his victim, and the warnings that the latter received from his well-wishers;

the details of the situation of the murder coincide: the night, the dying matins, the beating and robbery of the prince's close associates, and even the murder itself, not immediately, but, as it were, in two stages;

the death of the killers of Vyacheslav is reported in almost the same terms as the death of Svyatopolk;

miraculous phenomena, thanks to which the body of Gleb was found, are the same as the signs that the body of Vyacheslav's grandmother, Lyudmila, revealed herself to be.

This legend, probably, has already been superimposed on the legend that Boris was killed by Vyshegorodtsy.

These rumors were probably based on information that two people were at the head of the assassination squad - Eymund and his brother Ragnar, who are described in "Eymund's Strand". Wed .

“Behold, I rekshyu to him, one from the destroyer, flow, strike at his heart, and so blessed Boris will betray his soul in God” (Reader). Thus, Nestor (1) corrected the confusion of his source with the murder of roofing felts in the tent, roofing felts near it, (2) corrected the confusion with the re-sending of the murderers and the double murder, (3) removed the specifics, replacing the Varangians with the destroyers. The author of Skaz. probably had at his disposal both the text of the chronicle and Nesterov's "Readings", therefore in Skaz. we find no longer a doubling, but practically a tripling of the murder:

here is separately described both the wounding of Boris in the tent, and the death near the tent (as in Chten.), and the repeated murder by two Vikings (as in the chronicle). We also note that Boris's exit from the tent ended up in Skaz. turned into George's exit - probably this inconsistency arose due to the inattention of the author of the Tale. when the texts of the Chronicle and Chten are contaminated. In addition, the table above shows that a large "rhetorical" fragment was wedged into the story about George. Prayer and related subjects borrowed from Chten. (where the episode with George is abbreviated28), in Skaz. broke in two the story of the murder of Boris's servant.

Let's summarize. The reconstruction of the history of the texts of the Borisoglebsk cycle is presented in Scheme 1.

Scheme Absence in Chten. the mention of the golden hryvnia once again confirms the secondary nature of Chten. in relation to chronicle.

In the diagram, thick lines indicate the influence of the main sources, thin lines - additional ones.

Italics indicate legends that existed in oral form.

pp. The main source of all the texts that have come down to us about the murder of Boris was the oral narrative that developed in the Scandinavian-oriented environment that surrounded Yaroslav Vladimirovich, and contained a plot allusion to ancient legend about the death of King Agni (for more details, see).

In the course of the formation of the religious veneration of Boris, the oral narrative of his martyrdom lost the memory of its former context - the Scandinavian legend about the murder of Agni. The narrators of the story of the death of Boris no longer understood the allusion on which the Scandinavian legend was built. Therefore, in their mouths, important motives of the ancient story were lost and changed. The circumstances of Boris's death were rethought under the influence of other (primarily Christian) parallels.

The first Russian written text about Boris and Gleb was created on the basis of oral stories about the death of Boris, the death of Gleb and the struggle between Yaroslav and Svyatopolk. The author of the written hagiographic legend also used other data, including information that Boris was killed by two Vikings.

The hagiographic legend was either originally part of the chronicle, or a little later, almost unchanged, it passed into the chronicle text. The chronicle story about Boris, Gleb, Svyatopolk and Yaroslav has come down to us in chronicles dating back to the Beginning. St. and PVL, practically without changes in its actual part.

All versions of the so-called stories about the passions of Boris and Gleb in the ancient Russian hagiographic texts of Borisoglebsk, closely related to each other textually, go back to the chronicle story.

Nestor, the author of "Reading on the Life and Destruction of the Blessed Passion-Bearers Boris and Gleb", borrowed the event outline of the chronicle story, but freely changed the data of his source so that the work would correspond to the hagiographic canon.

"The Tale and Passion and Praise of the Holy Martyrs Boris and Gleb" repeated the chronicle data much closer to the original, expanding the narrative with lengthy rhetorical digressions. The differing chronicle and Nestor's versions of the description of events were contaminated by the author of the Tale.

LIST OF REFERENCES 1. Lives of the Holy Martyrs Boris and Gleb and services to them / Ed. Abramovich D.

I. Pg., 1916.

2. Bugoslavsky S. Memories of the XI-XVIII centuries about the princes Boris and Glib (Razvedka of that text). Kiev, 1928.

3. Revelli G. Monumenti letterari su Boris e Gleb = Literary monuments about Boris and Gleb. Genova, 1993.

4. Macarius, ep. Vinnitsa. History of the Russian Church. SPb., 1857. T. II.

5. Shakhmatov A. A. Research on the most ancient Russian annals. SPb., 1908.

6. Bugoslavsky S. A. To the question of the nature and volume literary activity Rev. Nestor // Proceedings of the Department of the Russian Language and Literature of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. 1914 St. Petersburg, 1914. T. XIX. Book. one.

7. Poppe A. On the origin of the cult of Sts. Boris and Gleb and about the works dedicated to them // Russia mediaevalis. Munchen, 1995. Vol. VIII, 1.

8. Sobolevsky A. "Memory and Praise" of St. Vladimir and the "Tale" of Sts. Boris and Glebe (Regarding the article by Mr. Levitsky) // Christian Reading. SPb., 1890. Part 1.

9. Bugoslavsky S. A. Textology of Ancient Rus'. M., 2007. T. II. Old Russian literary works about Boris and Gleb.

p. 10. Milyutenko I.M. Holy princes-martyrs Boris and Gleb. SPb., 2006.

11. Ipatiev Chronicle // Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles. SPb., 1908. T. 2.

12. Novgorod First Chronicle of the Senior and Junior Editions. M., 1950.

13. Laurentian Chronicle // Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles. L., 1926. T. 1.

14. Radzivilov Chronicle. St. Petersburg;

15. Danilevsky I. N. The Tale of Bygone Years: Hermeneutical Foundations for the Study of Chronicle Texts. M., 2004.

16. Ilyin N. N. Chronicle article of 6523 and its source. (Experience of analysis.) M., 1957.

17. Mikheev S. M. Bifurcation of the murder of Boris and the history of the Borisoglebsky cycle // Ancient Rus': Questions of medieval studies. M., 2005. N 3 (21).

18. Shakhmatov A. A. The Tale of Bygone Years. Pg., 1916. T. I: Introductory part. Text.

Notes.

19. Mikheev S. M. Boris' golden hryvnia and the Ynglings' family curse: On the problem of the Varangian sources of Old Russian texts // Slavic Studies. 2005. N 2.

20. Nikitin AL. Foundations of Russian History: Mythologems and Facts. M., 2001.

pp. Title of the article TO THE PROBLEM OF EDITIONS OF THE TALE OF TIME YEARS. I Author(s) A. A. GIPPIUS Source Slavic Studies, № 5, 2007, C. 20- ARTICLES Heading Place of publication Moscow, Russia Volume 90.4 Kbytes Number of words Article permanent address http://ebiblioteka.ru/browse/doc/ К THE PROBLEM OF EDITIONS OF THE TALE OF TIME YEARS. I

A. GIPPIUS The discussion of the issues of the history of the text of the Tale of Bygone Years (PVL), from whatever positions it is conducted, inevitably, as a starting point, returns to classical scheme A. A. Shakhmatov, who occupies a place in the historiography of the initial Russian chronicle, similar to that in the history of Russian chronicle writing belongs to the PVL itself. Although the adequacy of this scheme as a whole and its individual provisions has often been questioned or even denied (as a result, as an integral construction, it is today more the property of university courses than the subject of any broad scientific consensus), the chess scheme has been preserved for almost a century. behind it is the significance of the main landmark in this area, the role of a kind of "classifier" of the scientific tradition, in relation to which various research approaches and hypotheses are grouped, breaking into channels and streams.

Recall that according to Shakhmatov's scheme, in the form in which it was presented by him in the book of 1916 1, the first edition of the PVL, which was preceded by the Kyiv Initial Code of 1093 - 1095, was compiled by Nestor in 1111 and has not reached us . The second edition, compiled by Sylvester in 1116, was preserved in the lists of the Lavrentiev group (LTRA)2, but not in its original form, but with traces of secondary influence from the third edition. This latter was compiled on the basis of the second edition in 1118 and is read in the lists of the Ipatiev group (IH).

Gippius Alexey Alekseevich - Doctor of Philology. Sci., Senior Researcher, Institute of Slavic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences.

The work was carried out within the framework of the Program fundamental research OIFN RAS "Russian Culture in the Context of World History" (project "Early Old Russian Chronicle in the Context of European Cultural Tradition").

Subsequently cited from the reprint in .

The letters L, T, R, A, I, X designate six complete lists of PVL: Lavrentevsky, Troitsky (burned down in 1812, but partially reconstructed), Radzivilov, Moscow Academic, Ipatiev, Khlebnikov. The LTRA lists form the Lavrentiev group, the IH lists form the Ipatiev group;

within the Lavrentiev group, the lists LT and RA ascend to common protographs.

The terms "Laurentian text" and "Ipatiev text" are used in the article as synonymous with the concepts "general text of lists of the Lavrentiev group" and "general text of lists of the Ipatiev group".

In addition, according to tradition, the general text of the lists of THEY is called by us the Ipatiev Chronicle, and the lists of the RA - the Radzivilov Chronicle. The text presented in all complete lists PVL, we call it "main text". The texts of chronicles are cited according to their latest publications in .

The textbook nature of the problems of this article relieves us of the need to preface our analysis with a review of historiography - instead, we will designate a circle of provisions from which we will proceed from as starting points, considering them already proven by our predecessors.

The first and most general of these provisions is the view of the PVL as a text that is heterogeneous in origin, in which throughout its entire length there are fragments written by different authors. This idea, which was formed in the pre-chess era, is currently generally accepted. Attempts made from time to time to return to the notion of the creation of the main text of the PVL by one author seem to be ill-founded.

The last of these attempts belongs to VN Rusinov. The only author of the PVL text for 1051 - 1117. the researcher considers the Kiev-Pechersk monk Vasily, who mentions himself in an article of 6605. A. Vaillant came to the same conclusion half a century ago, who, however, went even further, identifying Vasily with Sylvester. Researchers substantiate the thesis about a single author of PVL in different ways. A. Vaillant, analyzing the direct and indirect evidence in the text about the personality of the author, his origin, way of thinking, literary outlook, etc., concludes that they all may well refer to one person, which the classic of French Slavic studies considers Vasily Sylvester. For V. N. Rusinov, the main evidence of the author’s unity of the PVL text within the chronological framework under consideration is the presence in it of a complex of linguo-textological features that are not characteristic of the monuments of Russian chronicle of the 12th century used for comparison.

(remarks in the first person, phrases like "to this day", providential interpretation of victories and defeats, etc.).

V. N. Rusinov’s statement is incorrect, as if the conclusions about the consolidated origin of the text of the PVL for the second half of the 11th - early 12th centuries. "always limited themselves to only the most general considerations, which do not prove or explain anything." This is certainly not the case: in addition to general considerations, these conclusions were based on specific textual observations (we will not give examples: we will talk about them later).

The latter could be more or less evidentiary - this is another question, which should be the subject of consideration in the first place. But simply ignoring these observations, opposing them with your own system of arguments, as if indicating the opposite, is not the best way to prove your own case.

On the other hand, the evidence of linguotextological arguments of V.N.

Rusinova raises doubts. It is not clear why, for example, the rare use in the Kiev or Novgorod chronicles of the 12th century. author's remarks from the 1st person should certainly say that all such remarks found in the PVL belong to one author. Adding or editing a previously created text involves not only introducing features of an individual style into it, but also partially mastering the methods of presenting the original being processed, and in this sense, PVL as the fruit of collective labor, as it appears to the traditional view, cannot but have a complex of literary and linguistic characteristics. , peculiar only to her and not represented by pages or presented much less often by later chroniclers, who solved completely different literary problems in a different literary environment.

The refusal to consider the text of the PVL before 1051 is just as incomprehensible. It is easy to see that most of the signs interpreted by V.N. story about ancient history Rus'. The question is: is V. N. Rusinov ready to admit that all this narration also belongs to Vasily? If not, then this is contrary to his own logic, since it is not clear why the same signs in one case indicate the work of one author, but not in the other. If so, then everything that is known about the internal heterogeneity of the most ancient part of the PVL revolts against such an assumption.

The second position we share is the explanation of the textological heterogeneity of the PVL as a consequence of a certain source code. In other words, we share the general model proposed by Shakhmatov, which represents the PVL as a system of editorial "shells" that have grown around the original "core" that arose no later than the middle of the 11th century.

An alternative to this "monocentric" model is the idea of ​​the original plurality of chronicle traditions of the 11th century, which feed the Primary Chronicle. This point of view found its most consistent expression in the book of A. G. Kuzmin. A similar understanding of the process of the initial Russian chronicle writing is also reflected in the research of S. V. Tsyb on the chronology of the PVL. The "monocentric" model of the Primary Chronicle seems to be a priori preferable as a more economical description of the process of the Primary Chronicle. On the other hand, the explanation of the contradictions in the text of the PVL within the framework of the development of a single "trunk" of ancient Kievan chronicles is better consistent with the fact that various regional chronicle traditions of the 12th - 13th centuries ascended to a common "root". (including the Novgorod one, based on the previous PVL Initial Code, see the next paragraph). So far, in our opinion, no real textual arguments that would make us assume the existence of several local annalistic codes reflected in the PVL, created in various centers of Rus', have been given so far. As for the reconstruction by S. V. Tsyb, who concludes that there are at least five such vaults based on the analysis of "chronological artifacts" alone, the very possibility of stratifying the text of the PVL on a chronological basis independent of "traditional" textual criticism seems methodologically doubtful.

The third provision, concretizing the second, is the thesis substantiated by Shakhmatov, according to which the PVL as an annalistic code of the 1110s was preceded by the Kiev-Pechersk Initial code of the 1090s, which was partially reflected in the Novgorod 1 chronicle (H1L) of the younger version.

We emphasize that Shakhmatov's hypothesis about the Initial Code is shared by us not in general, but only in its central provisions, demonstrating the primacy of the H1L text in relation to the PVL from the beginning to article 6523, including the Preface, reasonably dated by Shakhmatov to the 90s of the 11th century. For a statement of our position in the discussion on these issues, see.

The fourth and last of our initial positions is the most important correction to the chess concept of the relationship between the PVL and the Initial page code, made by M. Kh. Aleshkovsky. This correction entails a significant modification of Shakhmatov's construction as a whole and requires a closer look at it.

According to Shakhmatov, the first edition of the PVL, which has not come down to us, was created by Nestor in the Kiev-Pechersk monastery during the reign of Svyatopolk and reflected the position friendly to this prince, which the monastery occupied from the second half of the 1090s;

the second edition, the Sylvestrov edition, which came out of the walls of the Vydubitsky Monastery, already reflected the Promonomachian tendency. The appearance of the second edition was, according to Shakhmatov, the result of Monomakh's transfer of the chronicle from the Kiev-Pechersk monastery to the princely Vydubitsky monastery and its thorough revision. Shakhmatov considered the heterogeneity of the PVL text for the end of the 11th - the first decade of the 12th centuries, duplications and contradictions that betray the presence of at least two layers in it as evidence of such a revision. The earlier of these layers, the researcher associated with Nestor and attributed to the first edition of the PVL, the later one considered to belong to Sylvester. Within the framework of this construction, the most important dating indication of the PVL - bringing the chronological calculations in the article of 6362 "until the death of Svyatopolchi" (April 16, 1113) - logically related to the second edition of the monument, defining the terminus ante quem of the creation of the first edition.

While Shakhmatov's observations, revealing the two-layer text of the Primary Chronicle in the named time frame, largely remain valid and can be supported by additional arguments, his definition of these layers as ascending to the first and second editions of the PVL raises objections.

Reconstructing the ratio of these stages, Shakhmatov believed that the main source of the PVL, the Kyiv Initial Code, ended with the article of 1093 and that the events of subsequent years were first described by Nestor on the pages of the PVL in the early 1110s. This assumption, which predetermined Shakhmatov's further calculations, was affected by the well-known one-sidedness of his understanding of the very process of initial chronicle writing. The periodic updating of the annals, on which Shakhmatov concentrated entirely, restoring the history of the PVL, is only one aspect of this process, in which the gradual accumulation of weather records played no less a role, i.e.

analistic beginning. Comparison of the ancient Russian chronicle with the typologically close medieval Western European annalism shows that the newly created annalistic code, as a rule, was continued in the form of a weather chronicle (annals) (see). On the Old Russian material, this ratio is demonstrated by the Novgorod code of Mstislav, compiled around 1115 and continued by weather records, as well as the PVL itself with both (Lavrentiev and Ipatiev) versions of its continuation. There is every reason to think that the Primary Code of the end of the XI century. was not abandoned after its completion for a decade and a half, but continued to be replenished with weather records until the moment when the PVL was compiled on its basis.

The possibility of such a purely analistic continuation of the Primary Code, which was not accompanied by a revision of its main text, was first appreciated by M. Kh. Aleshkovsky, who made it the basis of his version of the history of the PVL text. The researcher drew attention to the fact that starting from 1091, dates with the hour of the event began to appear in the PVL, which definitely testify to the appearance in the Kiev-Pechersky Monastery at that time of a regularly updated weather chronicle. The beginning of this chronicle, according to Aleshkovsky, was laid by the compilation in 1091 of an annalistic code (according to Shakhmatov - the Initial Code of 1093). According to Aleshkovsky, it was this code, with its continuation in the form of a weather chronicle, that was used by the Novgorod code of Mstislav of 1115, which was reflected in N1L, not only in its junior edition, but also in the oldest Synodal list, according to Article 6623.

inclusive.

According to Aleshkovsky, the compiler of the code of 1091 and the author of the weather records that continued it was Nestor, who finally finalized his text in the city. The researcher calls this text the first, "author's" edition of the PVL. There is a lot of controversy in this attribution. Aleshkovsky's belief in the authorship of Nestor is based on an unreliable later tradition. On the other hand, the concept of the "author's" edition of the PVL turns out to be too vague, bifurcating between the "author's" text of 1091 and the "author's" text of 1115, the relationship between which remains unclear.

However, the main thing in Aleshkovsky's hypothesis is still not this controversial attribution, but the very interpretation of the text of the PVL from the beginning of the 1090s to 1115, as based on the Kiev-Pechersk weather chronicle, which continued the annalistic code of 1091.3. With the preservation of the chess opposition between the Primary Code and the PVL, this idea of ​​Aleshkovsky was used by us in relation to the history of the Novgorod chronicle;

in the latest work on the editions of the PVL, it is developed by A. Timberlake, whose point of view on this problem is especially close to us.

According to Timberlake, the earlier layer of the articles of the PVL of the 1090s-1110s (according to article 1112) belongs to the Primary Code and its annalistic continuation, and the later layer belongs to the first (in Timberlake's view, the only) edition of the PVL. The Pro-Monomakhovian trend of this second layer is in good agreement with the count of years "before the death of Svyatopolchi" in the article 6360, which makes it possible to date the creation of the PVL to the period between the death of Svyatopolk in April 1113 and the appearance of Sylvester's record in 1116. In this chronological framework, he dated the first edition PVL and L. V. Cherepnin, who connected the creation of a new chronicle in the Kiev-Pechersk monastery with the transfer of the relics of Boris and Gleb in 1115

Such an interpretation of the correlation of texts is, in our opinion, a vivid (and rare in the historiography of the initial chronicles) example of the continuity of scientific ideas, carried out through the critical development of the initial hypothesis and leading to a consistent solution to the problem. Relying on the chess opposition of the Initial Code of the 1090s and the PVL as a code of the 1110s, she frees the core of this hypothesis from a number of assumptions that artificially complicate it, which Shakhmatov himself was forced to resort to, not taking into account the fundamental duality of the annalistic process.

The transfer of the creation of the PVL to the first years of Vladimir Monomakh's reign in Kyiv inevitably affects the assessment of the role of Sylvester in the history of the text of the monument. With her, however, the situation is more complicated than it might seem.

Note that the "Pechersk Chronicle" for this period was mentioned in his early work and Shakhmatov, speaking, however, rather vaguely about the nature of this text and its relation to the Primary Code, suggesting the identity of Sylvester with the "disciple of Theodosius", speaking about himself in the articles of 1051 and 1091. The substantive obstacles discussed in the literature to considering Sylvester the compiler and, in part, the author of the PVL (and they, as you know, boil down to the fact that Sylvester is not a "Pecheryan"), are not at all insurmountable: even Golubinsky admitted that Sylvester was Vydubytsky abbot could become from the monks of the Kiev Caves Monastery. The only really fundamental argument against the authorship of Sylvester, which, in the framework of Shakhmatov's hypothesis, was the same two-layer text of the PVL for the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th centuries, loses its force with the attribution of the first of these layers to the annalistic continuation of the Primary Code - the Caves Chronicle. In this situation, the view of Sylvester as the compiler of the PVL turns out to be the most economical explanation, and the burden of argumentation falls on those who wish to prove the opposite: that the Vydubitsky abbot was just a copyist of someone else's work.

In the proper textological aspect, the decision this issue largely depends on the attribution of the text of the Primary Chronicle, which is not included in the main lists of the PVL. We have in mind the text N1L of the junior edition from 6553 to 6582. As in its initial part, before 6524, N1L in this section transmits the Primary Chronicle not in excerpts, but in full, which gave Shakhmatov reason to assume the use in both cases of one source - the Kyiv Initial Code. However, if the ratio of the texts in the part up to 6524 allows us to speak with confidence about the reflection in the N1L of the Initial Code, then in relation to articles 6553 - 6582. this cannot be said. With the exception of the story of Article 6559

about the founding of the Pechersk Monastery, the text of N1L in this area completely includes the text of the PVL (distributing it until 6558 with news of local origin), and the qualification of its source as the Initial Code would mean that the compiler of the PVL did not introduce anything of his own into the description of still quite relevant in his era of events half a century ago. This is unlikely given the extent of his editorial involvement in other parts of the PVL. On the other hand, the appearance of this fragment in H1L was convincingly attributed by M. Kh. Aleshkovsky to a stage later than the one at which the Initial Code was used in Novgorod (about 1115, in the Mstislav compendium).

This editing was connected by us with the compilation of the archiepiscopal code of the late 1160s. The fact that when compiling the list of Kyiv princes included in this collection, the text of the biblical Introduction of the PVL, which was absent in the Initial Code, was used, allows us to think that the text of articles 6553 - 6582 was also borrowed from the PVL. . As is clear from the analysis of discrepancies, the used list of the site could not belong to either the Lavrentiev or the Ipatiev groups;

at the same time, it contained several indisputably original readings, which correspond to pages of secondary readings common to all complete lists of PVL4. This means that the source of this N1L segment did not simply reflect the "third branch" of the PVL lists (cf.

), but ascended to the original monument, bypassing the common archetype of the Ipatiev and Lavrentiev groups.

As for the manuscript of Sylvester, theoretically, one can see in it both the original PVL, and the archetype of the Ipatiev and Lavrentiev groups ascending to it, and the archetype of the Lavrentiev group alone. The second possibility seems to us the most probable. To see in Sylvester the author of the PVL is hampered by two circumstances that have already been repeatedly noted: the general nature of his recording, which is more reminiscent of a colophon of a scribe than a form of manifestation of authorship, and the attribution of the text clearly ascending to the archetype of the Ipatiev and Lavrentiev groups, the attribution of the text to the pen of the “Chernoriz Fedosiev Monastery of the Caves”. On the other hand, seeing in Sylvester a scribe of the archetype of the Lavrentiev group (which undoubtedly had a later archetype in the form of one of the Vladimir annals of the second half of the 12th century), it must be assumed that he copied not from the original PVL, but from some successful appear before 1116 of an interim list, the status of which cannot be determined. It is more natural to believe that the Vydubitsky abbot copied directly the original of the Caves annalistic code, identifying its list with the archetype of all six complete lists of the PVL. This understanding of the matter is reflected in Figure 1.

Scheme PVL - the original "Tale of Bygone Years" 1113 - 1116;

S - Sylvester's list of 1116;

L - archetype of the Lavrentiev group;

Y - archetype of the Ipatiev group;

N Novgorod sovereign code of the late 1160s (articles 6553 - 6582 of the N1L junior edition) See:. The most important of these readings is "and their prince yash Sharakan" under 6576, which in all complete lists of the PVL corresponds to the erroneous "and their prince yash with his hands." A not so obvious, but nevertheless very important, discrepancy of the same type is found in the "testament of Yaroslav" under 6562, where in N1L we read: "do not transgress your brother into brotherhood", while in other lists of PVL:

brother". The originality of reading N1L is confirmed by its greater proximity to the "formulation of this provision in the Introduction of the PVL, where the form of wines is also presented. case with a preposition: "in the lot brother". Let us explain that, according to the hypothesis substantiated by us in , a brief cosmographic Introduction, which opened with a story about the sons of Noah, was already in the chronicle of 1072, was omitted by the compiler of the Primary Code and subsequently, in an expanded form, was restored to the PVL.

pp. It is easy to see that this scheme, from which we, as a working hypothesis, will proceed in further analysis, in principle allows us to see in Sylvester's manuscript not a simple copy, but a special edition of the PVL. Let us emphasize, therefore, that, unlike Shakhmatov, we see no textual (as well as historical) need to consider it as such5. Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that in the process of copying the Pechersk original of the PVL, Sylvester nevertheless made some additions to the text6. This element of uncertainty should be borne in mind when moving on to the central issue in this article:

Was there a "third edition" of the PVL?

The essence of Shakhmatov's hypothesis about the third edition of the PVL lies in the assertion that the era of the initial Old Russian chronicle writing, that is, the period of active formation of the text of the PVL, did not end in 1116 with the appearance of the Sylvester manuscript, but continued until 1118, when the "Sylvester" text PVL has undergone a new processing. This editing, according to Shakhmatov, was directly reflected in the annals of the Ipatiev group, and in part, due to the secondary interaction between the editors, also in the Lavrentiev group of lists.

Representing, according to Shakhmatov, the last of the ancient Kievan "shells", containing a multi-layered text of the Primary Chronicle, edition of 1118.

This turns out to be the first problem that a researcher encounters when he begins to analyze a chess construction "from the end", in reverse chronological order. It can be said that it is here that the watershed passes, separating the history of the composition of the PVL text from the history of its existence in the manuscript tradition. The problem of the "third edition" of the PVL is, in essence, the problem of the correlation between its Lavrentian and Ipatiev texts.

Like the concept of Shakhmatov as a whole, this link was ambiguously perceived by subsequent historiography. Depending on the acceptance or rejection of the main thesis about the reflection in the Ipatiev Chronicle of the "post-Sylvester" edition of 1118, the opinions expressed are divided into two channels.

One of them, formed by the voices of supporters of this thesis, is internally heterogeneous, dividing into several streams. The first is the vyska For Shakhmatov, the grounds for assuming a significant revision by Sylvester of the first edition were, in addition to the already mentioned two-layered text of the PVL for the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th centuries, the information of the Kiev-Pechersk patericon, in which Shakhmatov saw a reflection of Nestor's non-preserved text.

The groundlessness of such an interpretation of Paterik's data was convincingly demonstrated by VN Rusinov.

One can suspect of such an origin, for example, the news of the article of 6604 about the burning of the princely court by the Polovtsy in Vydubychi, which wedged into the pathetic conclusion of the story about the Polovtsy attack on the Pechersky Monastery: ) you are the icons, mocking, not like God (g) seems to be your slaves as warriors, but they will appear like gold tempted into the forge:

x (re) s (t) yanom, with many sorrows and misfortunes, get into n (e) b (e) snoe, and sim filthy and scolding for seven, take fun and spaciousness, and take m (y) ku, with the devil preparing fire mu. Then, setting fire to the red courtyard, which Prince Vsevolod set on the hill of Vydobychi, then all the windows of Polovtsi were set on fire. and we, according to the pr (o) r (o) ku D (a) in (s) du, will cry out: G (lord) and, B (o) my! put [I], like a stake, like a fire in front of the face and burn oak forests, so marry me with your storm, fill their faces with blessings. Behold, you defiled and burned your house and your monastery M (a) t (e) yours and the corpse of your slaves ".

p. calling researchers who accept the chess hypothesis of the "third edition" in the unity of its main provisions. A. A. Shakhmatov’s hypothesis received such an “orthodox” development in the works of M. D.

Priselkov, D.S. Likhachev and L.V. Cherepnin. M. Kh. Aleshkovsky, on the contrary, draws an attractive image of the "editor Vasily" - an inquisitive traveler and a well-read scribe, who gave the PVL the look we know, significantly spreading the text of the first, Nestor's edition.

"The Tale of Boris and Gleb" - just a collection of facts, fascinating stories, or a particularly sensitive vision of the world that surrounded the author? Let's talk about it in the article!

The legend of Boris and Gleb: about dry factography

First of all, we will try to squeeze out dry facts from chronicles and other sources. What do we know for sure about Boris and Gleb? Very little.

We know that they were the sons of Vladimir Svyatoslavich, presumably the eldest, that is, among the contenders in line for the throne of the Grand Duke, they occupied the first places. Apparently, it was precisely because of the civil strife that broke out between the brothers after the death of their father that they were the first to die.

Or maybe they died simply because, unlike other brothers, they did not fight for power and did not show resistance. While their brother Yaroslav (the future Yaroslav the Wise), according to The Tale of Bygone Years, was much more militant and, defending the right not to pay tribute to Kyiv, in 1015 was going to fight even with his own father.

In general, it must be said that we do not know the exact years of birth of any of the sons of Vladimir, however, the destinies owned by Boris and Gleb - Rostov and Mur, respectively - indicate that they were rather younger.

The Kyiv Chronicle also mentions that Boris was born "from a Bulgarian". In a later tradition, the “Bulgarian” is piously identified with the Christian wife of Vladimir, Tsarevna Anna, the sister of Vasily II the Bulgar-Slayer. However, this identification is a stretch: ancient Russian monuments mention Boris and Gleb among the sons of Vladimir from pagan wives. But the "Tale of Bygone Years" does not know the prince's descendants from Anna at all. And why give the descendant of the baptized Greeks the pagan name Gleb (the name Boris by that time had entered the Bulgarian calendar)?

Perhaps the pagan polygamy of Vladimir largely determined the strained relationship between his offspring. The system of succession to the throne in Ancient Rus' in the first centuries was patrimonial, when the father's property was divided among all the sons according to seniority, while the father's throne went to the elder brother.

In the case of the sons of Vladimir, several independent dynastic branches actually immediately formed. One of them - the Polotsk Izyaslavichi or Rogvolodovichi - immediately stood apart, others began a struggle for power among themselves.

According to most sources, Boris and Gleb were killed in 1015 by Svyatopolk, the actual son of Yaropolk, Vladimir's elder brother, whose pregnant wife Vladimir married.

A little later, Svyatopolk killed another son of Vladimir - Svyatoslav. Then Yaroslav Vladimirovich began to avenge the death of the brothers, who in 1019 killed Svyatopolk in the Battle of Alta. However, some researchers suggest that the relationship between the parties to the conflict was more complicated.

On the importance of the canonization of Boris and Gleb

The death of Boris and Gleb, who refused to violate the principle of obedience to their elders - after all, after the death of Vladimir Svyatopolk took the place of his father - was perceived as martyrdom. Moreover, the brothers apparently became the first Russian saints whose canonization was officially recognized by Constantinople.

They were not the first in terms of feat (Theodore Varyag and his son John, who died in Kyiv during the paganism of Vladimir), are considered to be such, nor the first in status (however, Constantinople did not recognize Equal-to-the-Apostles Olga and Vladimir, since their own saints of such a rank would have exalted too much diocese of yesterday's pagans). The meaning of Boris and Gleb is different - they actually laid the foundation for the East Slavic saints.

The presence of their own saints strengthened the status of the diocese, the presence of canonized relatives strengthened the status of the Rurik dynasty. From here it is logical to assume that the Rurikovichs contributed to the canonization of the holy brothers in every possible way. True, since Saints Boris and Gleb are not mentioned in Metropolitan Hilarion's "Word on Law and Grace", their veneration most likely began after all not under Yaroslav himself, but under the Yaroslavichs, that is, in the 1060s.

About such important saints as Boris and Gleb were, several works were almost simultaneously composed in Ancient Rus': “Reading about the life and death of Boris and Gleb”, a chronicle story that became part of the “Tale of Bygone Years”. Later, numerous prologue stories, paroemia readings, eulogies, and church services arose. However, the most famous of the ancient Russian works about the holy brothers is The Tale of Boris and Gleb.

What did the author want to say?

We are approaching, perhaps, the most interesting question - is it worth considering the works of ancient Russian authors as a simple collection of facts? No. Is it worth it, in this case, to consider them as "tales"? Also no. Old Russian works reflected the world as the ancient authors understood it. This is how a peculiar writer's technique arose, which Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev called "literary etiquette."

According to the famous scientist, the ancient scribes imagined the world as a kind of unchanging order instituted by God. Accordingly, all the actors in it could be divided into several roles: a righteous man or a sinner, a saint, a military leader, a worthy exemplary prince or an unworthy traitor prince - this is a list of only the most frequent.

Accordingly, the author of the Old Russian work did not simply try to reflect the facts (although he did not resort to outright fiction. The fictional characters familiar to us from the literature of the New Age will appear in the literature of Ancient Rus' in the 17th century). The Old Russian author evaluated each hero and portrayed the character in his role.

And it doesn’t matter if sometimes you had to borrow, for example, the actions of one saint and attribute them to another, or highlight similar features in different characters where the author of the New Age would be interested, on the contrary, they are different. After all, each hero, according to the ancient scribe, fulfilled his life task, and the reader's ability to extract a lesson from the story was more important than life's truth in small things.

So, in ancient Rus', the idea was more important than the fact and type more important than a hero. But even with such an understanding of the role of bookishness, the writer had at his disposal a lot of literary techniques - for example, the interpretation of the actions of the hero, and also allusions, when in one or another historical events the reader recognized this or that "eternal" plot - biblical or mythological. However, the scribe did not ignore the facts either, but simply selected what fit into the scheme that was relevant to him.

At the same time, it is worth recognizing: ancient literature very difficult. We have a poor idea of ​​the circle of reading of the scribes of that time, we do not know how to recognize with such freedom biblical stories. Over time, the chronicles were rewritten into vaults, so it is difficult to say “whose” chronicler created this or that plot, but the current relationship with the chronicler’s patron could also affect the assessment of the hero. So, for example, in various ancient Russian chronicles there are two diametrically opposite descriptions of Prince Igor Svyatoslavich - the very one who also became a character in the famous "Tale of Igor's Campaign". In addition, the level of skill of the ancient authors and the specific set of techniques they used varied greatly from era to era.

So, in many ways, ancient texts are a puzzle, the key to which has been lost, and only those researchers whose book experience and horizons will be partly comparable to the authors of past centuries themselves can try to restore it. And after all, the hidden imagery of ancient Russian monuments is only one of the directions for research.

"The Tale of Boris and Gleb" - the psychology of the righteous. Prince Boris

The genre model for the author of "The Tale of Boris and Gleb" was obviously a special type of Greek life - martyria. That is why the author does not tell about the whole life of his heroes from birth, but creates a narrative only about their death.

Another distinctive feature of the Tale is its deep psychologism. There are a lot of emotions here, and the characters constantly utter the most extensive internal monologues. Perhaps, Russian literature will again turn to the inner state of the hero in such detail in the 18th century. True, in the case of The Tale, we must admit: the monologues of the heroes here are fictitious by the author, because he could not reliably know what the princes were thinking about. But what the ideal princes were supposed to think about, he imagined completely.

The two images of the Tale clearly contrast with each other. Although the elder Boris here is crying, thinking about his future death (which he seems to know about in advance), his thoughts are more reminiscent of teachings with biblical quotations. Boris also rejects the proposal of the squad, which expresses its readiness to go to Kyiv and get his father's throne for his master.

The murderers find the prince, who has released the squad, alone at night in a tent; Boris is praying. Further, apparently wanting to emphasize the pious faith of the prince for the reader and even more to make him empathize with what is happening, the author admits an obvious inconsistency. While the killers are walking around the prince's tent, not daring to go inside and fulfill their plan, Boris manages to read Matins and the canon. Many centuries later, such a literary device with time dilation would be called retardation.

But the author obviously wants to extend even the most tense moment of the story, so Boris is stabbed to death three times in his story. In addition, the narrative of this incredibly protracted murder is interrupted either by the victim’s heartfelt speech to the attackers, or by a digression about the sad fate of the princely youth George, or by a brief remark about the fate of the squad.

The compilers of the martyria believed that empathy with the saints would make readers think about the eternal.

Psychology of a child. Gleb

Completely different "Tale" draws Gleb. Despite the fact that by the time of the events described, the Murom ruler could not have been less than twenty-eight years old (and for Ancient Rus' it was a very respectable age), the “Tale” characterizes the prince rather as a young, direct person, and even somewhat naive and inexperienced.

So, unlike his sensible brother, Gleb receives news of the death of his father and the treachery of Svyatopolk from his brother Yaroslav; moreover, having learned all this, he, in comparison with Boris, cries much more and even “moans”, and “soaks” the earth with tears.

Seeing the murderers swimming towards him, the prince for some reason decides that they want to greet him, and having figured out what the matter is, he begins to beg them not to touch him and even - a thing unthinkable for the Middle Ages - offers these princely mercenaries to be his masters, expressing readiness to become their slave. In a conversation with them, Gleb emphasizes that "he is still infancy with his age."

Only later, having convinced himself of the inevitability of what is happening, the prince will come to his senses somewhat, humility and measuredness will appear in his speech, as well as a sure sign of the author's intervention - extensive biblical quotations.

Healing a blind man at the tomb of the princes. The relics of the princes are transferred to the temple. Sylvester collection

Living for yesterday's pagans

Another feature of the "Tale" researchers believe that the author's goal here was to glorify not only his heroes - saints Boris and Gleb - but also the whole family of ruling princes - the descendants of Vladimir. It is no coincidence that the scribe begins his narrative with the biblical saying that "the generation of the righteous will be blessed."

Another feature of the Tale, perhaps, is that the author was guided by his readers - recent pagans. Hence - some pagan categories of thinking, which can be seen in his reasoning.

For example, the "cursed" Svyatopolk is named as such from the very beginning of the story, even before he began to do something unseemly. It can be assumed that the reason for this was the birth of the prince, whom the author calls "the son of two fathers." Moreover, such an origin of Svyatopolk could cast a shadow on the whole family of Vladimir.

In the future, the prince justifies his nickname by committing fratricide. And here again it is interesting to see how different arguments are combined in the author's reasoning. The author emphasizes that the fratricide not only “became a second Cain,” but also “defiled himself with blood.” This means that the death of Boris and Gleb could be perceived, among other things, as a cleansing sacrifice. And there are signs of such perception in the author's narrative.

Talking with his future killers, begging them not to kill him, Gleb, apparently, does not accidentally use the images of a worthless victim. “Do not reap an ear that has not yet ripened, and a vine that has not fully grown,” says the prince. This is followed by a very strange argument: “Behold, there is murder, but cheese-cutting!” In modern translations the last word is usually replaced by “living”, but is it not about an illiterate sacrifice.

There is another strange circumstance in the murder of Gleb - for some reason the author does not forget to mention that the young prince was slaughtered by his cook. And here the murder is again likened to a sacrifice: "I slaughtered him like a lamb immaculate and innocent."

We have no evidence that the ancient text was perceived in this way. The only strange thing is that the images combined common theme, occur here too often, allowing you to build a scientific hypothesis.

Thus, The Tale of Boris and Gleb allows us to trace the range of problems that researchers face - when facts must be separated from images, and the latter, if possible, should also be tried to interpret.

Have you read the article "The Tale of Boris and Gleb": what did the author mean? Read also.

Bulletin of Chelyabinsk state university. 2013. № 16 (307).

Philology. Art history. Issue. 78. S. 110-114.

THE ROLE OF MOTIVES OF THE "TALES OF PRINCE CRIMES"

IN THE COMPOSITION "READING ABOUT BORIS AND GLEB":

TO THE PROBLEM OF INTER-GENRE RELATIONSHIPS

A genre-compositional analysis of "Readings about Boris and Gleb" is carried out, which is considered by scientists as a typical example of the hagiographic genre. The study showed that in the text of the "Readings" a number of motifs inherent in the genre of chronicle historical story can be distinguished. The article also defines the term "tales of princely crimes" and lists the motives characteristic of this type of stories.

Key words: Old Russian literature, chronicle writing, hagiography, historical writing

news, "tales of princely crimes", genre and compositional analysis.

“Reading about the life and destruction of the blessed passion-bearer Boris and Gleb” (hereinafter referred to as “Reading”) is included in the cycle of literary monuments dedicated to describing the death of the brothers Boris and Gleb, along with the chronicle story “On the Murder of Borisov” in 1015 and “Tale and Passion and praise to the holy martyr Boris and Gleb ”(hereinafter -“ The Tale ”). This death was interpreted by the Russian Church as a martyr's death, and Boris and Gleb were the first officially canonized Russian saints. Their cult was of great political importance for their time.

The term "tales of princely crimes" was introduced by D.S. Likhachev to characterize a special kind of historical story in the Russian chronicle of the 11th-13th centuries. . At present, the use of this term is controversial, since its content has not yet been clearly defined. A. M. Ranchin considers this term generally unsuccessful: “... The term “tale of princely crimes” seems unsuccessful even as a metaphor: among the texts in relation to which this expression is used, there are those in which there is no mention of crimes of the prince, but crimes against the prince are described. . In our work, we will adhere to the concept of D.S. Likhachev. However, we consider a broader understanding of the term possible.

The genre-compositional analysis of works traditionally referred to this genre type allows us to conclude that “tales about princely crimes” are chronicle historical stories,

genre, composition, genre-forming motif,

the main motives of the plot of which are crimes committed against Russian princes, as well as Russian princes against each other and against the Russian land during the internecine wars of the 10th-13th centuries. The main idea of ​​the "tales of princely crimes" turns out to be consonant with the general moralistic idea of ​​the chronicle - the idea of ​​a moral Court, the responsibility of Russian princes for the fate of their land before God.

Discussing the church-dogmatic grounds for the canonization of Boris and Gleb, the famous religious philosopher G. P. Fedotov writes: “Princes Boris and Gleb were the first saints canonized by the Russian Church. Saints Boris and Gleb created in Rus' a special, not quite liturgically revealed rank of “passion-bearers” - the most paradoxical rank of Russian saints. .

The problem of correlation between the sites of the Bori-so-Gleb cycle has long attracted the attention of researchers. So, A. A. Shakhmatov, L. Muller, date "Reading" to the 80s.

11th century and believe that its author intended to create a text that would meet the requirements of the actual hagiographic genre. Nestor, the author of the Reading, had the same range of sources as the author of the Tale. S. A. Bugoslavsky, who owns the most detailed study of the monuments of the Boriso-Gleb cycle, considers the Chronicle Tale to be the original written text about Boris and Gleb, but in more

ancient form than in the lists of chronicles that have come down to us. "Reading", according to Bugoslavsky, was written between 1108-1115, and Nestor used the text of "Tales".

I. P. Eremin turned to the study of the works of the Boriso-Gleb cycle in his works. Comparison of the "Tale" and "Reading" allowed him to identify the difference between these texts. So, "The Tale of Boris and Gleb", in his opinion, is excessively documented, overloaded with facts, "historicity", and the images created in the work are too material, not spiritualized enough. "Reading", on the contrary, satisfies "the most stringent requirements of a classical life". IP Eremin, analyzing the structure of the "Reading", singled out the introduction and the story of posthumous miracles, which correspond to the hagiographic canon. He postulates the generality of the images of Boris and Gleb created by Nestor as a correspondence of the "Reading" to the hagiographic canon.

A. M. Ranchin addresses the question of the relationship between the texts of the Boriso-Gleb cycle in his works. He comes to the conclusion about the existence of two non-surviving works about Boris and Gleb: the most ancient chronicle (pointed to by A. A. Shakhmatov) and the Life - a text unknown to us (a hypothesis about the existence of which is put forward by A. M. Ranchin). A. M. Ranchin notes the importance of the works about Boris and Gleb for ancient Russian literature as the sources of hagiographic texts dedicated to the passion-bearing princes.

A. N. Uzhankov addresses the issue of dating the “Reading” and “Tale” about Boris and Gleb. He points to the direct connection between the date of writing the lives of the saints and the time of their canonization. The researcher comes to the conclusion that "Reading" was written by Nestor between 1086-1088. to the official canonization of the saints, which came at the time of the reign in Kyiv of Vsevolod Yaroslavich (1078-1093).

The purpose of this article is to study the genre and compositional originality of the "Reading" in connection with the reflection in its text of the characteristic motives of the genre of "tales of princely crimes". The representativeness of the goal is based on the close relationship between the "Reading" and the anonymous "Tale of Boris and

Glebe" and the chronicle story "On the murder of Borisov", which, in turn, is traditionally referred to the genre of "tales of princely crimes".

Let us first of all turn to the composition of the work. The text of the "Reading" can be divided into four parts: the introduction, the main part, the conclusion and the story of posthumous miracles. The introduction is built according to the traditional hagiographic scheme. An important element of the introduction is the history of the baptism of the Russian land and modern author developments. Actively using quotations from Scripture, parallels with the heroes of the biblical story, references to the parable of the vinedresser, Nestor creates images of Boris and Gleb in the tradition of hagiography. Both the created images and the posthumous miracles of the saints correspond to the hagiographic tradition.

In the main part of the work, one can single out motifs characteristic of the genres of secular literature, in particular, for “tales about princely crimes”.

Analysis of the works traditionally attributed by researchers to the genre of “tales about princely crimes” (the chronicle stories “On the murder of Borisov” in 1015, the story about the blinding of Vasilko Terebovlsky in 1097, the story about the murder of Igor Olgovich in 1147, the story about the perjury of Vladimirka Galitsky 1152 1175), led to the conclusion that it is possible to single out a number of genre-forming motifs in this genre. These include the motive of a conspiracy, the motive of the killers' fear of a crime, the motive of warning the prince about danger, the murder of the prince, the murder of the prince's favorite, the treatment of the body of the murdered prince, the motive of the prince's resistance to the killers. These motives are reflected in the "Reading".

The motif of a conspiracy, which is characterized by a combination of elements of a historical story and hagiography. The crime was committed against the prince with the aim of seizing his power in the internecine war of the 10th-13th centuries. But at the same time, in all works of this genre type, there is always a mention of the devil, at whose instigation a conspiracy takes place. For example, in “The Tale of the Blinding of Vasilko Terebovlsky”: “... Ipride Svyatopolk with David Ky-ev, and for the sake of the past, all the people: but only the devil is sad about this love. And a soton entered the heart of some husband ... ".

In the Reading, the interpretation of the conspiracy motif also has a pronounced hagiographic character: “... Be blessed (Boris) meek and humble. The same is not tolerating the enemy (devil). but as before rekokh. into the heart of his brother. even be older. his name is Svyatopolk. Start thinking on the righteous. Ho-tyashe bo okannyi destroy the whole country and the power of the children is one ... ". As you can see, the idea of ​​killing his brother arises in Svyatopolk not only at the instigation of the devil, who wants to destroy the faithful Prince Boris, but also from a completely worldly desire to alone own the entire Russian land, that is, the hagiographic aspect is combined with the historical. After Svyatopolk finds out about the murder of Boris, he also sends assassins to Gleb in cold blood.

The motive of the killers' fear of crime. In the "Reading" the killers, being next to the tent of Prince Boris, do not attack until he says to the end of the prayer: "... The wicked. like walking. do not dare to attack the righteous. God forbid them until the end of matins ... ". At the same time, such behavior of the killers, as well as the murder of the prince in several stages, can be explained by the fact that the description of the crime is largely conditional (“etiquette”) in nature.

The motive for warning the prince of danger. The princes know about the conspiracy being prepared against them, but either do not believe or do not oppose death. This motif is repeated several times in the text of the Reading. The first time Boris receives a warning shortly after he learns of his father's death: “Ise Necia. come to the blessed one. let me know. like your brothers want to destroy you ... ". Then Boris is warned again about the danger, but after he has released his squad.

The murder of the prince. Usually it happens in several stages: first, the killers injure the prince, while they think that they have completed their crime, and he manages to say a prayer; then the killers realize that they have not done their job to the end and finish off the prince. It also happens in the “Reading”: “. And they are like the animal divi attacking n. And descending into your sulitsy ... Imnev, the blessed dead being is gone out. Rise up, blessed ones. in a daze. come out of the tent. and ascended to the sky hand. praying ... Behold, he rekshyu. one from the destroyer flow hit the heart

his. So, blessed Boris, give up your soul in the hands of God. The month of July on the 24th day ... ".

The death of Gleb is also described in detail in the "Reading". It is characteristic that the killers sent by Svyatopolk do not commit the murder themselves, but order the cook Gleb to slaughter their master. This form of murder for the ancient Russian author, apparently, was especially symbolic, because it is no coincidence that this cook is compared with Judas, and Gleb with an immaculate lamb: “... The good cook is not jealous of him. who had fallen on St. Boris. but be like Judas. traitor..."

The motive for the murder of the prince's favorite (the servant, trying to protect his prince, himself dies at the hands of the killers). This motive in the Reading is presented in a slightly different variation than in the annalistic Tale of the Murder of Borisov in 1015 and in the anonymous Tale of Boris and Gleb. The "Reading" refers to the murder of a servant, but does not specify, as in other texts, his name, does not tell that he was the prince's favorite and how the golden chain was removed from him. “Reading”: “. And behold, one from the servants standing by him fell on him. They also pierced that ... ". Wed “The Tale”: “... Forget the birth of Ugrin, name of George. And I used to put gold on the hryvnia, and be loved by Boris more than the world. And the same one and pierced ... ".

Treatment with the body of the murdered prince (usually, the body of the murdered prince is treated disrespectfully, and only after some time has passed the prince is buried with honors). The body of the murdered Gleb was thrown in a deserted place under a deck, it lay there until Prince Yaroslav ordered that it be found: “... You have worn out the body of the saint. cast into the desert under the treasure ... ". The murdered Boris was laid in the church of St. Vasily in Vyshgorod.

The motif of the resistance of the prince to the murderers, which is characteristic of many historical annalistic stories about princely crimes, is absent in all the works of the Boriso-Gleb cycle, since it contradicts the martyria genre tradition, which the author follows in this case. Such behavior of the princes should have strengthened their aura of martyrdom, because they voluntarily go to death, completely relying on the will of God, thereby not violating either Christian or secular laws.

This halo of martyrdom is reinforced by the fact that the prince-brothers had the opportunity to change the course of events, that is, they are tempted to save their lives, but they overcome it in themselves. So, the warriors of Boris tell him about their loyalty and offer to bring him into the city; but Boris rejects such an opportunity and releases the soldiers, taking care of their souls: “... Not my brother. nor father. Don't anger my brother like that. what kind of food to raise sedition on you. But oune is for me alone oum-reti. than a fraction of a soul ... ".

Analyzing the interpretation by the authors of the Boriso-Glebsky cycle of the motive of "non-resistance" of the princes-passion-bearers, we must not forget that the "Reading", the anonymous "Tale" and the chronicle "Tale" were the first monuments of ancient Russian literature in which political assassination received such wide resonance and was interpreted not only as a moral crime against a person, but also as a crime against the Russian land. Let us quote G. P. Fedotov: “It is easy and tempting to get carried away by the closest moral and political idea that all sources suggest to us: the idea of ​​obedience to an older brother ... We do not know how effective the beginning of seniority was in the princely and Varangian militia at the beginning of the 11th century . Prince Vladimir violated it. St. Boris was the first to formulate it on the pages of our chronicle. Perhaps he is not so much inspired by tradition as he conceives it, transferring personal family feelings into the sphere of political relations. It is quite clear that the voluntary death of two sons of Vladimir could not be their political duty.

The study allows us to talk about the relationship between the Chronicle Tale of 1015, the anonymous Tale and the Reading, but it is difficult to determine the nature of these relationships, and this is confirmed by a large number of hypotheses expressed by scientists. Nevertheless, the study shows that in the "Reading" one can single out a number of motifs that are not typical for hagiography, but for the genre of "tales of princely crimes": the motif of a conspiracy, the motif of warning the prince about danger, the motif of killing the prince, the motif of killing the prince's favorite, motive for handling the prince's body. Of course, in the "Reading", in contrast to the chronicle Tale, based on the task facing its author, these motives are "smoothed out", they acquire a hagiographic interpretation.

This can be explained by the fact that the works devoted to the description of the death of the holy brothers were the first works in which, as G. P. Fedotov noted, “traditions began”. We can talk about the tradition that was realized in the composition, the set of motifs, speech stamps, the hagiographic style of other “tales of princely crimes”. So, in the story about the murder of Igor Olgovich in 1147, and in the story “On the murder of Andrei Bogolyubsky” in 1175, details will appear that are connected precisely with the works of the Boriso-Gleb cycle. An example is the "sword of St. Boris", which the conspirators steal from Andrei Bogolyubsky's bedroom. And in "Reading" another tradition was formed - the tradition of princely life. The coexistence of genres with each other was one of the main features of the genre system of ancient Russian literature. The genres of ancient Russian literature were in a relationship of close interconnection and hierarchical interdependence, which makes it possible to speak of a system of genres, the elements of which are interdependent on each other.

Bibliography

1. Danilevsky, I. N. The Tale of Bygone Years: Hermeneutical Foundations for the Study of Chronicle Texts. M., 2004. 383 p.

2. Eremin, I. P. Lectures and articles on the history of ancient Russian literature. 2nd ed., add. L., 1987. 327 p.

3. Eremin, I. P. Literature of Ancient Rus'. Sketches and characteristics. M.; L., 1966. 364 p.

4. Likhachev, D.S. Russian chronicles and their cultural and historical significance. M.; L., 1947. 479 p.

5. Mineeva, SV History of Old Russian Literature: textbook. allowance. Kurgan, 2002. 115 p.

6. Mineeva, S. V. Problems of complex analysis of the ancient Russian hagiographic text. Kurgan, 1999. 356 p.

7. The Tale of Bygone Years. The legend of Boris and Gleb // Monuments of literature of Ancient Rus': the beginning of Russian literature. XI - beginning

12th century M., 1978. S. 248-254; 278-303.

8. Ranchin, A. M. Vertograd Zlatoslovny: Old Russian bookishness in interpretations, analysis and comments. M., 2007. 576 p.

9. Ranchin, A. M. Articles on Old Russian Literature: Sat. Art. M., 1999. 195 p.

10. The legend of Boris and Gleb // Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'. Issue. I (XI - lane. half of the XIV century) / otv. ed. D. S. Likhachev. L., 1987. S. 398-408.

11. Sochneva, N. A. Genre-forming motifs of “tales of princely crimes” as part of the ancient Russian chronicle // Collection of scientific works of graduate students and applicants of Kurgan State University. Issue. XII. Kurgan, 2010. S. 81-83.

12. Uzhankov, A. N. The Holy Passion-Bearers Boris and Gleb: On the History of Canonization and Writing Lives // Ancient Rus'. Questions of medieval studies. 2000. No. 2 (2). pp. 28-50.

13. Fedotov, G. P. Saints of Ancient Rus'. M., 1997. S.35-47.

14.Giorgetta Revelli. Monumenti literary su Boris e Gleb. Roma, 1993. P. 601-691.