One more, final say -
And my chronicle is over, Duty bequeathed from God
Me, a sinner. No wonder many years
The Lord made me a witness
And he taught the art of books;
Someday a hardworking monk
Will find my hard work, nameless, He will shine, like me, his lamp -
And, shaking off the dust of centuries from the charters, He will rewrite the truthful sayings …
A. S. Pushkin. Boris Godunov
Historical science versus pseudoscience. In the previous article about the Russian chronicles, we tried not only to tell in detail about the quantitative characteristics of the Old Russian chronicles, the peculiarities of their language, and their chronology, as much as possible, but also began to consider them by regions of the country. In this case, this is important, since the annals were written at different times and are nothing more than cross-references. And they are important for comparing their content and establishing the primary source of borrowings. Well, the local language, dialectisms used by the authors of local texts, requiring a very good knowledge of the Old Russian language, excluding the very posing of the question of forging them by foreigners. The fact that erasures and rewritten and added passages were found in the texts only says that they were corrected by our own ancestors, who could be interested in humiliating their political opponents or raising their own persona, but this could in no way be connected with the intrigues of the Vatican, Jesuits, Freemasons and Anunnaki.
Today we continue our acquaintance with our chronicle sources.
In addition to the regional chronicles mentioned in the past, in the first quarter of the 12th century in a city like Pereyaslavl Russky, episcopal chronicles were kept, which lasted until 1175, after which he was replaced by a princely chronicler who worked until 1228 or even for a slightly longer period.
The Chernigov chronicles are also known, in particular, the "Chronicler of Svyatoslav Olgovich" that appeared in the 1140s, continued under the princes-sons of Svyatoslav - Oleg and Igor.
Chronicle was also conducted in the lands of North-Eastern Russia. For example, there were chronicle records in the Rostov-Suzdal land, and its main centers were cities such as Vladimir, Suzdal, Rostov and Pereyaslavl.
In the Vladimir principality, chronicles began to be created in the middle of the 12th century, and already in 1177, at the Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir, the first Vladimir annalistic collection was compiled. In 1193, 1212 and 1228, several grand ducal vaults appeared here at once. At the same time, the information in them was also combined with news from the chronicles of Pereyaslavl, that is, Pereyaslavl Russian.
It was in Vladimir in the 12th century that the famous Radziwill Chronicle was created, known in two copies dating back to the 15th century, including the Radziwill List, the pages of which are adorned with more than 600 beautiful miniatures.
Among the chronicles of Vladimir-Suzdal Russia, the most famous is the Laurentian Chronicle, which contains the "Tale of Bygone Years", and then continued by the Vladimir-Suzdal chronicles until 1305. There is also the "Chronicler of Pereyaslavl of Suzdal", dating back to the 15th century, and the already mentioned Radziwill Chronicle.
In the XIII-XV centuries in Rostov, chronicle writing was carried out at the episcopal court. Its fragments are reflected in a number of all-Russian vaults of the 15th-16th centuries, and in the Ermolinskaya Chronicle dating back to the end of the 15th century.
Chronicle writing among the Pskovites arose later than in other places, namely in the XIII century. At first he was led at the Pskov Trinity Cathedral, and the mayor himself watched over him. There were both local good records and chronographic materials. Later, the annalistic vaults of 1464, 1469, 1481 and late were created. 1480s. The oldest surviving Pskov chronicle is the Pskov Second Chronicle, which was brought to 1486 and is known in one list dating back to the mid-1480s. But even after Pskov lost its independence, the chronicle continued in it. The vault of 1547 appeared - the Pskov First Chronicle. The one who composed it clearly sympathized with Moscow and its sovereigns, but their governors got it from him. Well, this is traditional for Russia: the sovereign is good, the boyars are bad! But the 1567 code of Cornelius, abbot of the Pskov-Caves monastery, who created the Pskov third chronicle, on the contrary, reflects the position of the Pskov boyars, dissatisfied with Moscow.
In Tver, a rival city of Moscow, chronicle writing began at the end of the 13th century and was conducted until 1485, when the Great Tver Principality was annexed to the Russian state. So, the Tver chronicle text is found in the composition of the grand ducal collection of 1305, which forms the basis of the Laurentian Chronicle. Scientists also distinguish the following Tver vaults: 1327, 1409, etc. The Tver sources are also included in the Rogozhsky chronicler, dating back to the first half of the 15th century. The Tver Chronicle (Tver Collection), which contains fragments of the Tver chronicle of the late 13th - late 15th centuries, has also been preserved and presented in the lists of the 17th century.
In Moscow, which opposed Tver, brief records of events were kept at the metropolitan's court. The family chronicle of the Danilovich princes is also known. That is, both princely and parallel metropolitan chronicles took place in Moscow. Then, already in 1389, the "Great Russian Chronicler" was prepared, the first is the Moscow Grand Ducal Codex, and then the all-Russian Trinity Chronicle, which outlined the events in the state until 1408. Moreover, it was created on the basis of a variety of sources: Novgorod, Tver, Pskov, Smolensk, etc. That is, the chronicles of other lands were taken to Moscow, read there, compared, and what was common in them over the years was already copied into the Moscow chronicle, and (this is understandable) in the corresponding edition. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Trinity Chronicle is distinguished not only by the predominance of Moscow "news" in it, but also by a very positive attitude towards the Moscow princes and metropolitans.
The Moscow Grand Ducal Vault of 1479 became one of the largest chronicle monuments of the second half of the 15th century. Its main ideological basis was the substantiation of the rights of the Grand Dukes of Moscow to rule over Novgorod. Its later edition, the Moscow Grand Duke's Vault of the late 15th century, has also survived and has survived to this day. There is also the Simeon Chronicle, known from the list of the 16th century. So, when semi-literate “journalists” and of the same category “historians” write that the chronicles were being rewritten to prove the Romanovs' right to power, they heard the ringing, but they didn’t know where he was. Such "work" on the chronicle material was always carried out, and by no means with the accession of the Romanov dynasty. But it was carried out in due time, and not after 1613 or under Peter the Great, who did not need to prove anything to anyone at all - he possessed such power!
The Nikon Chronicle was originally created by Metropolitan Daniel around the 1520s. This is a large-scale compilation, the compiler of which used various sources: chronicle messages, stories, texts of lives, etc. It is not surprising that this chronicle is also considered one of the largest monuments of Russian chronicle writing in the 16th century. But here's what is especially interesting: this code puts the interests of the church in the first place, and it is ours, the Orthodox! And then what about the statements of some commentators on "VO" that "agents of the Vatican" properly "searched our chronicles" or "trampled on" them? Why didn't they notice such an important document? The Vatican agents worked badly, badly for us …
Until the middle of the XVI century. and Moscow chronicle writing was also conducted continuously. His most famous monuments of this period are called the Resurrection Chronicle and the Chronicler of the Beginning of the Kingdom. The Resurrection Chronicle is based on the Moscow Grand Ducal Code of the late 15th century, the first edition of which was begun in 1533, and the latest, the third, appeared in 1542-1544. The Chronicler of the Beginning of the Kingdom reported information from 1533-1552, and then it lasted until 1556-1560. In 1568-1576. in the Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, by a special tsarist order, work began on the grandiose Chronicle Code, which later came to Patriarch Nikon and gave the name to the entire chronicle.
The first three volumes of the collection were devoted to the events of world history, then seven volumes tell about the events of Russian history from 1114 to 1567, and its most recent volume, entitled "The Royal Book", was entirely devoted to the reign of Ivan the Terrible.
At the end of the 17th century in the Chudov Monastery, the Patriarchal Chronicle Code of 1652, 1670, 1680 and in two editions of 1690 was created. It is important to note that its compiler writes in it about the chosenness of the Russian state and its rulers. Let's emphasize - chosenness! And where, then, is the belittling of Russia and its history?
In the 15th-16th centuries, short chroniclers were created at the monasteries: Kirillo-Belozersky, Joseph-Volokolamsky, Trinity-Sergievsky, Solovetsky, Spaso-Yaroslavsky. Provincial chronicle writing is also conducted in many other cities, for example, Vologda, Veliky Ustyugk, Perm.
In the same 16th century, other forms of historical messages began to appear, which in their form depart from the chronicles: "Book of Degrees" ("Book of the degree of royal genealogy") and "Kazan history" ("History of the Kazan kingdom", "Kazan chronicler"), which very little resemble the chronicles, so to speak, in their pure form. These include "Chronicle of Many Rebellions" and "New Chronicler". The latter describes the period from the end of the reign of Ivan the Terrible to 1630, and this is a very important monument of the first third of the 17th century. There is a version that it was prepared in the environment of Patriarch Filaret with the involvement of an extensive source base: official letters and various documents of the era of the Time of Troubles, and a variety of chronicles.
Siberia, colonized by the Russian state, also had its own chronicle. Metropolitan Cyprian of Tobolsk was considered its initiator. Several such Siberian chronicles have survived to our time, which more or less differ in their content from one another. As a rule, all of them are devoted mainly to Yermak's campaigns and other historical facts of the “capture” of Siberia.
And even in the XIV-XVI centuries, chronicles were kept in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and since there was no actual Lithuanian writing and historiography at that time, they were kept in the so-called Western Russian written language. The centers of chronicle writing were Smolensk and Polotsk. Three chronicles have survived, two of which contain information about the Grand Duke of Lithuania Vitovt and the history of the Lithuanian state from the death of Gediminas to the death of Vitovt. The third set, The Chronicle of Bykhovets, ends in 1507, but since it considers the time from 1446 to 1506, it is an important historical source. There are also local chronicles: the Barkulab Chronicle, the Mogilev Chronicle, the Vitebsk Chronicle and a number of others. By the way, it would be quite possible to try to forge the "agents of the Vatican" in order to prove the supremacy, so to speak, of Lithuania over Russia, but it did not occur to them. They are kind of stupid in general, all these "agents". But you can only notice this by reading the PSRL. But this is some kind of work … Therefore, it is easier for “specialists” to make their historical “discoveries”, simply without reading all these volumes.
By the way, there are also Ukrainian chronicles that date back to the 17th-18th centuries. They are also often called "Cossack Chronicles". This is not exactly what we mean by weather records of events, but they contain information about Bohdan Khmelnytsky and his contemporaries.
There is the Lviv Chronicle of the middle of the 16th century and brought up to 1649; "Chronicle of the Samovidts" (1648-1702), the first Cossack chronicle, which is distinguished by great expressiveness and liveliness of presentation, and almost parallel to it "Chronicle of the Gadyach Colonel Grigory Grabyanka" (1648-1709); and in it the author writes about the Cossacks, who, in his opinion, descend from the Khazars. All this literature ends with the History of the Russ, the author of which, unfortunately, is unknown. It reflects the views of the Ukrainian intelligentsia of the 18th century.
Well, now a few conclusions. The total number of chronicles (more than 5000 volumes) is too large to speak of at least some kind of forgery. In addition, the analysis of their text did not reveal in them the presence of any unified algorithm for their correction, which would have to be present if such work was carried out purposefully.
In fact, the information in the annals is so diverse, there are so many borrowings in them that it is obvious, let's say, the current, that is, from summer to summer, the nature of their writing. None of the insertions, erasures and corrections humiliate the national dignity of Russians and their religion; rather, on the contrary, Russians and their faith are exalted. It is constantly emphasized that Russia is the third Rome, there will not be a fourth! Funny humiliation, isn't it?
