But you know yourself: senseless rabble
Changeable, rebellious, superstitious, An easily empty hope betrayed
Obedient to instant suggestion …
A. S. Pushkin. Boris Godunov.
"On a slippery porch, the number of cultured people is sharply reduced!"
Penza newspaper. "Our town".
Historical science versus pseudoscience. Recently, more and more materials began to appear that, how to put it mildly, not only cast doubt on entire epochs of modern history, but simply turn them upside down. And if you can and should doubt the historical realities, then all sorts of "coups" there require a very serious basis. Nothing can be solved here with a cavalry swoop. Therefore, it is probably worth first to acquaint the readers of "VO" with the foundation on which the building of national history is built, so that on this basis visitors to our site who are interested in this topic could talk about the essence of the issue with greater confidence on the basis of knowledge, not fantasies gleaned from nowhere.
Let's start with the annals, since these written sources contain the bulk of information about our past, which no artifacts can replace. So, what are these same chronicles, how many are there and what are they? And then, after all, some of those who do not hesitate to write about this here are talking about two or three (!) Documents, and, in addition, forged ones.
So, the chronicles are the works of the XI-XVIII centuries, telling about the events that took place in one or another year, that is, according to "years". Chronicles were kept in Kievan Rus, and in many adjacent lands and principalities, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and then the Russian state. They can be compared with Western European annals and chronicles, both in nature and style of presentation, and in their content.
The chronicle was conducted over the years. Hence, its "weather character", due to which they usually began with the words: "In lѣto …" ("In the year …"), which gave the chronicles their name. The number of chronicle documents that have survived to this day is very large and amounts to about 5000 units! By the way, this is information for those who write that the annals were burned under Peter the Great. Burned? Burned, burned, and … 5000 volumes still remain? There was not enough firewood or the "firemen" sold them to the side, but they themselves went to the tavern to wander around ?! So under Peter, it was strict with this! For failure to comply with the tsar's decree, they tore nostrils, beat with a whip and drove wild to Dauria …
Here it is necessary to interrupt a little and, as adherents of "folk history" like to say about it, to include logic. Let us imagine for a moment that the same German historians, "whom Lomonosov beat in the face," gathered all these chronicles together and would have decided to forge them. Let's remember how many of them there were, that they did not speak Russian well - and what happens? From 1724 to 1765 (the year of Lomonosov's death), we had … 14 foreign academicians. And not all of them were historians. Now let's divide 5000 by 14 (let it be) and get 357 for each. Let's imagine the volume of rewriting - on the basis of what has come down to us and we get … a year of hard labor on each folio. But they also did other things, went to balls, wrote slander about Lomonosov, and when they were drunk, not without it, such was the time. But still a bit too much, isn't it? Three lives would not have been enough for them to rewrite all this!
True, then more Germans came in large numbers. And by 1839 there were … 34 of them (in total according to the list), although it is clear that those former have already died, but they managed to somehow … "rewrite". And these continued, didn't they? But even in this case, 147 chronicles per brother is already an overkill! And after all, they could not entrust this tricky business to anyone. The Russian, on the other hand, is drunk, what's on his mind is on his tongue. Someone would be sure to let it slip. And not one! And the patriots of that time would not have hesitated to bring it to the right place - "The word and deed of the sovereign!" would have shouted right there, and there and the dungeon, and the whips, and the rack, all the secret intent would immediately be revealed. After all, the fewer strangers, the more they get. Lomonosov, of course, thought so too. It was not for nothing that he wrote odes of praise to each empress on her ascent. I understood the rules of the game! I knew how to flatter …
And again, the point was not just to rewrite them, but also to distort Russia to the detriment of, and this required a lot of knowledge and imagination, and a general plan of work for hundreds of years to come. There is one more important question: why rewrite them at all or change something in them? People with the psychology of that time, who despised the majority of Russians. Change their history? What for? Are we changing the history of the Papuans? "It's enough that we bring them our European culture!" That was all Miller, Schlötser and others could think about at that time, and … nothing more. So, what we have before us is a typical "conspiracy theory", that is, another stupidity, nothing more.
By the way, here's a good example of how you need to know the language in order to achieve your goal. In 1944, during the offensive in the Ardennes, groups of saboteurs, dressed in allied military uniforms and who knew English, acted in front of the German troops. What did they get caught on and what caused this operation to fail? At a military gas station, one of them, introducing himself to the Americans, asked for "petroleum", although he had to ask "hydroelectric power station". And he used the right word, but … he didn't know that the Yankees didn't say that. And here is the chronicle full of Church Slavonic and Old Russian words and dialectisms! They could not really learn the Russian language, but they mastered Old Russian perfectly ?! With all its semantic subtleties, knowledge of ancient history (which no one already knew!), In a word, to believe this is complete nonsense or a special invention, designed for people who are deeply ignorant or with a defective psyche. However, in our country, as, indeed, everywhere, in other countries, there have always been a lot of both! Pushkin did not write his immortal lines (see epigraph) in vain, oh, how not in vain!
But this is a quantitative indicator. And in the future we will turn to the substantive side of the question of "rewriting", but for now we note that most of the chronicles in their original form have not reached us. But their copies are known - the so-called "lists" (from the word copy off), made later, already in the XIII-XIX centuries. The oldest chronicles of the XI-XII centuries are known precisely in the lists. The latter are classified by scientists by type (that is, editions) - editions. Often in the texts of the chronicles there are compounds from several sources, which suggests that the chronicle materials that have come down to us are nothing more than collections of various sources, of which the earliest have not survived. This idea was first expressed by P. M. Stroyev (1796-1876), a Russian historian, a full member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, and today this is also the generally accepted opinion of historians. That is, most of the chronicles are collections of pre-existing texts, and this is how they should be treated.
Chronicle texts belong to three main types. These are synchronous records over the years, "chronicles" of a retrospective nature, that is, stories about the events of the past, and chronicles.
The oldest handwritten texts of the chronicles are considered to be parchment "The chronicler of the patriarch Nikifor soon" (last quarter of the XIII century), then comes the Synod list of the Novgorod first chronicle of the older edition (dating back to the second half of the XIII century, and then to the second quarter of the XIV century), the so-called Laurentian Chronicle (1377) and somewhat later Ipatiev Chronicle (1420s).
The annals contain a huge amount of material. These are historical facts, and examples from the biblical, as well as ancient history and the history of Byzantium, neighboring with us, the "life" of the "story", "words", as well as hagiographic texts, legends, messages, and even texts of documents. In particular, these are international treaties and various legal acts. Literary works were also very often used in chronicles, replacing historical sources. So among them we know: "The Teaching of Vladimir Monomakh", "The Legend of the Massacre of Mamaev", "Walking across the Three Seas" by the merchant Afanasy Nikitin, etc. It is clear that the views of the chroniclers had nothing to do with our current view of things. They contain very little information about economic relations, but much attention is paid to the deeds of princes and kings, as well as their environment, the activities of church hierarchs, and, of course, wars. There is practically nothing about ordinary people. The people in the annals are usually “silent”.
It is interesting that for most of the Russian chronicles known to us, their names are conditional, and do not correspond to their own names. Why did it happen? Well, of course, not because of the intrigues of some mythical conspirators, but in the early period of their study, when the names were given to them depending on their origin, storage locations, and even belonging to a certain person. The numbering in the names of some chronicles is also conditional. For example, Novgorod first - fifth, Sofia first and second, Pskov first - third. It has nothing to do with the time of their writing, alas, this is so, but only with the order of publication or other attendant circumstances. But if you think about it, with 5,000 documents, it simply could not be otherwise. To introduce all these tons of documents into scientific circulation is a real feat of service to science, which, by the way, is still going on.
Another interesting fact that characterizes the Russian chronicles is their anonymity. The chroniclers very rarely entered into the text any information about themselves, and if they allowed personified liberties, it was only to emphasize that they are simple people, not bookish, that is … “they will transmit everything without embellishment. Everything is as it is! On the other hand, the compilers of the chronicle texts often refer to themselves as a source of information: “I came myself and saw and heard”, or familiar “Samovids” who happened to see both the “regiment of God in the air” and various other similar miracles to this.
It is interesting that most of the modern researchers associate the goals of writing chronicles with … the struggle for power. Indeed, due to their uniqueness, they could not have any impact on society. But it was a document that the princes could read and thus receive an informational advantage over those who … did not read them! In particular, M. D. Priselkov wrote about this, and D. S. Likhachev, V. G. Mirzoev and A. F. Kilunov, in turn, wrote that Russian chronicles had educational tasks, that it was a kind of journalism, designed in the form of a historical essay. But this view is contradicted by weather records, so there is also such an opinion that the chronicle could also have the function of a legal document, since it fixed those legal precedents, which were then referred to, yes, by the representatives of the ruling dynasty. That is, they were already oriented not so much towards the present, but also towards the future.
But IN Danilevsky believed that from the second half of the 11th century the chronicles acquired the function of “books of life” and should have appeared at the Last Judgment as “evidence” of the righteousness or unrighteousness of those in power. This, however, indirectly, is also indicated by messages about signs, that is, natural phenomena, with the help of which God expresses his approval or censure of the events taking place. In any case, since literacy was the lot of a few, the written word was much more important than the spoken word, not only in everyday life, but also before God. Hence, by the way, the plurality of chronicles. Many rulers strove to have their own chronicles in order to … "be justified by them" at God's judgment.
It is very important to emphasize that all the chronicles of the Old Russian period are based on the Old Russian version of the Church Slavonic language, which, however, includes many borrowings from the Old Russian spoken language and business. This is how it differs from purely religious texts. But besides these two stylistic features, there are significant dialectical differences in the annals. That is, the characteristic linguistic features in vocabulary, phonetics, indicate to us the region of writing of certain chronicle works. Grammar and syntax are more difficult to localize, but, nevertheless, these features of speech are recorded and help in the attribution of works. But the Belarusian-Lithuanian chronicles were written in the Western Russian written language, which you also needed to know, but which was little known in the central regions of Russia.
And now, in the light of these facts, let's once again return to the ill-fated German falsifiers who "rewrote" all our chronicles. It turns out that the Germans, who spoke Lomonosov's language poorly, actually knew the semantics and morphology of both the Old Russian and Church Slavonic languages to the subtlety, and besides, all the local dialectisms. This is already beyond common sense in general, and speaks of the complete ignorance of those who assert this.
A. A. Shakhmatov considered how the creation of the ancient Russian chronicles took place. In his opinion, in the beginning there was an ancient vault, which was compiled somewhere around 1039 in Kiev. Then in 1073 it was continued and supplemented by the hieromonk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nikon Pechersky. On its basis, the Primary Code appeared with the alleged original name - "The Temporary Book, the Chronicle of the Rus Prince and the Rus Land …" Well, and the very first edition of "The Tale …" authored by the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Nestor appeared around 1113. It was followed by the Sylvester or Second edition, which fell into the Laurentian Chronicle. In 1118, the third edition appeared, preserved in the Ipatiev Chronicle. Well, and then wherever only excerpts from these chronicle vaults were not inserted.
It is believed that initially the weather records were very short - "In the summer … nothing happened." And they lacked any complex narrative constructions. But over time, they were supplemented and changed for the better. For example, in the story about the Battle of the Ice in the Novgorod 1st Chronicle of the younger edition, a change was made in comparison with the story of the Novgorod 1st Chronicle of the older edition, the number of killed Germans became "500", and before that it was "400"! Well, the explicit work of Miller and other German historians aimed at belittling our glorious history!
As already noted here, there are many chronicles. For example, there are many local chronicles of the XII-XIV centuries, containing … events in various small principalities and individual lands. The largest centers of chronicle writing were Novgorod, Pskov, as well as Rostov, Tver and Moscow. The birth and death of princes, elections of mayors and thousands, battles and campaigns, church ordinances and deaths of bishops, abbots, construction of churches and monasteries, crop failure, pestilence, amazing natural phenomena - everything fell into these lists.
Now let's take a closer look at the chronicle material of individual regions. Let's start with the Kiev and Galicia-Volyn chronicles. In Kiev, monks of the Caves and Vydubitsky monasteries kept chronicles, and at the court of the ruling prince.
It was in the Vydubetsky monastery that the Kiev Chronicle was written, which dates back to 1198. According to the historian V. T. Pashuto, the Kiev chronicle continued until 1238.
In Galich and Volodymyr-Volynsky, chronicle writing was carried out from the 13th century to the courts of princes and the local episcopate. In 1198 they were combined with the Kiev Chronicle. They are also known in the Ipatiev Chronicle.
The earliest Novgorodian chronicle was created between 1039 and 1042, and it is possible that these were extracts from the oldest vault. Then, around 1093, the Novgorod vault was compiled, based on earlier texts. Then new additions followed, and this is how Vsevolod's Arch appeared. Chronicle writing was also carried out at the Novgorod Archbishop (Vladychna) Department) practically without interruptions until the 1430s, which led to the emergence of the Novgorod Vladychny Chronicle, on the basis of which the text of the Novgorod First Chronicle was compiled, which is known to us in two versions, that is, editions, which are usually called "senior" and "junior". The older edition is a parchment Synodal copy of the XIII-XIV centuries, considered the oldest surviving list of our Russian chronicles. But the Younger version is available in several lists at once, and the earliest belong to the 1440s.
Further, the Karamzin Chronicle is known, not only with Novgorod local, but also general Russian news, of the late 15th - early 16th centuries. Then comes the Novgorod Fourth Chronicle in two editions, as well as the Novgorod Fifth Chronicle, known in the list of the late 15th century, and devoted mostly to local events.
The period from 1447-1469 is presented in its most complete form in the "Chronicle of Abraham", the first part of which was completed in 1469, and the second, compiled in 1495. Although the Novgorod Republic lost its independence in 1478, the chronicle writing in Novgorod continued until the 16th-17th centuries and even later. Several more chronicles were compiled, and then, in the 1670-1680s, it was revived by the works of Patriarch Joachim. The Novgorod Zabelinskaya Chronicle also belongs to the period 1690-1695, the presentation in it is brought up to 1679. The last Novgorod Pogodin Chronicle was compiled in the 1680-1690s. It is interesting that it is the Novgorod chronicles of the end of the 17th century that differ from all others by systematic references to sources (that's how it is!) And by their certain criticism.
