How reliable are the old Russian chronicles?

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Modern Russian historical science about ancient Russia is based on ancient chronicles written by Christian monks, while on handwritten copies that are not available in the originals. Can such sources be trusted in everything?

"The Tale of Bygone Years"is called the oldest chronicle collection, which is an integral part of most of the chronicles that have come down to us (and there are about 1,500 of them preserved). "Story"covers events up to 1113, but the earliest list was made in 1377 Monk Lawrenceand his assistants at the direction of the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod prince Dmitry Konstantinovich.

It is not known where this chronicle was written, named after its creator Lavrentievskaya: either in the Annunciation Monastery in Nizhny Novgorod, or in the Nativity Monastery of Vladimir. In our opinion, the second option looks more convincing, and not only because the capital of North-Eastern Russia moved from Rostov to Vladimir.

In the Vladimir Rozhdestvensky Monastery, according to many experts, the Trinity and Resurrection Chronicles were born, the bishop of this monastery Simon was one of the authors of a wonderful work of Old Russian literature "Kiev-Pechersk Patericon" - a collection of stories about the life and exploits of the first Russian monks.

It remains only to guess what the Laurentian Chronicle was from the ancient text, how much was added to it that was not in the original text, and how many losses it suffered, – In fact, each customer of the new chronicle strove to adapt it to their interests and discredit opponents, which was quite natural in the conditions of feudal fragmentation and princely hostility.

The most significant gap occurs in the years 898-922. The events of The Tale of Bygone Years were continued in this chronicle by the events of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus until 1305, but there are also omissions here: from 1263 to 1283 and from 1288 to 1294. And this despite the fact that the events in Russia before baptism were clearly repugnant to the monks of the newly brought religion.

Another well-known chronicle - Ipatievskaya - is named after the Ipatiev Monastery in Kostroma, where it was discovered by our wonderful historian N. M. Karamzin. It is significant that it was found again not far from Rostov, which, along with Kiev and Novgorod, is considered the largest center of ancient Russian chronicle writing. The Ipatiev Chronicle is younger than Laurentian Chronicle - written in the 20s of the 15th century and, in addition to the "Tale of Bygone Years", includes records of events in Kievan Rus and Galicia-Volyn Rus.

Another chronicle worth paying attention to is the Radziwill, which first belonged to the Lithuanian prince Radziwill, then entered the Königsberg library and under Peter the Great, finally, to Russia. It is a copy of the 15th century from an older copy of the 13th century and tells about the events of Russian history from the settlement of the Slavs to 1206. It belongs to the Vladimir-Suzdal chronicles, in spirit it is close to Lavrentievskaya, but much richer in design - it contains 617 illustrations.

They are called a valuable source "for the study of material culture, political symbolism and art of Ancient Russia." Moreover, some miniatures are very mysterious - they do not correspond to the text (!!!), however, according to the researchers, they are more consistent with historical reality

On this basis, it was assumed that the illustrations of the Radziwill Chronicle were made from another, more reliable chronicle, not subject to corrections by scribes. But we will dwell on this mysterious circumstance.

Now about the chronology adopted in antiquity. Firstly, it is necessary to remember that earlier the new year began on September 1 and March 1, and only under Peter the Great, from 1700, on January 1. Secondly, the chronology was conducted from the biblical creation of the world, which took place before the birth of Christ by 5507, 5508, 5509 years - depending on which year, March or September, this event occurred, and in what month: before March 1 or until September 1 … The translation of the ancient chronology into the modern is a laborious task, therefore special tables were compiled, which are used by historians.

It is believed that the chronicle weather records begin in the "Tale of Bygone Years" from 6360 from the creation of the world, that is, from 852 from the birth of Christ. Translated into modern language, this message reads as follows: “In the summer of 6360, when Michael began to reign, the Russian land began to be called. We found out about this because under this tsar Russia came to Constantinople, as it is written about it in the Greek annals. That is why, from now on, let's put the numbers down."

Thus, the chronicler, in fact, established with this phrase the year of the formation of Russia, which in itself seems to be a very dubious stretch. Moreover, starting from this date, he names a number of other initial dates of the chronicle, including, in the record for 862, Rostov first mentions. But does the first chronicle date correspond to the truth? How did the chronicler come to her? Maybe he used some Byzantine chronicle in which this event is mentioned?

Indeed, the Byzantine chronicles recorded the campaign of Russia against Constantinople under the emperor Michael III, but the date of this event is not named. To deduce it, the Russian chronicler was not too lazy to give the following calculation: “From Adam to the flood of 2242, and from the flood to Abraham, 1000 and 82 years, and from Abraham to the exodus of Moses, 430 years, and from the exodus of Moses to David, 600 years and 1 year, and from David to the captivity of Jerusalem 448 years, and from the captivity to Alexander the Great 318 years, and from Alexander to the Nativity of Christ 333 years, from the Nativity of Christ to Constantine 318 years, from Constantine to the aforementioned Michael 542 years."

It would seem that this calculation looks so solid that checking it is a waste of time. However, historians were not too lazy - they added up the figures named by the chronicler and got not 6360, but 6314! An error of forty-four years, as a result of which it turns out that Russia went to Byzantium in 806. But it is known that Michael the Third became emperor in 842. So rack your brains, where is the mistake: either in the mathematical calculation, or did they mean another, earlier campaign of Rus against Byzantium?

But in any case, it is clear that the Tale of Bygone Years cannot be used as a reliable source when describing the initial history of Rus. And it’s not just a clearly erroneous chronology. The Tale of Bygone Years has long deserved to be looked at critically. And some self-minded researchers are already working in this direction. So, in the journal "Rus" (No. 3-97), K. Vorotny's essay "Who and when created the Tale of Bygone Years?" Was published, in which the defenders of its inviolability are asked very uncomfortable questions, »Reliability. Let's name just a few such examples …

Why is there no information about the calling of the Varangians to Russia - such an important historical event - in the European chronicles, where this fact would be sure to draw attention to? NIKostomarov also noted another mysterious fact: in none of the surviving chronicles there is a mention of the struggle between Russia and Lithuania in the twelfth century - but this is clearly stated in the "Lay of Igor's Regiment." Why did our chronicles keep silent? It is logical to assume that at one time they were significantly edited.

In this respect, the fate of VN Tatishchev's "History of Russia from Ancient Times" is very characteristic. There is a number of evidences that after the death of the historian, it was significantly corrected by one of the founders of the Norman theory, G. F. Miller, under strange circumstances the ancient chronicles used by Tatishchev disappeared.

Later, his drafts were found, which contain the following phrase:

"About the old Russian princes, Nestor the monk was not good at knowing." This phrase alone makes us look at the Tale of Bygone Years in a new way, which is the basis for most of the chronicles that have come down to us. Is everything in it genuine, reliable, was it not deliberately destroyed those chronicles that contradicted the Norman theory? The real history of Ancient Russia is still unknown to us, it has to be restored literally bit by bit

Italian historian Mavro Orbini in his book “ Slavic kingdom , Published back in 1601, wrote:

"The Slavic clan is older than the pyramids and is so numerous that it has inhabited half the world." This statement is in clear contradiction with the history of the Slavs, set forth in the "Tale of Bygone Years."

In the work on his book, Orbini used almost three hundred sources, of which we know no more than twenty - the rest disappeared, disappeared, or maybe were deliberately destroyed as undermining the foundations of Norman theory and calling into question the "Tale of Bygone Years."

Among other sources he used, Orbini mentions the chronicle history of Russia that has not come down to us, written by the Russian historian of the thirteenth century Jeremiah. (!!!) Gone are many other early chronicles and works of our primary literature, which would help to answer where the Russian land came from.

Several years ago, for the first time in Russia, the historical research "Sacred Russia" by Yuri Petrovich Mirolyubov, a Russian historian-emigrant who died in 1970, was published. He was the first to notice "Isenbeck boards" with the text of the now famous Veles book. In his work, Mirolyubov cites the observation of another emigrant - General Kurenkov, who found the following phrase in one English chronicle: "Our land is great and abundant, but there is no dress in it … And they went across the sea to the strangers." That is, an almost literal coincidence with the phrase from the "Tale of Bygone Years"!

YP Mirolyubov made a very convincing assumption that this phrase got into our chronicles during the reign of Vladimir Monomakh, who was married to the daughter of the last Anglo-Saxon king Harald, whose army was defeated by William the Conqueror

This phrase from the English chronicle, through his wife, fell into his hands, as Mirolyubov believed, and was used by Vladimir Monomakh to substantiate his claims to the Grand Duke's throne. Court chronicler Sylvester respectively "Corrected" Russian chronicle, laying the foundation stone in the history of Norman theory. Since that time, perhaps, everything in Russian history that contradicted the "vocation of the Varangians" was destroyed, persecuted, hiding in inaccessible hiding places.

Now let us turn directly to the chronicle record for the year 862, in which it is reported about the "vocation of the Varangians" and for the first time Rostov is mentioned, which in itself seems significant to us:

“In the summer of 6370. They drove the Varangians across the sea, and did not give them tribute, and began to dominate themselves. And there was no truth among them, and generation after generation rose up, and there was strife among them, and they began to fight with themselves. And they said to themselves: "Let us look for a prince who would rule over us and judge by right." And they went across the sea to the Varangians, to Russia. Those Varangians were called Rus in the same way as others are called Swedes, and some Normans and Angles, and still other Gotlandians - this is how these were called. The Chud, the Slavs, the Krivichi and the whole of Russia said: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it. Come to reign and rule over us."

It was from this record that the Norman theory of the origin of Russia sprouted, humiliating the dignity of the Russian people. But let's read it carefully. After all, it turns out an absurdity: the Novgorodians drove the Varangians across the sea, did not give them tribute - and immediately turn to them with a request to own them

Where is the logic?

Considering that our entire history was once again ruled in the 17-18th century by the Romanovs, with their Germans academicians, under the dictation of the Jesuits of Rome, the reliability of the current "sources" is not great.