Russian culture was revived and developed along with the revival and rise of the Russian land, the development of the economic system after the Mongol-Tatar invasion, in the process of unifying the Russian principalities, first around several centers, and then around Moscow. She sensitively reflected all the innovations in Russian life, and most importantly, the changing moods of the Russian people, their patriotic impulse during the struggle against the Horde, on the eve of the Battle of Kulikovo and during the creation of a single Russian centralized state.
First of all, chronicle writing was revived and developed, large historical works appeared, in which the story was told about the entire path of the Russian people. New chronicle collections began to be created at the courts of leading Russian princes - in Vladimir, Rostov the Great, Ryazan, Tver, and later in Moscow. Chronicle writing in Novgorod and Pskov was not interrupted.
At first these writings were imbued with local interests. Telling about the events of Russian history since the time of Rurik and including the famous “Tale of Bygone Years”, these chronicles subsequently narrated the deeds of their princes and considered them the main characters of Russian history. The authors linked the story Ancient Rus', for example, with the history of the Tver or Ryazan principality and believed that it was their princes who were destined to lead the process of unifying the Russian lands. This was significant: the idea of the unity of Rus' was already on the agenda of history, and the chronicles reflected this idea.
From the second half of the 14th century. The leading role in chronicle writing and in the creation of historical and literary monuments passes to Moscow, which under Dmitry Donskoy took the initiative in the fight against the Horde. They are written in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, in Moscow monasteries. These works convey the idea of the unity of Rus', the commonality of its Kyiv and Vladimir periods, the leading role of Moscow in the unification of Russian lands and in the fight against the Horde. The Moscow “Russian Chronograph” became such a chronicle.
Already at this time: in the Moscow chronicles there is an idea about the right of Moscow to collect all the lands that were previously part of a single Old Russian state. Moscow had only just begun this process, but the ideologists of that time had already formulated the task of the Moscow princes for the future.
It is not for nothing that Ivan III, setting out on a campaign against Novgorod, familiarized himself in advance with the old chronicles in order to find in them a justification for his right as Rurikovich to own all Russian lands, including Novgorod, on the rights of the fatherland of his ancestors, the Kyiv princes.
Another written genre, reflecting the phenomena of the era and permeated with new mentalities of people, became at this time lives, legends and “walkings”.
Lives are biographies of clergy and secular figures who have been canonized Christian Church. Their heroes became only individuals whose activities were truly an era in the history of Rus', or those whose life feats became an example for many generations of Russian people. This was, for example, “The Life of St. Alexander Nevsky,” a monument of Old Russian literature of the late 13th – early 14th centuries. It told about the prince’s remarkable exploits in the fight against the Swedes and Germans, about his titanic and dangerous diplomatic activities in relations with Batu, the Golden Horde, about his mysterious death on the way from Sarai. Russian people, reading this life, were imbued with the ideas of serving the Motherland and patriotism. The author sought to distract readers from everything selfish and vain and awaken in their souls high life ideals of serving people, society, and their country.
Another such famous life was the story about the life and tragic end of Prince Tver, Grand Duke of Vladimir Mikhail Yaroslavin, torn to pieces in the Horde. In it, the author does not idealize his hero, he tells how he desperately fought for power over Russia with the Moscow Prince Yuri Daniilovich. However, the last days of his life, his voluntary appearance in the Horde to die as a martyr in order to save his land, allow the author to highly appreciate the life feat of Mikhail Tverskoy. Martyrdom, in his opinion, washes away everything petty and unworthy from the appearance of the Tver prince.
The Life of Sergius of Radonezh, written by his student Epiphanius the Wise in 1417–1418, also became a favorite reading of the Russian people. From the pages of this work emerges the image of a highly moral, hardworking, deeply religious person, for whom the highest happiness is to do good to his neighbor, to ensure the well-being of his native land.
Legends became especially popular at that time. These are stories dedicated to significant events in the life of the country. “Zadonshchina,” a monument of ancient Russian literature of the late 14th century, became such a legend. (apparently no later than 1393), telling about the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380. Its author (about him it is only known that his name was Sophrony and that he was from the Ryazan region) tells step by step about the invasion of Mamai, the preparation of Dmitry Donskoy to fight back enemy, army gathering, exodus historical battle. Here is just a small excerpt from “Zadonshchina”: “...And the prince said great Dmitry Ivanovich: “Brother, Prince Vladimir Andreevich, let’s go there, glorify our life to the world on Miracle, so that the old will tell and the young will remember! We will test our brave men and fill the Don River with blood for the Russian land and for the Christian faith...”
The story is imbued with a high patriotic spirit, and it is not without reason that the author more than once turns: mentally to the events and images of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.”
A special legend was written about the invasion of Khan Tokhtamysh on Moscow, which shook Rus' after a brilliant victory on the Kulikovo Field. In the burned and plundered Moscow, the author writes, there was “a plan and sobs, and the cry of many, and tears, and an inconsolable cry, and much lamentation, and bitter sadness, and inconsolable grief, unbearable misfortune, terrible need, and mortal grief, fear, horror and awe." Historical and literary works reflected the complexity and tragedy of Rus'’s struggle for its unity, against the Horde yoke.
In the XIV-XV centuries. "Walkings" reappear in Rus' - works describing the long journeys of the Russian people. One of them was the famous “Walking across the Three Seas” (meaning the Caspian, Arabian and Black) by the Tver merchant Afanasy Nikitin (?–1475), in which he told the Russian people about his many years of travel through the countries of the East and about life in India. The beginning of the description is dated 1466, the last lines were written in 1472.
His dream was to visit the East, from where overseas merchants brought expensive and outlandish things - beautiful silk fabrics, precious stones, pearls, spices, gilded weapons. India seemed like a fabulous paradise. But no one knew what the way there was. Nikitin decided to make his way to India with Russian goods - iron products, furs, patterned goods, i.e. fabrics decorated with gold and silver embroidery.
Afanasy was the first of the Russian people to travel a long distance from the Tverskaya pier on the Volga to Calcutta. Already on the way to the Caspian Sea, the Russian merchant was exposed to danger, was robbed, and was caught in a storm at sea. As a son-in-law, he passed through Azerbaijan, the Trans-Caspian lands, ended up on the coast of the Persian Gulf, and then sailed to India. There he spent several years. In "Walking" he described in detail his journey and the years spent in India, spoke about Indian land, about the customs and beliefs of Indians, about their cities.
During the long years of Afanasia's life in India, Nikitin lost count of the days according to the Russian calendar; Having lost the church books, I lost track of the church calendar. “I don’t know the great day of the Resurrection of Christ (Easter), but I guess by signs,” he noted in his notes. Longing for the Motherland increasingly gripped the merchant, although he remembered the years of the terrible feudal war: “May the Russian land be protected by God,” he writes. “There is no country like it in this world, although the boyars of the Russian land are unjust. May the Russian land become comfortable and May there be justice in it."
Finally, he sailed from India to Africa, visited Ethiopia, from there he moved to the Iranian Plateau, and then through the Black Sea and Crimea returned to his homeland.
Afanasy Nikitin died not far from Smolensk in a peasant hut, a little before reaching his native Tver. Notebooks with a description of “The Walk” were found in his bag. He turned out to be the first European to visit India and talk about it in detail. Only 30 years later, the famous Portuguese navigator Vasco da Gama paved the way to India.
MY OWN GAME
"CHRNICLES, EPICS, TALES, LIVES"
Literary reading grade 4
Chronicles, epics, legends, lives
Time Machine
Bogatyrs
Live picture
Wheel of History
Cultural monuments
Car time
In what century did they first start recording information about events in Rus'?
In the 11th century
CORRECT ANSWER
TO HOME
Car time
One of the first Russian chroniclers was...
Monk of the Kiev-Pechora Monastery Nestor
CORRECT ANSWER
TO HOME
Car time
In what year did Rus' first hear about the Tatar-Mongol raids on its lands?
In 1224
CORRECT ANSWER
TO HOME
Car time
This date begins the passage from the chronicle “And Oleg hung his shield on the gates of Constantinople,” given in the textbook? Name it.
In summer 6415 (907) and in summer 6420 (912).
CORRECT ANSWER
TO HOME
Car time
Moscow Prince Dmitry Ivanovich defeated the hordes of Khan Mamai on the Don, for which he was nicknamed Donskoy. How did we know this?
From the chronicles
CORRECT ANSWER
TO HOME
Bogatyrs
Go straight and you'll be killed!
To go to the left means to be married!
To go to the right - to be rich!
All this is prescribed by fate!
Where do these lines come from?
From the epic “Ilya’s Three Trips”
CORRECT ANSWER
TO HOME
Bogatyrs
Viktor Mikhailovich Vasnetsov
Dobrynya Nikitich, Alyosha Popovich and Ilya Muromets are heroes of Russian epics.
CORRECT ANSWER
TO HOME
Bogatyrs
The epic tells how Ilya Muromets is captured. In fact, the Russian people are being captured.
What is this technique called in literature?
Allegory or allegory
CORRECT ANSWER
TO HOME
Bogatyrs
In 822, most of the tribes were united by Prince Oleg
CORRECT ANSWER
TO HOME
Bogatyrs
To whom was this monument erected?
Where is it installed?
Monument to Ilya Muromets in Murom
CORRECT ANSWER
TO HOME
Live picture
To whom was the monument erected?
Sergius of Radonezh
CORRECT ANSWER
TO HOME
Live picture
One day the boy Bartholomew met an old monk who helped him get out of the forest. And this boy also decided to become a monk. What new name did he receive and become famous throughout Rus'?
Sergius of Radonezh
CORRECT ANSWER
TO HOME
Y !
Live picture
We are at the walls of the Church of St. Sophia, joyful Novgorodians are greeting the winners. The prince himself climbed onto the high wooden platform in iron armor and a bright red cloak. The whole square fell silent. Alexander Nevsky raised his hand, pointed to the captured knights, and said...... What did he say?
“Whoever comes to us with a sword will die by the sword! This is where the Russian land stood, stands and will stand!”
CORRECT ANSWER
TO HOME
Live picture
Before the Battle of Kulikovo he arrived
Prince Dmitry for advice.
To whom And What did they tell the prince?
Sergius of Radonezh.
He blessed Dmitry Ivanovich for this feat.
CORRECT ANSWER
TO HOME
Wheel of History
What is an epic?
Bylina is one of the types of oral folk art. They tell about the exploits of heroes.
CORRECT ANSWER
TO HOME
Wheel of History
What is a chronicle?
Chronicle is a record of events entered year after year
CORRECT ANSWER
TO HOME
Wheel of History
“I cleared that path
Bogatyr... .
I dug up a treasure, but no treasure back
He returned and was poor again!
And I catch fate by the mane,
I go around the restive one,
And fate for me is for the horse!”
Whose words were these and where were they written down?
Did Ilya Muromets carve a new inscription on the stone?
CORRECT ANSWER
TO HOME
Wheel of History
What did the Magi prophesy for Prince Oleg? Did their prediction come true?
They prophesied that Oleg would die from his beloved horse. The prediction came true even after the death of the horse
CORRECT ANSWER
TO HOME
Wheel of History
What was Prince Dmitry's nickname?
Donskoy
CORRECT ANSWER
TO HOME
Cultural monuments
The first printed book.
Bible
CORRECT ANSWER
TO HOME
Cultural monuments
A beautiful hand-drawn letter with which the text in the book begins.
Initial letter
CORRECT ANSWER
TO HOME
Cultural monuments
They covered the walls of the temple. This is the name given to images made with paints on wet plaster. These images told about the life of Jesus Christ and the saints. What are we talking about?
The walls of the temple were covered with frescoes
CORRECT ANSWER
TO HOME
Cultural monuments
He founded a monastery dedicated to the Holy Trinity. Who is this person and name the monastery.
Sergius of Radonezh founded the Holy Trinity St. Sergius Lavra
CORRECT ANSWER
TO HOME
Cultural monuments
student of Sergius of Radonezh, great icon painter Andrei Rublev
CORRECT ANSWER
TO HOME
Homework: register for album sheet a small fragment of the chronicle text, using headpieces and miniatures. (For an exhibition of works by contemporary “chroniclers”.)
Quiz “Chronicles, epics, legends, lives”
Goals: teach to listen to the opinions of comrades, accept correct solution in a team, defend your point of view; develop speech, thinking and creativity.
Planned results:
subject: the ability to choose a book for independent reading, focusing on thematic and alphabetical catalogs and recommended bibliography, evaluate the results of one’s reading activity, make adjustments, use reference sources to understand and obtain additional information, independently compile a short summary;
meta-subject: P - analysis of the text read, highlighting in it main idea, K - answers to questions based on a literary text, discussion in a group of answers to the teacher’s questions, proof of your point of view;
personal: showing respect for the art book, accuracy in its use.
Equipment: there is a scoreboard on the board.
Quiz progress:
1 Organizing time
Today we will play “Our Game”, competing in teams. Before the captain answers, you must discuss the issue as a team. Choose captains. The captain will name the topic and price of the question, selecting them on the board.
Subject
Price issue
Time Machine
Bogatyrs
Live picture
Wheel of History
Cultural monuments
Carrying out the game
Time Machine
10 In what century did they first start recording information about events in Rus'?(In the 11th century)
20 One of the first Russian chroniclers.(Monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor.)
30 In what year did Rus' first hear about the Mongol raids on its lands?(In 1224)
40 “Love a book - a source of knowledge.” Whose words are these?(M. Gorky.)
50 Moscow Prince Dmitry Ivanovich defeated the hordes of Khan Mamai on the Don, for which he was nicknamed Donskoy. How did we know this?(From the chronicles.)
2. Bogatyrs
10 Go straight ahead and you'll be killed!
To go to the left is to be married!
To go to the right - to be rich!
All this is prescribed by fate!
Where do these lines come from? (From the epic “Ilya’s Three Trips.”)
20 “Bogatyrs”, “Knight at the Crossroads”. Who is the author of these paintings and who is depicted in them?(Artist Viktor Mikhailovich Vasnetsov. In his paintings the heroes of Russian epics are Dobrynya Nikitich, Alyosha Popovich and Ilya Muromets.)
30 The epic tells how Ilya Muromets is captured. Who's really in captivity?? (Russian people.) What is this technique called in literature? (Allegory, or allegory.)
40 Name your loved one epic hero. Justify your answer.
50 Remember what you know about Russian folk fairy tales. How are fairy tales and epics about Ilya Muromets similar? How are they different?
3. Live picture
10 Read expressively your favorite passage from any work you have read.
20 Tell us why Troy died.
40 Name the heroes of Ancient Hellas you know.
50 Name the main qualities of the Greek and Russian heroes! hero.
4. Wheel of History
10 Explain what an epic is.(Bylina is one of the types of oral folk art that tells about the exploits of heroes, selfless defenders of their Motherland, about their amazing strength, courage and kindness.)
20 Explain in your own words what a chronicle is. Where did this name come from? Why were chronicles created?
I dug up a treasure, but no treasure back
He returned and was poor again!
And I catch fate by the mane,
I go around the restive one,
And fate for me is for the horse!
Whose words are these and where were they written down?(Ilya Muromets wrote these words on a stone.)
40 What did the Magi prophesy for Prince Oleg? Did their prediction come true? Tell me.(They predicted Oleg’s death from his beloved horse. The prediction came true even after the horse’s death.)
50 There was such a great groan,
There was a battle with such blood,
That the Don was painted crimson
All the way down.
And Prince Dmitry...
Since then the people have nicknamed
And good glory is behind him
He still lives to this day.
What nickname did Prince Dmitry receive?(Donskoy.)
5. Cultural monuments
10 The first printed book.(Bible.)
20 A beautiful hand-drawn letter with which the text in the book begins.(Initial letter.)
30 This is the name given to the images in the temple made with paints on wet plaster. These images told about life
Jesus Christ and saints. What are we talking about? (About the frescoes.)
40 He founded a monastery in honor of the Holy Trinity. Who is this man? Name the monastery.(Sergius of Radonezh founded Holy Trinity laurel.)
50 Name the author of the Trinity icon.(It was created by the great icon painter Andrei Rublev.)
III Summing up
A card with an icon remains on the scoreboard
This is a gift to the participants of the game. You can include “The Heroic Symphony” by A.P. Borodin and present pre-prepared prizes. The number of points for each team is counted and the players are awarded.
Historical story and life in PVL. The Tale of Vasilko Terebovolsky, Life of Theodosius of Pechersk.
According to Likhachev. Great legacy.
The sources of the tale of bygone years determined its direction. The powerful, logically coherent narrative of the story, imbued with a patriotic spirit, in its movement from the past to the present, carried within itself a broad understanding of the political activities of modern times. It tells about the beginning of the Russian land, about the beginning of the Russian people.
The written history of Rus' was preceded by its oral history. Then oral history accompanied written history. The chronicle owes its flourishing to the oral history of Russia, the custodian of which was the people.
Folklore was a huge historical source. The chronicle preserves a huge number of stories, legends and songs with which ancient Russian scribes sought to fill the lack of history of their homeland.
Grave mounds have long been associated with historical legends among all peoples. The high hills that rose above the graves of the leaders themselves testified to the desire to preserve the memory of the dead for many generations. But, in addition, the memory of the buried was supported by funeral feasts held on their mounds, a cult that surrounded many of the burial mounds. Naturally, various legends that lived among the surrounding population were associated with them as long as the mounds themselves existed. The number of burial mounds on the territory of Ancient Rus' was especially large. There were exceptionally many of them in Kyiv itself. Many of them were associated with legends that were important for determining the historical destinies of the Eastern Slavs. It is not without reason that chroniclers repeatedly refer to burial mounds as reliable and truthful witnesses to the accuracy of their historical narrative. So, for example, the conquest of Kyiv by Oleg was connected in memory with the graves of Askold and Dir; the death of Igor - with his grave “at the Iskorosten hail in the Trees”; the legend about the Prophetic Oleg - with his grave: “...there is his grave to this day, say Olgov’s grave”; the death of Oleg Svyatoslavich was associated with his grave “near the city of Vruchey” (modern Ovruch), etc. About all these graves the chronicler notes that they exist “to this day”; about many of them he says that they “are said to be” , that is, associated with the glory of the princes buried in them. However, with the adoption of Christianity, which changed funeral customs and abolished funeral festivities where deeds of the past were remembered, the graves of princes ceased to be centers to which the historical memory of the buried was attached. Christian graves rarely attract the attention of the chronicler.
But not only with ancient graves was the people's memory of the deeds of the past connected. Cities and tracts firmly preserved the memory of their origin. Folk memory in Novgorod and Ladoga connected certain places with Rurik, in Izborsk - with Truvor, in Beloozero - with Sineus. Local in their timing, these legends spoke about all-Russian figures, about events in all-Russian history. By themselves, these local legends covered the entire Russian land in a single network, uniting and collecting its historical past. Numerous tracts, villages, churchyards, perevesishas (places where birds were caught) along the Dnieper and Desna were associated with local memories of Princess Olga. Olga's sleigh has been preserved in Pskov. “And her traps are all over the earth and signs and places and povosts” (pogosts), writes the chronicler, noting the all-Russian nature of historical legends about Olga.
How abundant and detailed these historical memories were is shown by at least the exact topography of ancient Kiev, which the chronicler gives, describing times distant from it by a whole century: “Before then the water flowed along the side of the Kiev mountain, and on the hem not gray people, but on the mountain. The city is Kiev, where there is now the courtyard of Gordyatin and Nikiforov, and the courtyard of the princes is in the city, where there is now the courtyard of Vorotislavl and Chudin, and the outbuilding is outside the city, and outside the city there is another courtyard, where there is a courtyard of the democrats behind the Holy Mother of God; There is a tower courtyard above the mountain, for that tower is stone.”
It is characteristic that the most ancient historical memories are most closely connected with the pagan, pre-Christian cult of ancestors, but the closer to the time when the chroniclers are already writing, the clearer the historical memories themselves appear, the more clearly the interest in the history of the native country stands out. The historical self-awareness of the people is becoming more and more intense and is being introduced into a precise chronological framework.
Thus, throughout the entire space of Rus' from Izborsk, Ladoga and Beloozero to the northern shores of the Black Sea, to Korsun, where the chronicler was shown the church in which Vladimir was baptized, and to Tmutorokan, the historical memory of all-Russian heroes, of the first Russian princes, “with labor” was preserved "to their great ones who gathered the Russian land. Even outside the borders of Rus', on the distant Danube, the chronicler points out the city (Kievets), founded by Kiy. Local in their origin, but all-Russian in their content, these legends testified to the breadth of the historical horizons of the people. These local historical legends spoke not only about Rus', but also about the peoples and countries neighboring it: Hungarians, Pechenegs, Greeks, Scandinavians, Khazars, Poles, Bulgarians, and on the other hand, Constantinople, Tmutorokan, Korsun made up that wide geographical background, where the action of the legends associated with the tracts unfolded. Thus, the Russian land itself with its numerous cities, tracts, villages, and burial mounds was, as it were, a living book of its unwritten history.
The Tale of Bygone Years, which has preserved many local legends for us, also testifies to other forms of oral historical memory.
A careful analysis of the Kyiv chronicle shows that many entries were made in it based on the stories of two persons: Vyshata and his son Yan Vyshatich, whose participation in the chronicle is directly noted under 1106
under this year, the compiler of the “Tale of Bygone Years” speaks about Jan, about his death and notes: “I heard many words from him, and seven were written in chronicles, from him I heard.”
In fact, three generations of chroniclers were on friendly terms with Vyshata and his son Yan during the years 1064-1106.
Yan was the son of Vyshata; Vyshata, as noted in the Tale of Bygone Years in 1064, was the son of the Novgorod mayor Ostromir, whose name is associated with the oldest surviving monument of Russian writing - the famous Ostromir Gospel of 1056-1057. Ostromir, as was established by the famous archaeologist D.I. Prozorovsky, was the son of the Novgorod mayor Konstantin; Konstantin was the son of the Novgorod mayor Dobrynya - the future hero of Russian epics Dobrynya Nikitich. The fate of all these representatives of the Jan Vyshatich family is reflected in the chronicle based on the oral stories of Vyshata and Jan.
These stories, chronologically inaccurate, like all oral recollections, carry traces of fairy-tale motifs and are colored by tendentious thought: they glorify this family, emphasize its weight in the general balance of power of the Kiev state, its closeness to the family of the Kyiv princes. Both Vyshata and Yan persistently told the chroniclers about the wise advice that their ancestors gave to the Kyiv princes. Svyatoslav's reluctance to listen to Sveneld's advice - to go around the Dnieper rapids and go to Rus' on horseback - led to Svyatoslav's death; the Pechenegs, who were lying in wait for the Russians in this dangerous place, attacked Svyatoslav, defeated his squads and killed him. Vladimir I Svyatoslavich repeatedly followed Dobrynya’s advice in his campaigns. Dobrynya seeks the hand of the Polotsk princess Rogneda for Vladimir. Listening to the advice of Dobrynya's son Konstantin, Yaroslav received the Kiev table. When Yaroslav, defeated by Svyatopolk and the Polish king Boleslav, ran to Novgorod and was planning to flee from here further overseas, the mayor Konstantin, son of Dobrynya and grandfather of Vyshata, cut Yaroslav’s boats with the Novgorodians, declaring: “We want to beat Boleslav and Svyatopolk again.” . The Novgorodians, led by Konstantin, collected money for the squad, and Yaroslav defeated Svyatopolk and Boleslav. Just as Vladimir owed the reign to Dobrynya, so Yaroslav owed the Kyiv table to his son Konstantin.
In the stories of Vyshata and Jan Vyshatic about their own exploits, the same “tribal” tendency is again present. For example, in the story “The Tale of Bygone Years” about the last Russian campaign against Constantinople in 1043, inserts were made. It can be considered reliable that these insertions were made based on the stories of Vyshata or Jan Vyshatic. In these inserts, the voivodeship of Vyshata is emphasized, and it is as if Vyshata belonged to the main voivodeship, although before that, in the story of the preceding “Tale of Bygone Years” of the Primary Code (about which below), the voivode was listed as Ivan Tvorimirich.
Both Vyshata and Yan also told the chroniclers about their struggle with the Magi, about the gathering of polyud in the Belozersk region (1071).
The activities of absolutely all representatives of the clan of Vyshata and Yan are marked by their long campaigns, their collection of tribute and polyudia, which should have served as an indirect reproach to the princes of their time, who do not think about collecting tribute from neighboring peoples, preferring to ruin their own population with “vices and sales”. The collection of tribute from the Volga Bulgarians is described in chronicle articles about Dobrynya. In their own activities, Vyshata and Yan note precisely these distant campaigns in which they were participants: to Constantinople (Vyshata), to collect polyud in Belozerye (Yan)
Legends about the family of Jan Vyshatic and Vyshata were known not only within the narrow confines of this family. They have become widespread.
Already in 1128, twenty-two years after Yan’s death, the chronicler drew on historical legends about Dobrynya to explain the family feud between the Polotsk princes Rogvolodovich and the Yaroslavichs. Having described some events in the Principality of Polotsk under this year, the chronicler proceeds to present the legend about Vladimir I Svyatoslavich and Rogneda, in which Dobrynya also plays an active role. The chronicler conveys this historical legend not from the words of any representative of the Dobrynya family, but as popular rumor. The very first words of the story directly indicate this: “There are stories about these Vseslavichs, as the former leader said.” Further, the chronicler tells how Vladimir, who was still reigning in Novgorod, sent his governor Dobrynya to Rogvolod to ask for the hand of his daughter Rogneda. Rogneda did not want to marry “Robichich”, the son of the slave Malusha (“she said: “I don’t want rozuti Robichich”). Vladimir is angry and complains to Dobrynya. Dobrynya, “filled with rage,” marches on Polotsk, takes the city by storm, and takes Rogvolod, his wife and daughter captive. Vladimir kills Rogvolod and marries Rogneda, calling her Gorislava. The following is the legendary story of a quarrel between Vladimir and Rogneda, during which their young son Izyaslav stands up for his mother with a sword in his hands.
Having cited this historical legend about Vladimir and Rogned-Gorislav, the chronicler notes: “And Rogovolozhi took away the sword against Yaroslavl’s grandson,” thereby motivating the insertion of a folk tale into the chronicle text.
A number of signs suggest that these tribal traditions were not isolated. The princes constantly remembered their fathers and grandfathers, taking into account to a large extent the family traditions, the clan continuity, and the rights of their clan. When, for example, in 1097, Davyd and Oleg Svyatoslavich learned about the blinding of Vasilko Terebovlsky, both of them were “sadly quick” and said: “This did not happen in our generation.”
Another type of oral historical memory, reflected in The Tale of Bygone Years, was druzhina poetry.
The milieu that surrounded the Russian princes most firmly preserved the memory of the military exploits of the past. She was the keeper of her squad traditions. That is why Svyatoslav does not dare to break the covenants of antiquity and accept baptism. Svyatoslav says to his mother Olga, who offered him to be baptized: “The squad will start laughing.”
“The Tale of Bygone Years” has preserved for us from the pre-literate period of Rus' the content of several heroic legends of this particular druzhina poetry. Their main theme was the bold campaigns of Russian squads against the main and richest center of the then Europe - Constantinople. The unusually daring campaigns of the Russians created especially favorable conditions for the flowering of heroic song. Echoes of this druzhina poetry are heard in chronicles about the campaigns against Constantinople by Askold and Dir, Oleg, Igor, and Svyatoslav. They are present in the story about how Oleg ordered his soldiers to make wheels and put ships on them. With a fair wind, the ships unfurled their sails and approached Constantinople from the field. The frightened Greeks offered peace and tribute. The squad songs told about how the Prophetic Oleg refused to accept, under the walls of Constantinople, the food and wine offered to him as a sign of peace, with which the Greeks were going to poison him. The remains of squad songs about Oleg can be seen in the story “The Tale of Bygone Years” about the shield that Oleg nailed over the gates of Constantinople, “showing victory.” Finally, the legend about Oleg’s death from his beloved horse passed into the chronicle through songs and spread throughout Northern Europe, in local legends of Ladoga and in Scandinavian sagas.
Echoes of the squad songs were also the stories in the chronicle about the famous feasts of Vladimir Svyatoslavich. Memories of these feasts, for which 300 pieces of honey were cooked, at which there was “a lot of meat, livestock and animals,” have been preserved in modern epics. The squad's awareness of its strength and significance is clearly expressed in the chronicle description of one of the feasts, compiled by the chronicler also, obviously, on the basis of the squad song. The squad grumbles at the prince because they have to eat with wooden spoons and not silver ones. Loving his squad more than anything in the world, Vladimir, according to this squad legend, ordered a search for silver spoons for them. “I can’t fill a squad with silver and gold,” says Vladimir, “but with a squad I will fill silver and gold, just like my grandfather and my father searched for gold and silver with a squad.”
Particularly striking in The Tale of Bygone Years is the characterization of the fearless Prince Svyatoslav, who spent his entire short life on long campaigns, based on squad songs. “Prince Svyatoslav, having grown up and matured, began to howl, copulate many and are brave, and walk easily, like a pardus (like a cheetah), making many wars. Walking, he did not carry a cart on his own, neither a cauldron, nor cooking meat, but he cut up a thin horse meat, an animal, or beef on coals, baked meat, or a tent named after him, but made a lining and a saddle in his head; The same goes for his other howls. And he sent to the countries, saying: “I want to go to you.” When the Greeks he defeated, wanting to test him, sent him numerous gifts - gold and the famous Byzantine pavoloks, Svyatoslav did not look at them, ordering the youths to hide what they had brought. When the Greeks brought a sword and other weapons to Svyatoslav, Svyatoslav took them into his own hands, caressed them, praised them and asked them to greet the Byzantine king who had sent them to him. The Greek ambassadors were horrified by Svyatoslav’s belligerence and, returning to the king, said: “Here is a man who wants to be, because he does not disdain his property, but has weapons. "Take tribute." And the king sent his ambassadors to Svyatoslav, saying: “Do not go to the city, take the tribute you want.”
A similar story, emphasizing the belligerence of the Russians, is conveyed by the chronicler about the glades. When the Khazars imposed tribute on the glades, the glades paid it with weapons: a sword from the smoke. The Khazars paid this tribute to their prince, and the Khazar elders were horrified by the belligerence of the Russians: “This is not a good tribute, prince! We are looking for weapons on one side, using sabers, and these weapons are sharp on both sides, using swords. “We must pay tribute to us and to other countries.”
Thus, the druzhina poetry of pre-literate Rus' was poetry of high patriotic pathos. This is what made the poetry of the warriors at the same time folk poetry. The squad of Russian princes was a Russian squad in its patriotic consciousness.
One could also cite other forms of historical epic that served as the basis for the creation of The Tale of Bygone Years, for example, unique tales that had a dialogic form. There is no need to strive to exhaust all forms of oral historical memory of the people. It must be emphasized, however, that the chronicle used oral folk historical memory not only as a historical source. “The Tale of Bygone Years” largely drew its ideas from here, the very coverage of the past of the Russian land.
In fact, already from what was given above, it is clear that the people's memory of historical events and historical persons was not indifferent and “mechanical”. The facts of Russian history were not presented in the historical epic “in bulk”, without their mutual connection with each other. Memories of the events of Russian history among the Russian people were of a heroic nature and were connected by a common, unified idea of the glorious beginning of Russian history.
We find wonderful words about the historical knowledge of Ancient Rus' from Kirill of Turov (Russian writer of the 12th century). Kirill distinguishes two types of keepers of historical memory - chroniclers and songwriters, therefore, creators of written history and creators of oral history, but in both he finds the same goal of their activity as historians: glorifying heroes and, especially, their military exploits. Kirill proposes to glorify the “heroes” of the church in the same way as the people glorify their secular heroes: “...historians and vetians, who decided to chronicle and write songs, bow their rumors to the former border of the Caesars' army and battles, and decorate the words and magnify the courageous one in their own way, the Caesars and those who did not give a splash to the enemy in battle (that is, who did not show their backs to the enemies - D.L.), and crown them with glorious praise..."
In the chronicles we find numerous evidence of the existence among the people themselves of living ideas about the heroic past of the Russian land.
In 1097, the people of Kiev sent to Vladimir Monomakh with the words: “We pray, prince, to you and your brother, that you cannot destroy the Russian lands. If you rise up to fight among yourselves, you will rejoice at the abomination, and take our land, which your fathers and grandfathers acquired through great labor and courage, plundering the Russian land, seeking other lands, and you want to destroy the Russian land.”
Historical events more than centuries later could be remembered by the people with such details that indicate the presence of similar oral tales or songs about them. So, for example, before the Battle of Lipitsa in 1216, the Novgorodians said to Mstislav Mstislavich the Udal: “Prince! We don’t want to measure it on horses, because our fathers (fathers) fought on Kulachskaya foot.” The Battle of the Kulachtse or Kolaksha River took place in 1096, one hundred and twenty years before the Battle of Lipitsa. Before entering the battle on Kolaksha, the Novgorodians dismounted and then marched against Oleg Svyatoslavich on foot. Consequently, in Novgorod, for one hundred and twenty years, the people's memory retained such a seemingly small detail of the Battle of Kolaksha. For some reason she attracted attention beginning of XII V. and the compiler of “The Tale of Bygone Years”, who wrote about her: “Mstislav crossed the fire from the Novgorodians, and dismounted from the horses of the Novgorodians, and set foot on Kulachets.” It seems that it was not by chance that the folk memory retained this vivid detail. It reflected the prowess of the Novgorodians and, consequently, the heroic past of Novgorod.
This special character of folk memory, which noted primarily everything heroic in the past, gave the first Russian chronicle a touch of heroism and epicness. The beginning of Russian history was filled with heroism for the chronicler. Praise and glorification are clearly felt in the depiction of the first Russian princes - Oleg, Igor, Olga, Svyatoslav, Vladimir.
Life in the Tale of Bygone Years.
The story of Vasilko Terebovolsky. Vasily (late 11th - early 12th century) - author of the Tale of the blinding of Prince Vasilko Rostislavich Terebovlsky, which was included in article 1097 of the Tale of Bygone Years (as part of the Laurentian, Ipatiev, Radzivilov Chronicles, etc.). A. A. Shakhmatov considered V. a priest, confessor of Prince Vasilko; other researchers consider him a secular person. According to B.A. Rybakov, V. was the “husband” of Prince Svyatopolk and it is permissible to identify him with V., the mayor of the city of Vladimir, mentioned in the same chronicle article. A. A. Shakhmatov limited the Tale of V. with several fragments from the article of 1097, interspersed with the text of the chronicler, namely: “And Svyatopolk came with Davyd to Kiev ... 2 youths of the prince, Ulan and Kolchko,” “And Vasilkov’s being Volodymeri, in the same place... Having now departed from the city, I have buried the sow from the city” and “Svyatopolk, having driven out David, began to think... of reclaiming Volodymer and planting his son Yaroslav in it.” Other researchers attribute the entire article of 1097 to V. and even some other chronicle articles. Standing apart is the hypothesis of M. X. Aleshkovsky, according to which V. is one of the main editors of the PVL, who in 1119 revised its text compiled by Nestor (according to Aleshkovsky’s hypothesis, this text can be identified with the Initial Code): he introduced fragments from the Chronicle into it George Amartol, the text of the Treaties with the Greeks, the legend of the Apostle Andrew, legends about the northern peoples (in articles 1096 and 1116) and other stories, as well as a number of ethnographic, historical and genealogical clarifications.
Researchers who attribute V. only to article 1097 believe that the text of the Tale was included in the PVL by Sylvester. A. A. Shakhmatov, on the contrary, considered it an insertion by the compiler of the 3rd edition of the PVL.
In his Tale, V. acts as an eyewitness and participant in the events. He himself mentions that he was sent by Prince David Svyatoslavich to the blinded Vasilko Rostislavich, who was in captivity, to convince him to accept the terms of reconciliation proposed by David. But V. is not limited to describing his conversation with Vasilko, but sets out the entire history of the conspiracy of the princes, the captivity and blinding of Vasilko, all the events of the feudal civil strife that broke out between the princes David and Svyatopolk of Kyiv, guilty of the massacre of Vasilko, and the princes who spoke in his defense. If we do not limit the Tale to the fragments noted by Shakhmatov, but attribute the entire article of 1097 to V., then his tendency to glorify the statesmanship and generosity of Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh becomes completely clear. Therefore, it is assumed that the Tale was created on behalf of this prince. V.'s story has high literary merits: the author skillfully uses vivid plot details, and conveys dialogues and monologues with a liveliness rare for ancient Russian literature of that time. Researchers often turned to the analysis of the Tale to characterize the principles and techniques of Old Russian plot narration. D. S. Likhachev sees in it a work of a special genre - “stories about princely crimes”, comparable to the chronicle stories about the murder of Igor Olgovich (in article 1147 of the Ipatiev Chronicle) and the Tale of the murder of Andrei Bogolyubsky. The story was published only as part of the Tale of Bygone Years.
Now, as for Theodosius of Pechersk.
In general, Theodosius of Pechersk was a famous church and political figure and writer of the 11th century. In 1108, he was officially canonized, which prompted Nestor to begin describing his life. The exact date of completion of this work is not known. In his work, Nestor used legends, oral stories and traditions that existed in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, the founder of which was Theodosius.here.
In literary terms, this life is an example of the genre. From his first appearance, Theodosius appears in the image of a “typical saint,” an ideal positive hero. The son of pious parents, already in early childhood he amazed everyone with his behavior: he diligently attended church, shunned his peers, was undemanding about his clothes, learned to read and write early, and soon everyone was amazed at his wisdom.
Thus, in the spirit of hagiographic literature, Nestor sets out the obligatory biography of the hero. The further narrative is divided into a number of small short stories1 related to the central character: 1) about the driver who was transporting Theodosius from Kyiv to the monastery; 2) about the angel who gave Theodosius a golden hryvnia; 3) about the robbers who attacked the Pechersky Monastery; 4) about a barrel filled with honey for the glory of Theodosius.
Each novella, according to Nestor's plan, was supposed to be an illustration of the holiness and spiritual perfection of Theodosius. This method of narration allowed Nestor to show Theodosius in full stature as a righteous man. The portrait of the saint is given in the spirit of hagiographic literature, but behind it the real features of Theodosius shine through: dressed in shabby clothes, extremely undemanding in food.
Nestor finds expressive details that create the illusion of authenticity of what is depicted. The monastic brethren are living, earthly people with their deeds, morals, and characters. The author characterizes their life, social work on the construction of the monastery, economic concerns, relationships with the laity.
Theodosius himself, from the very beginning of the story about him, is presented surrounded by real everyday details, ultimately creating the image of a stern and active abbot. He worked all day: “he went to work first of all, and was the first to go to church and the last to leave,” he happily helped the bakers knead dough or bake bread, carried water from the well, and chopped wood himself. To the words of cellarer Fyodor: “Order one of the free monks to go and prepare as much firewood as needed,” the blessed one replied: “I’m free, I’ll go,” “he took an ax and began to chop wood.”
Nestor creates the image of an ascetic ascetic. As an ascetic, Theodosius wears a hair shirt on his body, sleeps “on his ribs,” and dresses in a “retinue of hoodoo.” The author notes that “his clothing was a hair shirt made of prickly wool, and on top he wore another retinue. And even that one was dilapidated.”
Nestor describes in detail the spiritual qualities of the abbot, recreating his psychological portrait. He was simple, distinguished by holiness of soul, humility and extraordinary meekness, and joyfully listened to words of reproach. “He was the protector of widows and the helper of orphans.”
The psychological portrait of Theodosius is complemented by a description of his death, revealing the powerful spirit of the abbot. He is shaking with chills, he is burning in the heat, he is already completely exhausted, speechless, but he gathers his strength and calls the brethren to him three times, finding words of consolation for them. The death of Theodosius is psychologically motivated. Almost dying, “...he stood up and bowed down, praying with tears to the merciful God for the salvation of his soul, calling on all the saints for help.” Nestor writes: “And again, having prayed, he lay down on his bed, and after lying down for a while, he suddenly looked up at the sky and exclaimed loudly with a joyful face: “Blessed is God that this has happened: now I am no longer afraid, but I rejoice that I am moving away from of this light!”2. The author concludes: “and one might think that he said this after seeing a certain phenomenon, because then he straightened up, stretched out his legs, and folded his arms crosswise on his chest, and transferred his holy soul into the hands of God, and communed with the holy fathers.” “And the noble prince Svyatoslav,” writes Nestor, “who was not far from the blessed monastery, suddenly saw that a pillar of fire rose to the sky above that monastery.”3
Nestor also focuses on the spiritual evolution of the hero, leading him through a series of life’s vicissitudes (exhausting work and asceticism, mother’s despotism, running away from home and wandering), starting from the divine destiny of Theodosius the child to the formation of an ideal positive hero, “God’s chosen one.”
In this case, a special role is given to the dramatic collision: the clash between mother and son.
According to the rules of literary etiquette, which regulated the depiction of heroes in the literature of Ancient Rus', the image of a saint required the obligatory presence of a character opposite to him. Nestor contrasted Theodosius with his mother - the embodiment of the material, earthly principle. This strong, masculine woman is literally obsessed with love for her son, and excessive love was the source of constant clashes between them. The son's desire to devote himself to serving God encounters fierce resistance from his mother. She, as the author emphasizes, persuades Theodosius to give up his aspirations “either affectionately, then with threats, and sometimes with beatings.” In anger, the mother grabs him, grabs him by the hair, pinches him, throws him to the ground, tramples him, ties him up, locks him up, shackles his legs and beats him until she herself is exhausted.
A.A. Shakhmatov
The Life of Anthony is one of the monuments lost for the historian of Russian literature. If it had survived to this day, it would undoubtedly occupy one of the most prominent places among the most ancient works of our writing. Important in itself, as one of the first attempts to combine into one a number of historical and legendary legends about the emergence of the Pechersk Monastery, this life is especially interesting because it served as a source for many legends about the lives of the Pechersk saints of the 11th century and about events related to the history of the glorious monasteries; Several historical and even chronological data were borrowed from it into the Tale of Bygone Years.
The loss of the Life of Anthony, irretrievable for science, was noticed in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery already in the 16th century. In the seventies of this century, the King of Poland sent Deacon Isaiah to Moscow with instructions to ask the Tsar and the Grand Duke for several books to remove lists from them and print them. Between these books, Isaiah, in his response to the interrogations made to him in Moscow, calls the Life of Anthony: “and although the Tsar, Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of All Russia, from his royal book depository, asked for a Bible in our language, Russian Slovenian, copied word for word ... and conversations Gospel... and the life of our reverend and God-bearing father Anthony of Kyiv, and his life with us in Kyiv in the sacred monastery Mother of God and our venerable father Anthony and Theodosius of Kyiv are not in the Pechersk monastery. Only Bishop Simon of Vladimir brings us into obedience about his life in the Patericon of Pechersk in some theological guilt.” In the next century we encounter even more compelling evidence that even then the Life of Anthony was not found in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery. The compiler of the preface to the printed Patericon (1661) says among other things: “But what is not written in one book is usually replenished by another, and St. Nestor, in addition to the chronicle, wrote in more detail in another special book, the Life of our Venerable Father Anthony, and this book, containing his detailed life, is often mentioned in the titles of the anciently written Pechersk Patericons, but was lost by us during the wars. But the famous writer St. Simon, Bishop of Vladimir and Suzdal, read it and pointed out to us the year, month and day of the repose of this reverend leader, and his burial in our cave, and not in Rome.” From these words of the preface it is clear that the “Life of the Venerable and God-bearing Father Anthony” found in the printed Patericon has nothing in common with his ancient life: the content of this article, as Kubarev thoroughly noted, was borrowed from Simon’s Word on the creation of the church, from the Life of Theodosius and other sources known to us. Simon and Polycarp, in their legends included in the Pechersk Patericon, refer several times to the Life of Anthony: it follows that at the beginning of the 13th century it was still in the Pechersk Monastery. But the fact that both of these writers consider it appropriate to make extensive extracts from it, to give a retelling of its contents, suggests that already in their time this life was little known and forgotten. Polycarp directly points out the need to talk about the lives of those saints whose stories were included in the Life of Anthony: otherwise, he says, the memory of them will completely disappear (cf. below). One might think that this Life was found during the time of Simon and Polycarp; Previously, few people knew about it and, perhaps, it was not subject to correspondence at all.
So, the sources for our acquaintance and for restoring the content of the Life of Anthony are the legends of Simon and Polycarp.
But in addition, we find both in the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon and in our chronicles a number of data that, with more or less obviousness, can be associated with this lost monument of our ancient writing.
This study has the main goal of establishing a connection between two monuments that have not reached us - the Life of Anthony and the Pechersk Chronicle. To do this, based on the data that has reached us, I am trying to restore the content of both this life and this chronicle, point out the dependence of the chronicle on the Life and thus, having established the sources of the Pechersk Chronicle, move on to an outline of its literary history.
The tales of Simon and Polycarp have come down to us not in original form: future researchers of the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon will undoubtedly indicate in which editions the most original text of these legends has been preserved. But the changes that these legends underwent even in the later handwritten edition of the patericon - Cassian's 1462 - are not so significant that they could serve as an obstacle to the recognition of those places where the Life of Anthony is spoken of as direct evidence from the authors of the legends themselves - Simon and Polycarp. I will cite this evidence using the lists of the Patericon of the Cassian editions and the edition of the so-called Arsenievskaya (Versenevsky parchment list of the Public Library).
The life of Anthony is mentioned in the following places in Simon's Epistle to Polycarp and his Legends about the creation of the church and about the lives of the Pechersk saints.
1. Having said in his letter to Polycarp that many of the Pechersk monks were awarded the rank of bishop and pointing to Leonty, Bishop of Rostov, Simon continues: “Metropolitan Hilarion, and you yourself are in the life of St. Anthony, as from him he was tonsured so quickly you will be worthy of the priesthood"
2. At the end of the article “That for the sake of having diligence and love for the venerable father Anthony and”, the article placed at the beginning of Simon’s Legend about the holy monks of Pechersk, we read in Cassian’s editions of the Patericon: “so that it was exactly laid, in that divine prestm. and I would have received a little joy from my many sins, prayers for the sake of the saints, father, for Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory now and ever and unto ages of ages” and after that the cinnabar title: “about the blessed Fousstratius the faster”, further: “A certain man I came from Kyiv to Pechora at least to be a Chernorisets...” Meanwhile, in the Arsenievsky edition (Bersen. sp.) after the words “prayers for the sake of the saints, father” we find: “and such is what you will find to brother Polycarp in the life of St. Anthony. Someone came to him from Kyiv, even though he was a monk.” I think that in this case, the Arsenievskaya edition more accurately preserved the original text of Simonov’s legend: after the concluding words of the first article (prayers for the sake of the holy fathers), there was not the title of the next article (about Eustratia the faster), but a transitional phrase read in the Arsenievskaya edition (the guilt is such that you will find ... in the life of St. Anthony). It follows that the content of the legend about Eustratius was borrowed by Simon from the Life of Anthony (cf. someone came to him from Kyiv). The compiler of Cassian's 2nd edition, having the changed text under his eyes (cf. Cassian's 1st edition in Yakovlev's edition), could no longer conclude that Eustratius came to Anthony; That’s why after the words “even though he was a monk,” he inserted the phrase: “and the abbot commanded him to tonsure him, and he called his name Oustratie.” Following the legend about Evstratiy Simonov, the story about Nikon the Monk is in close connection with the previous legend: Evstratiy and Nikon Sukhiy were simultaneously captured by the Polovtsians, which is why the story about Nikon begins with the words: “others, named Nikon, were captured in captivity... "; This also explains the fact that both legends end with one common conclusion, where among other things we read: “for the sake of the blessed one who was foretold martyr of Christ Gerasim, being baptized as a Jew, for this reason the passion-bearer Nikon, the Polovtsians were monks” (Rumyants. No. 305; Yakovdev p. 97). It is curious that Evstratiy (about whom it was actually said above that “when the Jews saw the miracle that happened through his prayer, he was afraid and crossed himself”) is called here Gerasim, just as above in the prophetic words put into Nikon’s mouth (“ This is what Saint Gerasim said to me, like..."). It seems to me that we should conclude from this that Simon had a written source where Gerasim was identified with Eustratius (secular and monastic names), and such a source, as indicated above, could have been the Life of Anthony.
3. In his sermon about Saint Athanasius, the recluse Simon, talking about the healing of Babyla from the relics of St. Athanasius, continues: “If anyone is incorrect in thinking about what is written, let him honor the life of St. Anthony our father, the chief of the Russian thinker, and let him believe (Bersen.). The same can be read in Cassian editions, cf. Kassian 1st: “if anyone thinks wrongly about what is written, let him honor the life of our holy father Anthony...” (ed. Yakovlev, 99), and in Kassian’s 2nd vol. Anthony we find Anthony and Theodosius: “May our fathers honor the lives of the saints, Anthony and Theodosius, the chief of the Russian deceiver; It is obvious that the insertion of the name Theodosius is later. From this place in Simon’s legend it cannot be concluded that the miracle over Babyla was borrowed by Simon from the Life of Anthony (cf. article by E. N. Shchepkin in Archiv f. Sl. Ph. XIX, Zur Nestorfrage). The possibility of an extraordinary miracle, the healing of a paralytic person from touching the body of St. ascetic, is confirmed by a reference to the Life of Anthony, which tells of a similar case of the healing of a patient from a bone taken from the relics of Moses Ugrin (cf. below).
4. Having told in the Word about the creation of the church about the miracle that happened at the founding of the stone church of Pechersk, in which heavenly fire descended on the place chosen for laying the foundation, Simon notes: “in the life of St. Anthony this was revealed more extensively, in the life of Theodosius it was revealed to everyone essence, like a pillar of fire appearing from earth to heaven, sometimes a cloud, sometimes like an arc from the top of this church to this place, and many times the icon comes, like an angel bearing it, to the place that wants to be” (Kaccian. and Arsen.) . Indeed, in the Life of Theodosius we read what is indicated here; it is clear that there is no reason to doubt that the reference to the Life of Anthony would have been justified if it had reached us. From Simon’s words it is clear that in this life, even more extensively than in his Word on the creation of the church, he spoke about the miraculous circumstances that accompanied the founding of the Church of the Dormition of the Mother of God, and Simon gave us an extract or retelling of what he found in the Life of Anthony.
In the writings of Polycarp, the Life of Anthony is mentioned in the following places:
5. At the end of the legend about Agapit, the unpaid doctor, Polycarp expresses surprise “how the great deeds of St. Anthony and Theodosius (great corrections of our holy fathers, Anthony and Theodosius). If such a luminary went out as a result of negligence, then how can rays receive light from it? By the rays I mean these reverend fathers and brothers (I think of these as our reverend fathers of Pechersk). But, as the Lord said, not a single prophet is acceptable in his own country (but as the Lord says, no prophet is acceptable in his own country). Further, pointing out that if he (Polycarp) decided to write to him (Akindinus) about miracles, exploits, abstinence, prophecies of the most ancient (previously named) holy reverend fathers, and faith, signs and wonders were already attested by Bishop Simon, then some these stories will seem incredible due to the greatness of the deeds described (greatness for the sake of deeds). The reason for their unbelief is that they know about me, Polycarp, how sinful I am. “But (I am ready to do this) if Your Reverence commands me to write about those whom my mind has comprehended and my memory has preserved; even if it will not be useful to you (you must write), in order to leave it for the benefit of those who will live after us, just as blessed Nestor wrote in the chronicler about the blessed fathers Damian, Jeremiah, Matthew and Isaac. In the life of St. Anthony, all their lives are written down, albeit briefly (in the life of St. Anthony, their entire lives are written down, even if briefly spoken); more extensively (the lives of the previously mentioned Chernorisians are recounted there) (but especially before the sayings of the Chernorisians). (I) will speak openly, and not secretly, as before (I speak openly and not secretly, as before). For if I keep silent, after me they will be forgotten and, moreover, their names will not even be remembered, as was the case until now (if I keep silent, they will be forgotten from me, and besides, their names will not be remembered, as it was to this day). This is said in the 15th year of your abbess, and what was not mentioned for 160 years is now, thanks to your love, spoken publicly (the same speech, in the ei. year of your abbess, has not yet been commemorated. p . and? years, now yours for the sake of hidden love was heard).” I made such an extensive extract and, moreover, translated into modern language in order to dwell in some more detail on this important place for us in Polikarpov’s legend. First of all, I note that in the first phrase of the above passage, “our father Anthony and Theodosius” stands instead of “our father Anthony,” just as in another place cited above, the name Theodosius was subsequently added to the name of Anthony. This is clear from the following phrase: “as long as there was a lot of light from negligence.” From this it is clear that Polycarp expresses surprise at how the exploits and miracles of Anthony were forgotten: the words “extinguished by negligence” show that this, that is, the obvious oblivion of Anthony, occurred due to negligence, which allowed the disappearance and concealment of his life. In the Life of Anthony, according to Polycarp, the lives of the most ancient monk monks of Pechersk are briefly told, but in more detail precisely those about whom he spoke before, that is, those ascetics whose lives were written by Polycarp before others. Now we cannot say which lives are meant by Polycarp in this case, since nothing proves that the current order of Polycarp’s legends in Cassian’s or their other order in Arseniev’s edition of the Patericon is original). Perhaps the passage in question should be understood as the end of the letter of Polycarp to Akindinos, and in this letter the lives of only the most ancient (formerly Znamenny) ascetics of the Pechersk people were told. In this case, the edition of this passage that has come down to us changed something in the original text of Polycarp, namely, instead of the words: “if only you had written” (words incomprehensible, since there is no second part in the text conditional sentence), there might have been the words: “Write this”; instead of “but if your reverence commands to write” - “but as you commanded”... and further, instead of “their mind will not comprehend them and the memory will bring” ... “comprehend... bring.” If this is so and if the indicated changes were made when the passage in question was introduced in the middle between Polycarp’s legends, the words “before the speech of the monks” may refer to all those ascetics whose legends were borrowed by Polycarp from the Life of Anthony: this may include, Lavrenty the recluse, Moses Ugrin , John the recluse.
6. Having told about the ascetic life of Moses Ugrin, Polycarp says: “And in the life of our holy father Anthony, it is written about this Moses, how he came and died in a good confession of the Lord. T. years in monasteries, E. years in captivity, suffering and chained, h. for years I suffered in passion for purity” (Bersen. sp.). In Cassian editions last words slightly changed: “and in captivity suffered in bonds. ?. years, sixth summer for cleanliness"; in addition, above, instead of the words “when he came”: “the blessed one came in the days of St. Anthony” (Rumyants. No. 305). From the words of Polycarp it is clear that the story about Moses Ugrin was borrowed in significant parts from the Life of Anthony.
7. In the tale of Fyodor and Vasily, Polycarp puts into the mouth of Fyodor, who was put on trial before Prince Mstislav Svyatopolkovich, who asked him whether there was much gold, silver and vessels in the treasure he found and whether it was known who hid it in the cave, the following words: “in the life of St. Anthony it is told that there are Varangian luggage, even though they have Latin origins, and for this reason the Varangian stove is called to this day, and there is an infinite amount of gold and silver.” From these words it is clear that the Life of Anthony spoke, among other things, about some Varangian cave, which also explained the origin of its very name.
The passages indicated here from Simon's and Polycarp's legends give us the opportunity to restore in general terms the content of the Life of Anthony. This curious monument set forth the legends associated with the Monk Anthony and the founding of the Pechersk Monastery. Therefore, the exploits of the first monks of the holy monastery were also presented here; so here it was said about the arrival of Moses Ugrin to Anthony (cf. 6), about Eustratius and Nikon (2), about the tonsure of Hilarion, the future metropolitan, from Anthony (1); it was also said about other ascetics (5), among other things also about John the recluse, who healed a patient with a bone from the relics of the Monk Moses Ugrin (3 and 6). Among other things, they talked about some Varangian cave (7) and described in detail the events related to the founding of the stone church of St. Dormition (4). From the words of Simon we can conclude that the legends he recorded were borrowed from the Life of Anthony: in addition to the miraculous element in these stories, our attention is drawn to the desire to emphasize the connection of the holy Russian monastery with Greece, Greek shrines: the church is built by Greek craftsmen hired in Constantinople by the Mother of God herself and sent her to Kyiv with the relics of St. Artemia, Polyevkta and others; one of the first monks of Pechersk, Moses Ugrin, appears to have been tonsured by the Svyatogorsk hieromonk (in the same days, someone went from the holy mountain, he came to the blessed one with instructions from God, and tonsured him and left, Bersen. sp.). These are features that bring Anthony’s Life closer to those legends about the beginning of the Pechersk Monastery, which spoke of Anthony’s tonsure on Mount Athos and his founding of the monastery with the blessing of the Holy Mountain.
The references to the Life of Anthony cited from the works of Polycarp provide grounds for resolving the question of the time of compilation of this monument. From them it is clear that Polycarp himself attributed this life to ancient times: monk Fedor, answering a question asked of him by Prince Mstislav Svyatopolkovich, refers to the Life of Anthony; Having admitted this, Polycarp obviously assumed that the Life existed already in the 11th century, since Mstislav Svyatopolkovich, whose death he speaks of a few pages later, was killed in 1099. However, in the passage placed after the legend about Agapit, Polycarp expresses himself even more clearly about the time of compilation of the Life of Anthony: it was written 160 years before the year when he composed his letter to Akindinus, who had already been abbot for the 15th year. This is how the above passage should be understood: “the same thing was said. in ei. ) the summer of your abbess, there would be no commemoration.r. And? years". If we knew exactly which years the abbess of Akindinus fell, we could conclude from this place exactly when Polycarp wrote his epistle and when, in the opinion of this writer, the Life of Anthony was compiled. But, as you know, the past of the Pechersk monastery in the 13th and 14th centuries remains completely dark. We only know that Akindinus is mentioned in the Laurentian Chronicle as the archimandrite of the Pechersk Monastery in 1231, we also know that he was abbot after Dosifei, who in turn lived until 1226 (the death of Simon Bishop of Vladimir), since Simon in his Epistle mentions the rite he brought from Athos about the singing of twelve psalms (Macarius, East Russian Church, 111, pr. 74)). Turning to the above words of Polycarp, I find it possible that the gap of 160 years between the time when he wrote his tales and the time of compilation of the Life of Anthony was borrowed by him from some chronological data indicated by the compiler of this life; but it is much more likely to assume that, without more accurate data, Polycarp attributed the time of compilation of Anthony’s Life to the year of his death, which, as he could easily conclude from Simon’s Word on the creation of the church, was in the year 1072 (the words of the Mother of God to the stone masons she hired: “ This Anthony exactly blessed the departure of this light for eternity, and this Theodosius in the century of summer but he goes to the Lord." Therefore, with this calculation, we will have to assume that the Epistle to Ankindinus was written by him in 1232: this does not contradict what we know about the time of Akindinus’s abbess and is consistent with the probable assumption that Polycarp wrote after the death of Bishop Simon). So, we draw the conclusion from the words of Polycarp that he dated the composition of the Life of Anthony to 1073.
The conviction has long been established in our historical science that the compilation of the set of the Tale of Bygone Years was preceded by work on the less voluminous chronicles that were included in this set. Kostomarov, in his Lectures on Russian History (St.-Petersburg, 1861), pointed to one of these chronicles - the chronicle of the Pechersky Monastery. From the words of Polycarp that Nestor the chronicler wrote the lives of the Monks Damian, Jeremiah, Matthew and Isaac, as well as from the existence of a tradition that attributed to Nestor the compilation of the original chronicle, Kostomarov concluded that “Nestor wrote the Pechersk Chronicle and this monastic chronicle was entered into ours (in The Tale of Bygone Years), as one of components her... Sylvester's case is a collection of individual legends. This Sylvester contributed to his work Nestor’s chronicle of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, which relates to the affairs of this monastery and constitutes only a small part of the entire chronicle. Not everything related to the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery was written by Nestor. This can be concluded from the following circumstance: under the year 1051, the chronicler talks about himself, talks about his arrival at the Kiev Pechersk Monastery and about his tonsure from Theodosius. Previously, this place was attributed to Nestor, but in one handwritten patericon of the 16th century (it would be easier to refer to the Life of Theodosius) it is said that Nestor came not under Theodosius, but under his successor Stefan, and therefore the news placed under the given year does not belong to Nestor , but to some other chronicler who wrote before him.”
Kostomarov’s opinion about Nestor and the Pechersk Chronicle was supported and developed by subsequent researchers. Thoroughness. it becomes obvious if we agree that the basis of the Silvestrov code lies the chronicle code, which in the later, modified edition is read at the beginning of the 1st Novgorod Chronicle according to the lists of the Commission, Tolstoy and others. In this chronicle, which quite accurately preserved the original story from 1044 to 1074 (cf. About the Initial Kiev Code in the Readings of General History and other Russian for 1897), we do not find under 1051 the Legend of the beginning of the Pechersk Monastery: therefore, it was not in the original chronicle vault, but inserted into the Tale of Bygone Years from another chronicle source, which, following Kostomarov, we will call the Pechersk Chronicle. A comparative study of the 1st Novgorod Chronicle and the Tale of Bygone Years leads us to the conclusion that in the original code under the year 1074 the same description of the death of Theodosius was read, which Sylvester preserved in the code he compiled. From here with very likely it follows that the original chronicle was compiled in the Kiev-Pechersk monastery and that it already contained articles related to the history of this monastery. Consequently, a comparative study of the Tale of Bygone Years and the Kiev Primary Code (according to its later edition in the Novgorod 1st Chronicle) should restore the original volume and content of the Pechersk Chronicle: all articles related in the Tale of Bygone Years to the history of the Pechersk Monastery and not read in the Primary Code , borrowed by Sylvester from the Pechersk Chronicle. These include: The legend that the Pechersk monastery was nicknamed (1051), the story of the Pechersk ascetics (1074), the news of the founding and completion of the Pechersk church (1075), the news of the death of Abbot Nikon (1088), news of the consecration of the Pechersk church (1089), the story of the transfer of the relics of Theodosius, the fulfillment of his prophecy and brief praise of Theodosius (1091), the story of Bonyak’s attack on the Pechersk monastery (1096), news of the death of Ian, who was buried in the Pechersk monastery, and about the tonsure of Svyatosha (1106), a mention of the custom of Svyatopolk before each enterprise to venerate the tomb of St. Theodosius (1107), news of the end of the refectory in the Pechersk monastery, the inclusion of Theodosius in the synodik and the end of the top at St. The Mother of God on Klova, founded by the former Pechersk abbot Stefan (1108), news of the death of Eupraxia Vsevolodovna, laid in the Pechersk monastery (1109), news of the appearance of a pillar over the tomb of Theodosius (1110). This list contains only those news and stories that are read in the Laurentian and Ipatiyevsky lists of the Tale of Bygone Years. Bearing in mind that in a number of cases the chronicles containing the Sophia vremennik more accurately convey the original text of the Tale of Bygone Years than the indicated and similar lists), we can add to the number of borrowings in the Tale of Bygone Years from the Pechersk Chronicle the news of the death of Anthony in 1073 (Nov. 4th) and the following news, read after the words: “the beginning of the Pechersk monastery from Anthony” in Sophia, Sophia, Voskresenskaya and Tverskaya under 1052, in Novgorod 4th under 1051 year:
“And in Kyiv three singers came from the Greeks, from their generations.” A CLOSE connection between both news - about the beginning of the Pechersk monastery and about the arrival of singers from Greece is established by the fact that they are placed side by side not only in the named lists, but also in the Archangel-City Chronicle and in the chronicle of Avramiya, where, under the year 1037, following the news of Anthony of Pechersk (and Autoney of Pechersk was brought; at the same time, Anthony of Pechersk was brought), we read: “at the same time, three singers (Arkh.: Krasnosevtsi) came from Constantinople.” Below I will return once again to the question of the connection of this news with the History of the Pechersk Monastery, but for now I will limit myself to the conclusion that it ended up in the Tale of Bygone Years from the Pechersk Chronicle. Leaving for now the question of the mutual relationship of all the given news that was in the chronicle we are restoring, I turn to other monuments that used it as a source.
The connection between the name of Nestor and the Pechersk Chronicle, indicated by Kostomarov, is undeniable. Another question is whether Nestor really compiled this chronicle, whether everything that it contains belongs to the pen of Nestor; but it is clear that it was the Pechersk Chronicle that was called Nestorova, and only later did the Tale of Bygone Years receive this name. For the first time, a connection is seen between the name of Nestor and the chronicle in the legends of Polycarp.
In the legend about Nikita the recluse, among the other reverend fathers who came to Nikita in his cave and drove away the demons from him, Nestor is named as the chronicler (Bersen. sp. and Cassian editions).
At the end of his tale about Agapit, Polycarp, comparing his work with previous descriptions of the lives of the Pechersk saints, says: “like blessed Nestor in the chronicle he wrote about the blessed fathers, about Damian, Jeremiah and Matthew and Isaac” (Rumyants. No. 305).
Following Kostomarov, I think that Polycarp had no reason to call Nestor’s Tale of Bygone Years and that, therefore, the “chronicler” written by Nestor is the Pechersk Chronicle. So, Polycarp found in the Pechersk Chronicle the lives of Damian, Jeremiah, Matthew and Isaac; that these lives were actually read in the Pechersk Chronicle, we concluded above on the basis of data from the Tale of Bygone Years. It follows that Polycarp was familiar with the Pechersk Chronicle and that those passages that he cites from the “chronicler”, who is not more closely defined, were borrowed by him precisely from the Pechersk Chronicle. I will give the places where he refers to the chronicle.
In the legend about Moses Ugrin we read: “one night Boleslav died in vain and there was a great rebellion throughout the entire land of Latvia, and the people rose up and killed their bishops and bolyars, as the chronicler tells, then they killed this wife too... "(Rumyants. No. 305; Bersen. sp., etc.). Of course, this news is the same as what we read under the year 1030 in Laurus. and other lists of the Tale of Bygone Years: “at the same time Boleslav the Great died in Lyasech, and there was a rebellion in the land of Lyadsk; The people stood up and beat up the bishops and priests, becoming their own boyars, and there was a rebellion among them.” But bearing in mind that Polycarp was familiar with the Pechersk Chronicle and that the Tale of Bygone Years included a number of borrowings from this chronicle, I conclude that the news of the death of Boleslav and the rebellion in the Polish land was found by Sylvester and Polycarp precisely in the Pechersk Chronicle. Below I will point out the relationship of this news to the history of the Pechersk Monastery and the grounds that clearly indicate that the source of the Tale of Bygone Years for this event must necessarily be recognized as the Pechersk Chronicle.
In the legend about the long-suffering Pimen, Polycarp, having reached the story of his death, says: “at the time of his repose, three pillars appeared above the refectory and from there they came to the top of the church, about them it was said in the chronicle, but the Lord knew this sign or this for the sake of the blessed one, or some other view of God (is) to happen.” The connection of this place with the news read under the year 1110 in the Tale of Bygone Years is obvious: “a pillar of fire appeared from earth to heaven... and behold, a pillar of more than a hundred was on the refectory of the stone... and after standing a little, it descended on the church and a hundred over the tomb Feodosiev, and then step to the top like the east of the faces, and then you will be invisible.” But it turns out that the “chronicler” to which Polycarp refers spoke of three pillars, and in the Tale of Bygone Years only one. I think that the Pechersk Chronicle actually spoke of three pillars (cf. below), and that Sylvester (or, perhaps, a later editor), who recognized the miraculous phenomenon as the appearance of an angel, did not accurately convey the news of his source, saying about one pillar instead of three (it was no longer a pillar of fire, but an angelic appearance... in the 2nd summer, didn’t an angel quickly sit down on foreigners and adversaries...).
In view of all of the above, I accept that Polycarp was familiar with the Pechersk Chronicle and that this chronicle served as the source of some of the historical data he cited in his legends. In support of the last assumption, I will point out the following circumstance: in the legends of Polycarp there is not a single news of a historical nature later than 1110, which includes his just cited reference to the appearance of the three pillars in the Pechersk Monastery). I think that this cannot be explained by simple chance: it is most likely to assume that the source of Polycarp’s historical information, the Pechersk Chronicle, ended in 1110. Wed. an indication extracted from the Tale of Bygone Years that the information about the Pechersk Monastery, which was at the disposal of Sylvester (in 1116), did not go beyond this year 1110.
The oldest news reported by Polycarp is that of Gleb Svyatoslavich in Zavolochia (1078 cf. Laurus, Ipat.); at the latest - the appearance of three pillars of fire in the Pechersk Monastery (1110); We find the oldest news in the first legend of Polycarp about Nikita the recluse, the later news in the legend of the long-suffering Pimen - the last in the work of Polycarp). I do not think that this circumstance can be explained by simple chance. If we take into account that the Pechersk Chronicle ended in the year 1110, it will be clear that Polycarp, outlining events from the life of the Pechersk saints, was guided by the chronological basis given in the chronicle, timed this or that incident from this life known to him and borrowed from it historical events that enliven his story. A researcher studying the legend of Polycarp is amazed that, on the one hand, the horizon of his historical knowledge did not seem to extend beyond the year 1110, while on the other hand, among the lives he described there are those that belong to saints who lived a little later. So Spiridon the marshmallow and Nikodim lived during the days of Pimen’s abbot, that is, in the middle of the 12th century, since Pimen was, according to Metropolitan Eugene, abbot from 1132 to 1141, and the service of Spiridon and Nikodim in the bakery where the abbot placed them lasted thirty years (Bersen. list, and in Kassianovsky: for many years). But did Polycarp realize this and didn’t he assume that Pimen the Abbot lived much earlier? The name of his fastnik seems to indicate the identification of the personality of this abbot with that Pimen the faster, who is named (and, moreover, the third) among the fathers who visited the demon-possessed recluse Nikita during the abbess of Nikon (who died in 1088).
Be that as it may, it follows from everything previous that the historical data given by Polycarp in his legends was borrowed by him from the Pechersk Chronicle. The list of these data can serve to restore the specified chronicle.
a) It read the lives of Damian, Jeremiah, Matthew and Isaac (see above).
e) In the Pechersk Chronicle it was mentioned, in connection with the story of the transfer of the relics of Theodosius, about Mark the Pechernik. Wed. from Polycarp: “and at this the holy father Theodosius was carried away from the oven into the holy great church.” Didn’t Nestor himself mention the name of Mark in his narrative about the transfer of Theodosian relics? Perhaps in the Pechersk Chronicle, where this story was included, it was not read: “I took two brothers with me,” but specifically Mark. That 2 brothers does not belong in the text read in the Tale of Bygone Years, the original edition can be seen from the fact that the author of the story, by order of the abbot, had to take with him not two, but one monk (don’t dare tell anyone from the brethren, yes no one will find out; but if you want to eat him, he will help you), and from the further story, where it is clear that the narrator had only one assistant: cf. “having labored in giving to another brother; I took the bagel, began to dig ramen, and my friend rested in front of the cave,” etc. This other brother could have been all the more natural for Mark, since he was constantly digging caves, preparing places for the burial of the brethren.
f) From Polikarpov’s legend about Theodore and Vasily, it is clear that the Pechersk Chronicle spoke about the burning of the monastery, apparently by Bonyak in 1096 (cf. The Tale of Bygone Years): “Theodore, for the sake of old age, should leave the pechera, but set up a cell for himself even in a dilapidated courtyard , the monastery would have been burned then,” cf. The Tale of Bygone Years: “You have desecrated and burned your holy house and the monastery of your Mother.” Probably, it also spoke about the murder of the monks Fyodor and Vasily at the behest of Prince Mstislav Svyatopolkovich, who ruled Kiev, during Svyatopolk’s absence in Turov: “before then Svyatopolk was in Tourov.” The latter detail could hardly have been preserved in oral tradition until Polycarp. In the same chronicle, Polycarp read about the death of Mstislav Svyatopolkovich: “not many days later, Mstislav himself was shot dead, in Volodymeri on the fence, according to Vasiliev’s prophecy, fighting with David Igorevich.” Wed. in the Tale of Bygone Years under the year 1097: “When Mstislav wanted to shoot, he was suddenly struck in the bosom by an arrow, on a weed field... and died that night.”
g) In the Pechersk Chronicle, as can be seen from the legend about the long-suffering Pimen, it was said about the appearance of three pillars of fire over the Pechersk Church during the death of the saint. This phenomenon was connected with the death on the same day of three saints: the long-suffering Pimen, Kuksha and his student Nikon. That these saints died on the same day is clear from the words of Simon: “and so the river (Blessed Faster Pimen) reposed on the same day and hour with the same saints.” Wed. celebration of Pimen and Kuksha on the same day, August 27 (memory of Pimen the Great). And that Simonov “Pimen the faster” is identical with Polikarpov’s “Pimen the long-suffering” can be seen from the comparison of Simonov’s story about Pimen, who on the day of his death: “having prophesied many times, healed the sick and in the middle of the church loudly shouted rivers...”, and Polikarpov’s story about Pimen , who on the day of death became healthy, healed the sick, went to church, took communion and prophesied. That the Pechersk Chronicle clearly stated that Pimen died during (or on the eve of) the miraculous appearance of the pillars is evident from the fact that the memory of his death was celebrated, apparently on February 10th, as shown in the note on the previous one. countries
Below I will once again return to some of the indicated evidence of Polycarp), and now I will turn to the third source of our information about the Pechersk Chronicle.
This source turns out to be Cassian's editions of the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. In Volume II of the News of the Department of Russian Language and Literature in 1897, in an article entitled “The Kiev-Pechersk Patericon and the Pechersk Chronicle,” I tried to prove that a number of additions made by the charterer Cassian in both editions of the Patericon of 1460 and 1462 were borrowed by him from the Pechersk Chronicle. This chronicle was known to him not in the original edition, which was used in 1116 by Abbot Sylvester, and in the thirties of the 13th century by Polycarp, but in a later edition of the end of the 12th century: this edition combined the original chronicle of the Pechersk Monastery, which reached 1110 with the later chronicle of the same monastery, dating back to the eighties of the 12th century. I will not repeat the evidence of this position here, but will limit myself to only pointing out what exactly Polycarp borrowed from that part of the Pechersk Chronicle that reached 1110, and what considerations led me to the idea that the source of these borrowings could be the Pechersk Chronicle.
Cassian's edition of the Patericon differs from all previous editions, among other things, in the following significant insertions and additions. 1) In the Life of Theodosius we read that Theodosius was tonsured by Nikon by order of Anthony “in the summer of 6540 under the pious prince Yaroslav Volodimerovich” (Kaccian. 1st and 2nd). 2) The legend that for the sake of the name of the Pechersk monastery, the title is inscribed with the name of Nestor (Nester is the monk of the monastery of the Pechersk monastery, legend...) (Cassian. 1st and 2nd). 3) This legend is equipped with a beginning testifying to Anthony’s double journey to Athos, and, for the first time upon his return, he settled in the Varangian cave. “In the reign of the autocrat of the Russian land, the blessed Grand Duke Vladimer Svyatoslavich, God deigned to show a lamp for the growth of the earth, and a mentor to monastics, as we are told about him. There was once a pious man from the city of Lyubech...” The following tells about Anthony’s journey to Constantinople and the Holy Mountain, where he took monastic vows. After some time, the abbot of the monastery he had chosen blessed him to return to Russia. Anthony came to Kyiv, did not want to live in the monasteries located there and settled on Berestovy, attacking a cave that the Varangians had once dug up. When, after the death of Vladimir, Svyatopolk began to beat the brethren, Anthony fled again to the Holy Mountain. The further story about the abbot’s blessing to return to Russia, about the settlement in Hilarion’s Cave, etc. is quite similar to the chronicle. (This insert is read only in Cassian. 2nd). 4) At the end of this legend, after the words “a wicked and unworthy servant came to him,” the name of Nestor is inserted (only in Kaccian. 2nd). 5) In the Word about the transfer of the relics of St. Theodosius, the name of Nestor is inserted several times, namely at the beginning at the end of the brief praise of Theodosius attached to this Word, and in addition, the same name accompanies the word “az”, with which the author, the main figure in the acquisition of these relics (Kaccian. 1st and 2nd). 6) This Word is entitled with the name of Nestor (Nester Mnikh of the Pechersk monastery. about the offering of relics...) (only in Cassian. 2nd). – So, we see that Cassian made fewer insertions in the first edition than in the second: this circumstance alone suggests that the listed insertions owe their appearance in Cassian’s work not to arbitrariness or accident; the editor found it necessary to supplement the text with some data, but managed to fulfill his desire only when compiling the second edition. If Cassian had not attracted any new literary source to his work, it is unlikely that he, based on the data of the Patericon himself, could have guessed that under the author, speaking about himself in the first person in the Word about the transfer of the relics of Theodosius and in the Legend that for the sake of the nickname Pechersk monastery, we should mean Nestor. In the Patericon, however, Nestor the chronicler is mentioned and it is even said that Nestor wrote in the Chronicle the lives of Damian, Jeremiah, Matthew and Isaac (cf. above), but from these words of Polycarp it is difficult to deduce that Nestor wrote the said Legend and Word, therefore Moreover, without familiarity with the Tale of Bygone Years or other chronicles, one would hardly have guessed that these articles were read in the Chronicler. Based on the data of the Paterikon, Cassian could have attributed to Nestor the “Tale of the Blessed First Monkmen of Pechersk,” but he did not do this in either his first or second edition. Finally, if we attribute to Cassian an indispensable desire to present to the Nestorov all the articles relating to the Monk Theodosius, then one would expect the insertion of this name in the concluding lines of the Praise to Theodosius (beginning of the Praise to the Righteous...): “the same about the honest head, holy father Theodosius, do not be angry with me, a sinner, but pray for me, your servant,” etc. Having concluded from the fact that this Praise is not attributed to Nestor, about Cassian’s critical attitude towards the rewritten articles of the Patericon, we could not possibly expect him to to his own conjecture, he inserted the name of Nestor at the end of the Legend, that for the sake of the nickname Pechersk Monastery, since it speaks of the arrival of the author of the Legend to the Monk Theodosius, meanwhile, from the Life of Theodosius it is clear that Nestor came to the monastery already under Abbot Stephen. In view of these considerations, I conclude that Polycarp, inserting the name of Nestor in two articles of the Patericon, was guided by some literary source. Most likely, he had at his disposal the oldest edition of the Tale and Word about the Transfer of Relics, where later correspondence did not have time to erase the name of Nestor, who so willingly mentioned his name in the writings he compiled (for example, this name is given twice in the Reading about Boris and Gleb and in the Life of Theodosius); and since, according to the previous, the oldest edition of these articles was in the Pechersk Chronicle, it is natural to assume that Cassian used precisely this chronicle. From it he borrowed the chronological date for the time of the tonsure of Theodosius (1032), since Cassian was not able to invent this date or derive it from the data of the Patericon). Finally, in the same chronicle he could find a story about Anthony’s two-time journey to Athos. That the story of the first journey could not have been invented by Cassian, in addition to the aimlessness of such an invention), is proved by the mention in it of Anthony’s settlement in a cave, “south of the Varyaz plow”: we know about the existence of the Varangian cave from the legend of Polycarp about Feodor and Basil (see. above), however, what is read about it in this legend could not give reason to conclude that Anthony had originally settled there.
In view of this, I, on the basis of Cassian’s editions of the Patericon, assume that in the Pechersk Chronicle: 1) the Legend was read that for the sake of the nickname Pechersky Monastery, in its form, which spoke of Anthony’s double journey to Athos, and from the Legend itself (from capital letters, and maybe only from its final lines) it was clear that it was composed by Nestor, 2) the word about the transfer of the relics of Theodosius was placed, indicating in the text itself, and perhaps in the title, that it was written by Nestor, 3) the year 1032 was mentioned , as the year of Theodosius's tonsure and his acceptance into the cave. The following study will show how valid this assumption is.
So, the three monuments that have come down to us - the Tale of Bygone Years, the Tales of Polycarp and the Cassian edition of the Patericon provide a number of data for restoring the lost Pechersk Chronicle.
Below we will group some of this data, and now, having mastered it, we will try to determine the literary sources of this chronicle. There can be no doubt that this chronicle was a compilation, that is, it contained material collected from other, earlier works. Kostomarov also assumed this, noting that not everything in the Pechersk Chronicle belonged to the pen of Nestor. This is clear from the most superficial consideration of the data given above and defining its content. The news that Anthony settled in the Hilarion Cave after 1051 and that he lived hopelessly in the cave for 40 years cannot belong to one author, since it is known that Anthony died in 1072 or 1073; the message that Anthony, having retired from the brethren, lived in a cave hopelessly does not agree with the story read in the same Pechersk Chronicle (in the life of Isaac the Pechernik) about Anthony’s temporary removal to the Boldin Mountains. The news of the tonsure of Theodosius in 1032 is not consistent with the message about the beginning of the Pechersk monastery in the days of Izyaslav Vladimirovich, etc. In addition, the data of the Pechersk Chronicle were in clear contradiction with Nestor’s Life of Theodosius: according to Nestor, the tonsure of the brethren who flocked to Anthony was performed by Nikon , according to the Pechersk Chronicle (The legend that for the sake of being nicknamed...) - Anthony; according to Nestor, a large wooden church and monastery were built by Theodosius, and according to the instructions of the Pechersk Chronicle (ibid.) - by Varlaam; Nestor talks about Theodosius receiving the charter of the Studite monastery from Ephraim, the Pechersk Chronicle reports that the charter was found by Michael the Greek, etc. Meanwhile, something in the Pechersk Chronicle was written by Nestor, which gave Polycarp reason to call Nestor a chronicler.
In view of this, it is clear that the attitude of the Pechersk Chronicle towards Nestor is such that the compiler of the chronicle used the works and writings of Nestor, but at the same time did not hesitate to use other sources, even those that completely contradicted the narratives of Nestor. Indeed, the weighty testimony of Polycarp, then the very legend that connected the name of Nestor with the chronicle, and finally, the indications extracted from Cassian’s editions of the Patericon, irrefutably prove that in the Pechersk Chronicle there were several data for recognizing Nestor as the compiler of the entire chronicle: these data could consist of repeated mentions of him named as the author of several articles included in the Pechersk Chronicle. By the way, as can be seen from Cassian’s editions of the Patericon, the name of Nestor, as the name of the author, was also in the Legend that for the sake of the nickname Pechersky Monastery in that edition of the Legend, which was read in the Pechersk Chronicle (see above). This circumstance should be recognized in itself as sufficient to attribute the said Legend to Nestor. But how can we understand the sharp contradictions that we find between the facts set out in the Legend and what is told about the beginning of the Pechersk Monastery in the life of Theodosius? I think that it is necessary to allow a complete reworking of Nestor’s Legend when introducing it into the Pechersk Lepis: the original text of Nestor has not reached us; in the Pechersk Chronicle it was read in a distorted or corrected form; fragments of Nestor's original text have reached us, through the Tale of Bygone Years, which borrowed the Legend from the Pechersk Chronicle.
A quick glance at the Legend, even in the form it took in the Tale of Bygone Years, shows that several authors participated in its compilation: it contains internal contradictions. So, according to the Legend, Anthony retired from the brethren when 12 people gathered; under the abbess of Varlam, who built a small church, “began to multiply the monastery with the prayers of the Holy Mother of God,” and the brethren decided to build a monastery and a large church; but when Theodosius became abbot, the brethren, according to the Legend, numbered only 20 people. Consequently, the brethren increased by only 8 people: was this enough to talk about the multiplication of the monks and the need to replace the small church with a large one? Following this, we read that under Theodosius the brethren gathered up to 100 people: obviously, the multiplication of the monks, the establishment of a monastery and the construction of a great church should date back to the time of the abbess of Theodosius (as Nestor tells in the Life of Theodosius). At the same time, one cannot help but pay attention to the contradictions between this Legend and other chronicle stories included in the Tale of Bygone Years from the Pechersk Chronicle. According to the Legend, Anthony did not leave his cave for forty years; according to the life of Isaac, which was read, as can be concluded from the words of Polycarp, in the Pechersk Chronicle, Anthony died before Abbot Nikon, that is, before 1088; therefore, the time of his solitary asceticism could not last forty years, since only in 1051 did ascetics begin to gather around Anthony; in the same life of Isaac, it is told about Anthony’s temporary removal to the Chernigov region and the founding of a monastery there on the Voldin Mountains: this contradicts the message of the Legend that Anthony lived in a cave with no way out. Finally, in the edition of the Legend, which is read in the Cassian edition of the Patericon of 1462, and to the abbreviated edition borrowed from the Tale of Bygone Years, a beginning is added on the basis of the original edition found in the Pechersk Chronicle, we see an indication that the original edition artificially combined two contradictory stories about Anthony - the first story about his settlement in the Varangian Cave upon his return from Athos and the second about his settlement in the Hilarion Cave.
So, the indicated contradictions and inconsistencies in the Legend, which is called the Pechersk Monastery, lead us to the conclusion that it combines two or more contradictory sources, and the basis of the Legend, its main text, has undergone complete revision and alteration.
I will give considerations that lead to the conclusion that the main text of the Legend belonged to Nestor. Firstly, as E.N. Shchepkin recently developed in detail in his article Zur Nestorfrage (Archiv f. SI. Ph., B. XIX), the plan of the Legend, the arrangement of material in it are almost identical to the order in the presentation of events , relating to the initial history of the Pechersk monastery, which is located in Nestor’s Life of Theodosius; It is hardly possible to explain this coincidence, following the named author, by the fact that Nestor and the compiler of the Legend were guided by the same legend, expressed in a certain oral story. Much more probable is another assumption by Mr. Shchepkin, according to which the author of the Tale imitated the course of the story of Theodosius’ Life: but such an assumption brings us very close to the statement that the Tale is based on Nestor’s story (which existed in a separate form from the Life of Theodosius) about the beginning of the Pechersk Monastery. Secondly, a number of common data between the Life of Theodosius and the Legend are easily explained by the fact that the Legend is based on a revised text of Nestor’s story that has not reached us. Both in the Life and in the Legend, Anthony retires, having installed Varlam as abbot, into a special cave, from which he never left (Life of Theodosius: “and from there the packs settled on Anthony’s hill, having dug a cave, living in it, without crawling out of it from then on to this day his honest body lies”, compare in the Legend: “and he himself went up the mountain and excavated a cave that was under the new monastery, in which he died his life, alive in virtue, without leaving the cave..., nowhere, in and his relics lie there to this day." The brethren with Abbot Varlal erected a small church (J.O.: “then the divine Varlam erected a small church over the cave in the name of the Most Holy Theotokos, cf. in the Legend: “and erected a small church over the cave in the name of the Holy Mother of God of the Dormition”). Izyaslav Vladimirovich transfers Varlam to the monastery of St. Demetrius (J.F. “the divine Varlam... was quickly taken by prince’s command to the monastery of the holy martyr Dmitry and made abbot there,” cf. in the Legend: “and he elevated Varlam to the abbess of Saint Demetrius”). When Theodosius was elected abbot, the brethren began to increase significantly (J.F.: “from then on, the place blossomed and multiplied, then ... the brethren multiplied,” cf. in the Legend: “and many monks began to copulate”); Following the story about the introduction of the Studite Charter, we read: he did not refuse anyone admission to the monastery (J. F.: “everyone who wants to be a monk and comes to him is neither poor nor rich, but has received everything,” cf. in the Legend: “and I accept everyone who comes to him”). Thirdly, the Tale’s affiliation with Nestor is also proven by the fact that the Pechersk Chronicle, as can be concluded from Cassian’s editions of the Patericon, in the text of the Tale (and perhaps in the title lines) read the name of Nestor);. Wed to Cassian. 2nd: “I came to him and I was a houdy and an unworthy servant.” These words, as we will show below, in Nestor’s story referred to Stefan the abbot, but in the later reworking of the Legend, due to distortion of the text and the attribution of the words of Fr. Stefan in another place (cf. below), they are put in connection with Theodosius.
What reason did the compiler of the Pechersk Chronicle have to distort and remake Nestor’s story about the Pechersk Monastery? Obviously, he wanted to coordinate and correct it, using other sources that told about the beginning of the Pechersk monastery. One of these sources, or rather such a source, could be the Life of Anthony, known to the chronicler. Above, restoring the content of this life, we saw that it spoke about the ancient destinies of the monastery founded by Anthony, as well as subsequent events, about the life of glorious ascetics, and even about the founding of a large stone church. It is clear that the Pechersk chronicler had to take advantage of such an important monument for the history of the monastery. He did this all the more willingly because Nestor’s story provided scant information about the beginning of the monastery; its foundation, the exaltation of the holy place, the construction of a large wooden church - all this was attributed to Theodosius. Meanwhile, the Life of Anthony, and perhaps oral tradition, dated the beginning of the monastery to much greater antiquity and recognized Anthony as the head of monastic life in Russia. The wonderful and legendary setting in which the events in the Life of Anthony were presented must have amazed the chronicler, and he recognized the superiority and greater reliability of this particular life, comparing it with Nestor’s legend. Nestor did not know who tonsured Anthony, who blessed him for asceticism. The Life of Anthony told how it can be assumed that he was tonsured to St. Mountains and founded the monastery with the blessing of the Svyatogorsk abbot. Concluding his story about the establishment of the monastery, Nestor in his Legend, as well as in the Life of Theodosius, said: “and the monastery was glorious and to this day there are the Pechersky monasteries, like those from our holy father Theodosius.” The life of Anthony would have been expressed differently: the monastery was founded through tears and fasting, through the holy ascetic life of Anthony, and the monastery began from the blessing of the Holy Mountain. The Studio Charter was introduced by Nestor by Theodosius, who obtained it through Ephraim the treasurer; according to the Life of Anthony, as I will indicate below, it was introduced by Anthony, having received the Greek from Michael. The monastery and a large wooden church were built after Nestor by Theodosius; The Life of Anthony, as one might think, without naming the abbot, dated this construction to an earlier time, to the era of the first abbot appointed by Anthony. According to Nestor, the stone church was founded and began construction solely thanks to the labors of Theodosius; The Life of Anthony spoke in detail about Anthony's outstanding participation in this matter and about the miraculous signs that he caused. Anthony's asceticism, according to his life, began from the time of Vladimir Svyatoslavich, when he settled in the Varangian cave; Nestor's story found Anthony in a cave left by Hilarion, but did not report anything about his journey to the Holy Mountain.
For the compiler of the Pechersk Chronicle, there was thus a need to merge both stories - Nestor’s and Anthony’s Lives, which he did in an article that retained Nestor’s title “The Legend that the Pechersk Monastery was nicknamed for the sake of it.” Below I will point out how both of its sources are reflected in this legend. Nestor's story and the Life of Anthony, and now I will turn to an indication of other borrowings made from the Life of Anthony by the Pechersk chronicler: these instructions will also serve as new evidence that the named chronicler used the Life of Anthony.
Extracting historical data from the Life of Anthony, the Pechersk chronicler tried to give them a chronological definition, since he arranged the chronicle material in chronological order.
The most ancient event in the history of the Pechersk Monastery was the arrival of Moses Ugrin to Anthony, as mentioned in the Life of Anthony. It was important for the Pechersk chronicler to determine the year of this event, since this year was at the same time the beginning of the gathering of ascetics into the cave on Berestovy Hill and the beginning of the Pechersk monastery itself. The life of Anthony connected data about the life of Moses Ugrin with certain historical persons and events: Moses was taken captive by Boleslav of Poland, when he, defeated by Yaroslav, fled from Kiev (Pov. years under 1018: “Boleslav fled from Kiev, vzma estate and boyars to Yaroslavl and his sister"; Legends of Polycarp: "return Boleslav to the Poles, give both of them to Yaroslavl's sister, and take away his boyars. With them this blessed Moses"). Moses languished in captivity for eleven years, suffering in chains for five years, and tormented for six for his chastity (Arsen. ed.: “And in the life of our holy father Anthony, it is written about this Moses. How he came and died in a good confession about the Lord , having spent ? years in a monastery. 5 years in captivity, suffered in chains. 5. years suffered in passion for purity)).
This is how it was read in the Life of Anthony, although, as we will see, Moses was freed from captivity six years after 1018-1019. The release of Moses in the Life of Anthony was put in connection with Boleslav and the rebellion that followed, during which his mistress was killed (cf. above in the analysis of the evidence of the Tales of Polycarp about the Life of Anthony). But since, according to the calculations of the Pechersk chronicler, Moses, captured in 1018 - 1019 (cf. this year in the Initial Code, and perhaps in Jacob’s tale of Boris and Gleb), was freed from it after 11 years, then the indicated historical event - the death of Boleslav and the subsequent rebellion were attributed by the Pechersk chronicler to 1030). It is very likely that this chronicle first reported historical fact and then it was added: then Moses Ugrin came to Anthony. The Tale of Bygone Years borrowed the news of the death of Boleslav and the rebellion in the Polish land from the Pechersk Chronicle: that is why we read it precisely under the year 1030); The editor of the Tale omitted the news of the arrival of Moses Ugrin, just as he omitted many other things in his borrowings from the Pechersk Chronicle).
So, according to the Pechersk chronicler, the brethren began to flock to Anthony around 1031: the same year as the time of Moses’ arrival to Anthony is found in the printed Patericon, cf. also a later cinnabar addition to the title lines of the legend of Moses in Rumyants. No. 305: “come to St. Anthony in the summer of 6539.”
That is why, knowing from the Life of Theodosius that one of the first ascetics who arrived to Anthony was Theodosius, the Pechersk chronicler recognized the year 1032 as the time of Theodosius’ tonsure: from the Pechersk Chronicle, this year, as you saw above, was inserted in the Cassian editions into the text of Theodosius’ Life. Soon after the arrival of Theodosius, namely when the brethren gathered 12 people (according to Nestor 15), Anthony retired to another cave: this, according to the calculations of the Pechersk chronicler, happened around 1033; That’s why, knowing from the Life of Anthony (deriving from the words spoken by the Mother of God to the craftsmen she hired) that Anthony died in 1073, he added to Nestor’s words “not coming from the oven at all”: “alive in virtue for 40 years.”
Having thus established the chronology of events related to the history of the Pechersk Monastery on the basis of the Life of Anthony; The Pechersk chronicler did not limit himself to the above borrowings from this life. He found in it a number of data, which he placed partly in the altered Legend, which was called the Pechersk Monastery, and partly in the form of separate chronological messages. The first borrowings include: 1) the news that Anthony labored in a cave south of Varyazi; Wed testimony of Polycarp that the Varangian cave is mentioned in the Life of Anthony. That this news was transferred to the Pechersk Chronicle is evident from the fact that it is in the 2nd Cassian edition of the Patericon. 2) The news of Anthony’s journey to the settlement of the Varangian Cave on Athos: what the Pechersk Chronicle said about this, from the words of the Life of Anthony, can be seen from the beginning of the Legend of the Pechersk Monastery, as it is read in the Cassian 2nd edition. But the Pechersk chronicler, as we will see below, in order to coordinate the Life of Anthony with Nestor’s story about his settlement in Hilarion’s Cave, composed Anthony’s second journey to Athos. In the Tale of Bygone Years, with the later revision of the Legend, only this second journey was included. That the news of Anthony’s journey to the Holy Mountain found its way into the Pechersk Chronicle (and from there into the Tale of Bygone Years and into Cassian’s 2nd edition of the Patericon) precisely from the Life of Anthony can be concluded due partly to the legendary nature of the life, and partly to the desire of its compiler to connect the history of the Pechersk monastery with Greek shrines and the blessing of the glorious Greek monastery: cf. the news read in the Life of Anthony about the tonsure of Moses Ugrin from the Svyatogorsk monk who miraculously appeared to him. 3) The news that Anthony personally tonsured the brethren who flocked to him: that this news passed into the Pechersk Chronicle can be seen from the Legend of the beginning of the Pechersk monastery according to the Tale of Bygone Years, where we read: “and I began to straighten and tonsure.” Nestor directly said that Anthony entrusted the tonsure to Nikon, as he had the priestly rank. But that the opposite was stated in the Life of Anthony can be seen from the above words of Simon: “Hilary the Metropolitan and you are also a person in the Life of Saint Anthony. as if from this he was tonsured quickly and thus honored with the priesthood.” 4) The news that the monastery and wooden church were built by the first tumen of the Pechersk Monastery, and not by the second, that is, Theodosius. In the Pechersk Chronicle (as can be seen in the Tale of Bygone Years) this is attributed to Varlam, the predecessor of Theodosius; but everything related to Varlam itself ended up in the Legend of the beginning of the Pechersk Monastery, read in the Pechersk Chronicle, from Nestor’s story. The Life of Anthony did not name the abbot; That’s why the Pechersk Chronicle said impersonally: “The abbot and the brethren founded the great church, etc.” Nestor attributed the construction of the church and monastery to the time of the abbess of Theodosius and precisely to 1062; but the Life of Anthony traced the history of the monastery from 1030: it is clear that the foundation of the monastery should have been dated back to an earlier time, but it was impossible to date it to Varlam because he came, according to a well-known legend (listed in the Life of Theodosius), in the days of Izyaslav Yaroslavich; Attributing the founding of the monastery and church to Theodosius was prevented by the fact that Theodosius became abbot after Varlam. 5) The news that the charter was introduced into the Pechersk Monastery by order of Anthony, who received it from Michael the Greek, who came from Greece with Metropolitan George. This news, as can be seen from the Tale of Bygone Years, was included in the Legend that for the sake of the Pechersk monastery being nicknamed, the Pechersk chronicler. And that it was borrowed specifically from the Life of Anthony is clear from the considerations outlined below.
The second series of borrowings, that is, those included in the Pechersk Chronicle separately from the Legend, in addition to the above-mentioned news of 1030, 1032 and 1073 (death of Anthony), includes the news of the arrival in Kiev of three Greek singers from their births. That this news was read in the Pechersk Chronicle, I conclude from the fact (as indicated above) that in all the lists of the Tale of Bygone Years, where it is placed (Sofia, Resurrection, Tver under 1052; Novgorod 4th under 1051; Avramiya chronicle and Arkhangelskaya under 1037), before this news one reads: “that same summer the beginning of the Pechersk monastery from Anthony” or: “with this, Anthony of the Pechersk (brought) quickly (Avr. and Arkhang.). That this news was borrowed into the Pechersk Chronicle precisely from the Life of Anthony, I conclude from the fact that in the first place it recalls his stories about the arrival of four masters with their neighbors from Greece to Anthony and Theodosius, and in the second it was reflected in the Legend of the beginning of the Pechersk monastery , where, as indicated above, the influence of two sources is noticeable - Nestor’s story and the Life of Anthony; namely, the news of the arrival of three singers in Kyiv cannot but be compared with the message of the Legend that the charter of the Studite monastery was received from Michael, who came from Greece with Metropolitan George; the grounds for such a comparison are the following: according to the Book of Degrees, as well as according to Tatishchev, these singers taught the Russians red demesne singing), meanwhile, the Legend states that Theodosius (vm. Anthony), having found the charter of the Studite monks from Michael, “established them in monasteries in his own way, like singing a monastic song”; further, according to Tatishchev, these three singers arrived in Kyiv with Metropolitan George; According to the Legend, Michael also arrived from Greece with this metropolitan. At the same time, there is no evidence to think that Tatishchev noticed the connection between both news: otherwise he would have stipulated it in note 258 (volume II). So, we have reason to think that both news - read in the Legend and reported separately under the following year - came into the Pechersk Chronicle from one source and, moreover, precisely from the Life of Anthony. Apparently, in this life it was said that Anthony set up red singing in the monastery when three singers came to him and between them Michael, the monk of the Studite monastery; These singers arrived in Kyiv together with the metropolitan (it is unlikely that he was named). The Pechersk chronicler, correcting Nestor's Tale, introduced from the Life of Anthony the name of Michael the Chernets, “who came from Greece with the Metropolitan,” whom he named George because he knew that during the abbot of Theodosius, the metropolis was ruled by George. But at the same time, the chronicler placed the news of the arrival of three singers after the legend about the beginning of the Pechersk Monastery in the form of an independent message, adding perhaps that they came to Anthony, having arrived from Greece with the Metropolitan, and performed church singing in the Pechersk Monastery. The editor of the Tale of Bygone Years preserved this news under 1051 or under 1052, adding, perhaps, that the singers arrived with Metropolitan George (the influence of the previous Legend) and expressing himself in a more general way that they in general (and not in one Pechersk monastery) stared osmiglas singing (cf. Tatishchev and the Tver Chronicle). Some lists of the Tale of Bygone Years completely omitted this news (Lavr., Ipat., etc.), and the Sophia vremennik included it in an abbreviated form (cf. the omission in it of the Legend that for the sake of the Pechersk monastery was nicknamed). It remains for us to say about those two lists that date this news to 1037. In Arkhangelogorodsky we read: “in the summer of 6545 the prince great Yaroslav Vladimirovich... and set up rules for the metropolitan, and erected many churches, and Anthony of Pechersk was brought quickly (obviously in this case quickly). At the same time, three red singers arrived from Constantinople.” In the chronicle of Avramia: “at this, Anthony of Pechersk was present. At the same time, three singers came from Constantinople.” There is no doubt that this news found its way into the aforementioned chronicles, or rather into their common source or into their protograph, from some list of the Tale of Bygone Years, since these chronicles appear to be an abbreviation of the Tale. It follows that there were copies of the Tale of Bygone Years, where Ahtohi and his establishment of the Pechersk Monastery were told under the year 1037. Below we will return to this conclusion again.
In view of all of the above, I consider it proven that the Pechersk Chronicle used, among other things, two written sources: 1) Nestor’s legends about the beginning of the Pechersk Monastery and the transfer of the relics of St. Theodosius, 2) Life of Anthony.
Before moving on to the question of other sources of this chronicle, I will once again repeat the conclusions made above about the attitude of the Pechersk chronicler to both of his indicated sources.
To do this, I will restore, on the basis of the above and some other considerations, the original text of Nestor’s legend about the beginning of the Pechersk Monastery, as well as those parts of the Life of Anthony that the Pechersk chronicler used.
Nestor in his story, apparently, did not change the tendency to verbosity and passion for starting the story from afar, known to us from his writings about Boris and Gleb and about Theodosius. So he begins the reading about the life and destruction of Boris and Gleb with Adam, and the presentation of Russian events with the baptism of Rus'; The Life of Theodosius begins with a series of pious reflections, concluding with the word Amen.” If we take into account that between the legend about the beginning of the Pechersk Monastery and the chronicle story about educational activities Yaroslav, placed in the Tale of Bygone Years under the year 1037, a certain connection is noticeable - internal (in the passage of 1037: “and Yaroslav, loving the church charters, loved the priests to the great extent, but the abundance of the monk... and he established other churches according to city and place , setting up the priests and giving them a lesson from their name”; in the Legend under the year 1051: “To the God-loving Yaroslav, who loves Birch Bark and the existing church of the Holy Apostles, and will provide many priests”) and external (in some of the above lists of the chronicle under the year 1037 tells about Anthony and what is stated in other lists under the year 1051 or 1052), if we do not recognize this connection as accidental), then we can easily come to the assumption that Nestorov’s story about the beginning of the Pechersk Monastery began with a story about the educational activities of Yaroslav, which has been preserved in the chronicle passage of 1037, and maybe even a little earlier, that is, from the baptism of Rus' under Vladimir. Wed. in the indicated passage there is a comparison between Yaroslav and Vladimir: one plowed the land, and the other sowed the seed. Nestor owns the reflection read here on wisdom and the benefits of reading books. Having talked about Yaroslav's love for churches and priests, Nestor dwelt on his special affection for Berestov, the church of St. Apostle and Hilarion, the priest of that church, the future metropolitan. Hilarion dug a cave for prayerful solitude; but he invested the prince to make him metropolitan. The cave remained free and soon Anthony Lyubechanin settled in it. And he began to live here, praying to God and indulging in abstinence. Many pious people came to him bringing him food and asking for blessings). After the death of Yaroslav, Izyaslav, who accepted the great reign, having learned about Anthony’s pious life, visited him with his squad, asking for blessings and prayers. The brethren began to flock to Anthony: Nikon and Theodosius came first; By order of Anthony, Nikon tonsured those who came. Further mention was made of the arrival of Varlam and Ephraim in the cave. When the brethren gathered 15 people, they dug a large cave and built a church and cells in it. Then Anthony retired to one of the cells, and then moved to another cave, from which he never left; his relics lie there to this day. He appointed Varlam as abbot for the brethren, who built a small church over the cave. Soon, by order of the prince, Varlam was transferred to the abbess at the monastery of St. Dimitri. After brief reflections on the fact that it was not wealth, but the asceticism of Anthony (and Theodosius) that exalted the Pechersk Monastery, Nestor talked about the election of Theodosius as abbot: there were only 20 more brethren. Theodosius, having accepted eldership, did not change his strict rules; he became even more temperate and active: the brethren began to multiply, and up to 100 people gathered. Theodosius, seeing the cramped conditions and inconvenience in the cave cells, consulted with the brethren about building a monastery. Selecting open great place not far from the cave, he asked Prince Izyaslav to give it up for the construction of a monastery. Izyaslav happily fulfilled this request. Then Theodosius built a large church, many cells and a monastery fence on that place. He moved to a new monastery in 6570 (1062): this is how the Pechora Monastery began, so named because the brothers first lived in a cave. After this, Nestor, as in the Life of Theodosius, talked about Theodosius introducing the Studite Rule into the monastery: he obtained it through Ephraim the eunuch. Theodosius did not refuse anyone admission to the brethren; the monastery grew, the place prospered, the brethren increased in number. Then Theodosius decided to build a large stone church. After short story about the founding of this church, Nestor probably read the same thing that we find in the Life of Theodosius: “blessed Theodosius himself worked all his days with his brethren and labored about repaying such a house, even though he had not completed it, his sons are still alive After the death of that Stephan I accepted the abbess... the deed was completed and the house was destroyed. “To him,” continued Nestor, meaning Stefan) “and I, the thin and unworthy slave Nestor, came to receive me, 17 years old from my birth. It was written and laid down in some summer (obviously, Nestor cited the year 1062 in his story) that the monastery began to be and that’s why it was called Pechersky.”
Here, apparently, in general terms, is the text of Nestor’s legend in the form in which the compiler of the Pechersk Chronicle found it. The Life of Anthony that was in his hands told a completely different story about the beginning of the Pechersk Monastery.
Anthony, having begun his ascetic life in a cave near his native Lyubech), went on a pious wandering, during which he reached Athos. Here he took monastic vows, but with the blessing of the abbot he returned to Russia. God's Providence directed him to the Kyiv Mountains and here, near Berestov, he settled in the Varangian Cave. Soon the brethren began to flock to the holy ascetic: Moses Ugrin was one of the first to come, then Hilarion, Theodosius. When the brethren gathered 12 people, Anthony went to another cave, appointing one of the brethren as abbot. This abbot, under the leadership of Anthony, built a church and a monastery. The initial establishment of the monastery belonged to Anthony: he wonderfully helped him in these concerns. So, by God’s dispensation, three singers from their generations came to Anthony; they taught and instructed church singing; between them was Mikhail, a monk of the Studite monastery, who helped Anthony introduce the Studite charter into the monastery. When Theodosius became abbot, both great leaders of the Pechersk Monastery began building a large stone church. Its foundation was accompanied by extraordinary miracles. But Anthony died, blessing only the place for the future church, and it was built and decorated with the works of subsequent abbots. – The Pechersk chronicler, as we said above, decided to combine both stories.
Having spoken about Anthony's desire to take monastic vows and become a monk, the chronicler, according to the Life, spoke about his journey to Constantinople and Mount Athos, about his tonsure here and about his return to Russia with the blessing of the Svyatogorsk abbot. Arriving at Berestovoe, he settled in a cave south of the Varyazi excavation. Noting from the Life of Anthony that this settlement dates back to ancient times, since already in 1031 to St. Moses Ugrin came to the ascetic, and what Nestor says about Anthony’s arrival on Berestovoye after the installation of Metropolitan Hilarion, the Pechersk chronicler, in order to reconcile both stories, explains that the first settlement dates back to the time of Vladimir Svyatoslavich. But the unrest that arose after the death of this prince forced him to flee Russia: he went to Athos. After that, the Pechersk chronicler, in the words of Nestor, recounted Yaroslav’s educational activities, his construction of churches and monasteries, his love of books and the benefits of princely reading. Then he moved on to Yaroslav’s love for Berestov and, speaking about Hilarion and his cave, conveyed his appointment as metropolitan. The cave remained free, but Anthony soon returned from Athos and settled in it. The further story was told in accordance with Nestor, up to the point where it was said about Anthony’s desire to seclude himself from the other brethren. Here Anthony was given words borrowed from his Life: “God has gathered you, brothers, and the blessing of the Holy Mountain is upon you, since the abbot of the Holy Mountain tonsured me, and I tonsured you; May there be a blessing on you, firstly from God, and secondly from the Holy Mountain”; Let us remember that Nestor did not know that Anthony was tonsured on the Holy Mountain and directly stated that the tonsure of the brethren was performed not by him, but by Nikon. The following is again from Nestor, but to his words that Anthony never left the cave, the Pechersk chronicler added 40 years: he was obviously guided by the chronology established by the Life of Anthony, according to which Anthony’s removal from the brethren happened in 1033 (see above), and did not notice the contradiction into which he fell, admitting, following Nestor, that the final settlement of Anthony on Berestovoy took place after 1051. Nestor also owns the further story of the Pechersk chronicler - about the construction by Varlam small church above the cave. But the next passage is about how the abbot (not named) and the brethren came to Anthony for permission to build a monastery, how Anthony, having blessed God, called upon the brethren the prayers of St. The Mother of God and the Svyatogorsk fathers, after which the abbot and brethren built the church and monastery, is borrowed from the Life of Anthony: Nestor’s story about the founding of the monastery already in the abbot of Theodosius did not agree too sharply with another source of the Pechersk chronicler. The final words of this passage: “there is a monastery of the Pechersk from the blessing of the Holy Mountain”, of course, also not the Nestorovs. But the following story is about Varlam’s transfer to the monastery of St. Dmitry and the election of Theodosius is borrowed from Nestor. The same applies to further passages - about the multiplication of the brethren in the Pechersk Monastery and about the introduction of the Studite Rule, and between both passages Nestor’s story about the construction of the monastery and the great church is omitted, and in the story about the Studite Rule an amendment was made from the Life of Anthony, according to which the rule was not received from Ephraim , and from Michael the Chernets, who came from Greece with Metropolitan George. Then it was said according to Nestor that Theodosius did not refuse anyone admission to the monastery, neither poor nor rich; The next place where Nestor talked about the increase of the brethren, the founding of the stone church by Theodosius and its completion by Stephen, as well as the final lines where the author talked about himself, were also preserved in the Pechersk Chronicle. At the end of the legend, the chronicler placed news of the arrival of three singers in Kyiv, news borrowed from the Life of Anthony: he did not find the opportunity to include it in the legend itself.
Below I will consider the changes that the Tale underwent when it was included in the Tale of Bygone Years.
The question of the sources of the Pechersk Chronicle when describing further events can hardly find a satisfactory solution until the original composition and volume of this chronicle is determined. Based on the data from the Tale of Bygone Years and the Legends of Polycarp, I think that after the Legend that the Pechersk Monastery was nicknamed, there followed a story about the ascetics of the Pechersk Monastery - Damian, Jeremiah, Matthew and Isaac. It is very likely that the lives of these saints were preceded by the same brief introduction that we read now in the Tale of Bygone Years (Stefan, who holds the monastery and the blessed flock - from them I name several wonderful men). This introduction, as well as the lives themselves, were apparently compiled by the Pechersk chronicler himself, partly on the basis of oral traditions, and partly on the basis of the Life of Theodosius. So the life of Damian is almost entirely borrowed from Nestor: there are even identical passages. The Life of Theodosius says that Damian was a presbyter; Pechersk Chronicle: Demian the priest; Life of Theodosius: to the same one who was sick and at the end of his life; Pechersk Chronicle: the only time he fell ill was the end of his illness; Life of Theodosius: The angel who appeared in my image will be like you as you promised; Pechersk Chronicle: If you promised, then you will. - On the contrary, oral tradition is clearly reflected in the life of Jeremiah, about whom it is said, among other things, that he remembered the baptism of the Russian land, as well as in the life of Isaac, where we read: and I told a lot about him, and another was a self-witness. – In the life of Matthew, the word pillar, as the monastery fence is called (as if he had just jumped to eat from the pillar), recalls the Legend that for the sake of the nickname Pechersky Monastery, where the same word is used: and the monastery is fenced with pillars; this, apparently, exposes one author (the Pechersk chronicler) and can confirm the assumption made about the editorial work of this chronicler on Nestor’s legend (Nestor said: fence). Determining the time when these four lives were written, we see that, in any case, after John assumed the abbotship (1089), since Abbot John is mentioned in the story about Isaac.
It was indicated above that it is in the chronicle story of the Tale of Bygone Years 1078 - 1110 that it can be traced back to the Pechersk Chronicle. We saw that this chronicle contained a number of factual details that had one or another, at least distantly, relation to the Pechersk monastery. Perhaps this chronicle passed from the monastery into the chronicle of all-Russian or at least Kyiv events: in this case, it is quite likely that most of the chronicle stories of 1078 - 1110 in the Tale of Bygone Years were borrowed from this chronicle; Having isolated from them the story of Vasilko, the story of the internecine war of Svyatopolk and Vladimir with Oleg, as well as a number of news about campaigns and battles, we may perhaps obtain the original composition of the Pechersk Chronicle, which Abbot Sylvester used. However, to resolve this issue, extensive preparatory research is required.
I will dwell here on the work of Abbot Sylvester and on his attitude towards his source - the Pechersk Chronicle.
I will note first of all that Sylvester’s work has not reached us in its original form: not only the Radzivilovsky and Academic lists, where the postscript made by the abbot of the St. Michael’s Monastery was preserved after the news of the miraculous appearance of the pillar of fire in the Pechersk Monastery, but also the Lavrentievsky one, were strongly influenced by the later editions of the Tale of Bygone Years, an edition compiled, as one might think, around 1118 (Sylvester completed his work, the first edition of the Tale, in 1116). Therefore, it is difficult to determine the original composition of the Sylvester edition; the more valuable are the indications of the sources that Sylvester could have used. There is no doubt that it was he who introduced borrowings from the Pechersk Chronicle into the Tale: this is evident from the close (external) connection that exists between the last news of his editors - the story of the appearance of the pillar in 1110 and its addition to 1116. That is why we can raise the question of how borrowings from the Pechersk Chronicle were transmitted specifically in Sylvester’s edition of the Tale of Bygone Years. First of all, Sylvester gave a general Russian character to some news of the Pechersk Chronicle, if they were cited in it as monastic news. Thus, having introduced the news of the death of Boleslav and the rebellion in the Polish land in 1030, Sylvester did not repeat the message in the Pechersk Chronicle that after this Moses Ugrin appeared to Anthony. Having told in 1107 about the glorious victory of Svyatopolk over the Polovtsians and about his visit to the Pechersk monastery, he omitted the story in the Pechersk Chronicle that the victory was facilitated by the blessing of Prokhor, who died on August 7; Having reported the appearance of miraculous pillars on February 11, 1110 over the Pechersk Church, Sylvester omitted the subsequent story about the deaths of Pimen, Kuksha and Nikon, which happened simultaneously - on the eve or around that day.
In addition, Sylvester omitted some news related to the internal history of the monastery: for example, he did not mention the imprisonment of Abbot John by Svyatopolk in Turov, the murder of the monks Fyodor and Vasily by Mstislav Svyatopolkovich, and also, perhaps, the drowning of Gregory, called the wonderworker, by order Rostislav Vsevolodovich.
In stories borrowed from the Pechersk Chronicle, Sylvester omitted some little-known names: thus he omitted the name of Nestor in the legend about the beginning of the Pechersk Monastery, as well as the story about the transfer of the relics of Theodosius in praise of Theodosius; Mark's name in the story about the transfer of the relics is replaced with the words “two brothers.”
The articles of the Pechersk Chronicle were subject to other changes by Sylvester. Thus, in the legend about the beginning of the Pechersk monastery, the place where it was said about the construction of a stone church by Stefan on the foundation begun under Theodosius was moved by him to 1075: “the beginning of the Pechersk church was started over the foundation of Stefan by the abbot; Theodosius began from the foundation, and Stefan began from the foundation; and ended on the third summer, the 11th day of the month").
Thus, the words of Nestor, referring to Stefan: “I died to him”... were incorrectly connected with Theodosius, since the next phrase spoke specifically about Theodosius.
In subsequent editions of the Tale of Bygone Years, the Legend of the beginning of the Pechersk Monastery underwent new changes. It was divided into two parts: the first was preserved under the year 1037 (under this year the Legend was included by Sylvester in the Tale, perhaps due to the indication in it of the year of construction St. Sophia Cathedral), and the second was moved to 1051. The first spoke about the educational activities of Yaroslav, and the second about the beginning of the Pechersk Monastery on the occasion of the installation of Hilarion, who left the cave on Birch Bark Hill, as metropolitan.
With this transfer, the part of the Legend that spoke about Anthony’s first journey to Athos and his settlement in the Varangian cave should have naturally fallen out; but for that brief mention of his second journey before settling in the Hilarion Cave, it was distributed with details borrowed from the first journey. It was indicated above that the Pechersk Chronicle, having told in detail about Anthony’s journey to the Holy Mountains in the days of Vladimir Svyatoslavich, had to briefly talk about his second journey in order to move on to Nestor’s story about Anthony’s settlement in the Hilarion Cave after 1051. In one of the later editions of the Tale of Bygone Years, the edition that forms the basis of the Lavrentievsky, Ipatievsky and other lists, detailed story about Antony's journey is referred to his second journey, and mention of the first is completely omitted.
The compiler of Cassian's 2nd edition of the Patericon based the story of the Tale of Bygone Years, which came to him through previous editions of the Patericon, but under the influence of the Pechersk Chronicle he added a beginning to it, which talks about Anthony's first journey to Athos. Thus, in this edition there were two long stories (with repetitions) about Anthony’s two travels. In addition, at the end of the story, in the final words of the author, he inserted the name of Nestor, which he also included in the title lines of the Legend. The same name is inserted, on the basis of the Pechersk Chronicle, into the story of the transfer of Theodosian relics and into the praise that follows. Finally, the year 1032 is inserted into the Life of Theodosius, as the time of his tonsure: this year was read in the Pechersk Chronicle in the form of a separate news, placed after the news of 1030 and 1031 about the death of Boleslav, the rebellion in the Polish land and the arrival of Moses Ugrin to Anthony.
I will briefly repeat the main conclusions of the previous study. IN last quarter In the 11th century, an extensive Life of Anthony was compiled, which told about the first ascetics of the Pechersk people, about the establishment of the Pechersk monastery by Anthony and about the founding of the Church of the Holy Mother of God. At the end of the 11th century, Nestor, the author of the Life of Theodosius, compiled two articles related to the history of the Pechersk Monastery: The legend that it was nicknamed the Pechersk Monastery, and the story about the transfer of the relics of Theodosius, to which he added a brief praise of the holy ascetic. – At the beginning of the 12th century, a monk unknown to us by name collected written evidence and oral traditions dating back to the Pechersk Monastery, and, placing them in the monastic chronicle he conceived, continued it with a number of weather records: the last record was made in 1110; By the way, the Pechersk Chronicle included the aforementioned works of Nestor and many borrowings from the Life of Anthony; The frequent mention of the name of Nestor as the author on the pages of the Pechersk Chronicle formed the basis of the legend that the entire chronicle was written by Nestor. - Hegumen of the St. Michael's Monastery Sylvester used this chronicle among other written sources, with which he continued and supplemented the chronicle compilation compiled even before him, in the last quarter of the 11th century: from it he borrowed, among other things, the Legend that for the sake of the nickname Pechersky Monastery, a story about the first the monks of the Pechersk, the story of the transfer of the relics of Theodosius, the news of the appearance of the pillar of fire in 1110, etc. - Subsequent editions of the Tale of Bygone Years changed something in the texts borrowed from the Pechersk Chronicle: so the edition underlying the Lavrentievsky, Ipatievsky and similar lists, she divided the Legend of the beginning of the Pechersk Monastery into two passages: the first was read under the year 1037, and the second was transferred to the year 1051; with such a transfer, the story about the ancient fate of the Pechersk monastery (Antony’s first journey and his settlement in the Varangian cave) was omitted. – In the 13th century, Polycarp, and partly Simon, used the Life of Anthony and the Pechersk Chronicle for their Tales (we have no direct indications that he was familiar with the Pechersk Chronicle). The historical basis of Polycarp’s legends must be sought precisely in the Pechersk Chronicle. – In the 15th century, the Life of Anthony had already disappeared. But the Pechersk Chronicle was known in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery and, among other things, served as a source for the insertions and additions made by the guide Cassian in his editions of the Patericon.
If this is so, then the news of the Gustyn Chronicle about the death of Prokhor in 1107 could have gotten into it precisely from the Pechersk Chronicle. Where Metropolitan Eugene brings the news of Prokhor’s death on February 10, 1103 is as unclear as the source of Sylvester Kosov’s message that Prokhor... (who was led by Eugene) confused the days of death of the long-suffering Pimen (he died, according to legend, on August 7, “on some of his services are sung with polyeleos") and Prokhor Lebednik (died, according to legend, on February 10). Pimen, as can be seen from the words of Polycarp, died during the appearance of miraculous pillars over the Pechersk Church, that is, according to the Tale of Bygone Years (the pillar appeared on February 11 at 1 am), on February 10, 1110; Prokhor died a few days before the victory on August 12, 1107, that is, precisely on August 7. If the proposed messages are correct, then the connection between the chronicle stories about the appearance of the pillars and about Svyatopolk’s visit to the monastery with data on the lives of the Pechersk ascetics Pimen and Prokhor will be obvious: at the same time, it is clear that this connection was given in some monument, and such a monument could be only the Pechersk Chronicle.
It is impossible not to notice that the legends of Polycarp are located in a well-known chronological sequence. Nikita, in the legend of which the event of 1078 is mentioned, is in first place, Pimen, who died in 1110, in last. One cannot help but conclude from this that the stories about the earlier saints, about John and Moses,
Researchers also pointed to other insertions in the Life of Theodosius according to the Cassian editions. Some of them are not significant for us (for example, the insertion about dew and dryness when naming a place for a church); and others, as can be seen from a comparison with the Arsenievskaya edition, are older than the editions of 1460–1462. These include: the name of Theodosius as the archimandrite of all Rus', the indication that he was born in Vasilevo, the episode about the visit of the dying Theodosius by Svyatoslav (cf. Izvestia Det. Russian language .and words. II).
To explain the year 6540 (1032) in such a way that it is extracted from the Legend, that for the sake of the nickname Pechersk Monastery, and the date of Anthony’s death is based on the year 1072 (it can be easily deduced from Simon’s Word on the Creation of the Church) and 40 years of Anthony’s solitary asceticism are counted from it - it is forbidden. With such a consideration, Cassian would have fallen into obvious contradiction both with the Legend, which dated the beginning of Anthony’s ascetic life to the time following the installation of Hilarion as Metropolitan (1051), and with the Life of Theodosius, from which it is clear that Theodosius came to Anthony under Izyaslav Volodimirovich; in order to reconcile the number 40 (the number of years of Anthony’s solitary asceticism) with the data of the Tale itself and the Life of Theodosius, Cassian would, of course, prefer to change it to another (as did, for example, the compilers of the Printed Patericon, where we find the number 16) than to compose the year 1032 and in In connection with this, invent a story about Anthony’s two journeys to the Holy Mountain.
To explain this insertion by Cassian’s desire to justify the figure 40 (the number of years of solitary asceticism of Anthony), of course, would be a stretch, especially since from the legend itself, even in the edition that we read from Cassian, it is clear that Anthony retired from the brethren after 1051 year, namely by installing Varlaam as abbot.
The testimony of the 15th century manuscript, where the Pereyaslav chronicler is located, is not without significance: against the final words of the Legend, on the margin is written: nester.
In Cassian's editions: “having stayed in the monastery for years. i. and in captivity suffered in bonds. i. sixth summer for cleanliness.” The sixth instead of six is obviously a correction, and a thorough one at that, of that corrupted reading which was, perhaps, in the original Life of Anthony (s instead of s.te.). That in Arsenievskaya we are not dealing with a typo, it is clear from the previous one, where we also read: “It’s not enough for him to be fast. i. years of being in chains from the one who was taken captive from him by the ransom and m. s years of remaining with me, we suffer a lot for disobedience for the sake of”; in Cassian’s and here it is corrected: “and this sixth year abide in me.” In the printed Prologue (July 26), we read, at the direction of Macarius, Ist. Russian Church, II Ave. 86, the same as in the Arsenievskaya edition.
Step. book: For the sake of the Christ-loving Yaroslav, the three singers of Greece from their generations came to him from Constantinople. From them began to be in the Rust of the earth an angelic singing with a fair amount of osmosis, especially the three-part harmony and the most red demonic singing, to the praise and glory of God And His Most Pure Mother and all the saints, into the church's sweet-hearted consolation and decoration... In Tatishchev, in 1053: This year Metropolitan George came from Constantinople and with him three people from their births, Demestvenniks, and taught in Rus' to sing in 8 voices, distinguishing the church from worldly songs used (them) for amusement. Wed. about Theory below. In the Tverskaya Chronicle, before the news of the arrival of the singers, the title: About demostive singing in Rus'.
I do not dare dwell further here on the following circumstance, indicating the close connection between the stories under 1037 and under 1051. Sofia vremennik (Sof And
The transformation of three pillars into one and pious reflections on its appearance belong, I think, to the second edition. Wed. the connection of these reflections with subsequent ones, not included in the Laurentian Chronicle, but read in the Ipatiev and many other lists.
So in Lavra, in Radz. Day 3, Ipat. 1 day. Must read day 2: Wed. The Life of Theodosius, which talks about the Blachernae church built by Stephen, which celebrated July 2. The Pechersk Church was apparently completed on the day dedicated to the memory of the Blachernae Mother of God, since the miraculous icon of Blachernae (The Legend of Simon) was brought to the monastery.
