How old is Russia?

Part 1

In Veliky Novgorod, on the main square of Detinets opposite Hagia Sophia, there is a majestic monument to the Millennium of Russia. A lot of soul, work and invention were invested in its creation and restoration after the war.

A wonderful monument. But!..

It was erected in 1862, the first historical figures on the pedestal are Rurik and company. We subtract a thousand years, we get the year 862 - the year the Varangians came to Ladoga. That is, Russia "began" in 862? And at school they taught that in 1721, when it became an empire under Peter I ... And even under Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible, it was called Muscovy by foreigners, and in its own documents the Russian state ...

A strange situation, on the one hand, even flattery turns out, because they “aged” Russia by eight hundred years and a tail, on the other hand, they cut off an unimaginable number of its own years from history (if Russia is considered the successor of Rus'). So how old is Russia?

Here, of course, a tautology, the millennium means the organization of a semblance of a state by the newcomer Varangians, to begin with, on the territory of the Slavic tribes who lived around Lake Ilmen and along the Dnieper. But this is already a shame, because the Vikings were in many ways far from those whom they came to organize! There is one more starting point of our history. Many have been leading Russian civilization since the Baptism of Rus'. It turns out that before baptism there was a stone age? No, gentlemen, Rus' was great long before the appearance of the first Christians in it (this does not detract from their merits!). And the Varangians did not come to the Russian Land to the savages living on tree branches.

To begin with, let's try to deal with the Vikings themselves. Who are Rurik and his immediate descendants? What was Rus' before the Baptism? What was Ancient Rus' like? Which Rus' is considered ancient? Many textbooks and popular science works give the time frame of the 9th-13th centuries, that is, from the arrival of the Varangians to the Tatar-Mongol invasion. And what, before Rus' was not? Or should it be called Ancient?

Now no one doubts that before the arrival of the Rurikids, the history of the Slavs dates back at least several millennia. Do you want to experience pride “for ours”? There is evidence that ancient Slovenesk, on the site of which Veliky Novgorod stands, was founded in 3099 from the Creation of the world by Prince Slovene, that is, in 2409 BC! Like this! This is not Rome for you, which the brothers set up in just 753 BC. True, stone Rome is still standing, and wooden Slovenesk was burned to the ground three times, but stubbornly revived again and again. It can be seen that there are energy places on earth.

But we will not repeat the history of Ancient Rus' now, we will walk, so to speak, on the surface. Let's talk about those very first Varangian princes, from whom the creators of the monument to the Millennium of Russia began the countdown of its existence.

Once again, remember the words from the title of the most famous Russian chronicle: “... where did the Russian Land come from?” Indeed, where did she "have gone" from? Now we almost know the answer - according to the annals (we will not argue with them now, you already know that this is not so) from Ladoga and Novgorod. It was there that the Ilmen Slovenes called upon themselves to organize (or defend?) the Varangian king Rurik. Where Veliky Novgorod stands, I think everyone remembers. But I'm not sure about Ladoga (a city, not a lake).

The ancient Volkhov flows out of Lake Ilmen, it is not for nothing that it is called “gray-haired”, which carries its water to Lake Ladoga, it used to be called Lake Nevo. Now Lake Ladoga is connected to the Baltic (formerly Varangian) Sea by the Neva River, on which Peter I cut his window to Europe - the city of St. Petersburg -. At the time of Rurik, there was no such river, Lake Nevo simply merged into the sea with a wide mouth somewhat north of the current Neva, practically being a freshwater bay of the Baltic Sea. The Neva is the youngest river in Europe, it’s just that the bottom of Lake Nevo rose a lot, its waters turned out to be blocked for some time, but the water found a new channel for itself and turned into a river. It was somewhere in the year 1063, when in "Novegorod I went Vlkhov back the day 5". Fear, presumably, have suffered! The ancient city of Ladoga stood at the confluence of its left tributary of the Ladozhka River (now Elena), about ten or twelve kilometers from Lake Nevo, into the Volkhov. Later, Peter I transferred it to the very mouth of the Volkhov and called it Novaya Ladoga, but the Old one did not die either.

Part 2

That's where the Varangian prince Rurik came with his honorable mission.

He did not come just like that, of his own free will, but was called according to the order of his grandfather, the obodrite prince Gostomysl, who ruled the Ilmen Slovenes, and at the same time the surrounding tribes. Gostomysl lived in harmony with the Varangians, paid tribute to them, “dividing the world”, and “there was silence throughout the earth” ... After his death, the Slovenes first drove the Varangians across the sea, but then, having quarreled over who was more important, heeded the voice of reason and carried out the king's order. This is how the Rurik dynasty appeared in Rus'.

Rurik's son Igor, after his death, remained very small under the supervision of a relative, Oleg the Prophet, who ruled until his death. We owe the prophetic Oleg the unification of part of the Slavic lands into a single whole and the phrase “We are from the Russian family”!

And we remember him from Pushkin's lines about revenge on the unreasonable Khazars and death from a snakebite (by the way, Oleg himself did not fight the Khazars, and there were never such poisonous asps in Rus').

Prince Igor Rurikovich was married to Olga, who was remembered for her cruel revenge on the Drevlyans for the death of her husband with the help of birds that burned Iskorosten, and also for being the first official Christian in Rus'. The princess ruled, being regent for her young son Svyatoslav.

The son of Prince Igor, Svyatoslav, is known to us for the defeat of Khazaria, the campaign against Byzantium, and his challenge "I'm going to you!" and the words "we lay down with bones" and "the dead have no shame."

After his death, three sons - Yaropolk, Oleg and Vladimir - began a fratricidal war for power. Prince Vladimir won. It was he who later baptized the people of Kiev in bulk in the Dnieper, for which he received the prefix Saint and the national title Red Sun.

After his death, the sons, having thoroughly quarreled among themselves and sent two brothers to the next world, divided the lands. Rus' went to Yaroslav and Mstislav Vladimirovich. In the end, after the death of Mstislav, Yaroslav became the ruler of Kievan Rus, whom the historian Karamzin called the Wise. His personality in connection with the history of the Book of Veles is of particular interest to us, because it was in the library of his daughter Anna Yaroslavna that the wooden (runic?) books were located.

And so on…

There is one big, well, very big problem in studying the history of pre-Varangian Rus'! How do people study history? First of all, according to someone's notes on paper, parchment, papyrus, wood, stone, finally. All records directly Russian, officially recognized now, are conducted from the time of the Baptism of Rus'. This is what was written in Cyrillic with the approval of the authorities. Where did you get information about previous centuries?

Who even wrote these very chronicles and who corrected them? Why "forgotten" White, Blue and Red Rus'? Why did they start counting civilization only from Rurik? Were they all mazuriks? It's time to tell something about the famous Nestor and his "editors".

I don’t know about you, but since my schooldays, or rather, my desks, everything that was written on parchment, I called for myself this word - annals. Maybe she didn’t study well at school, although she had an A in history, maybe they just explained it that way, but I think I’m not alone. If you ask how the annals differ, for example, from the edition, it is unlikely that anyone will answer right off the bat (unless, of course, they have not dozed for another five years at lectures at the Faculty of History). So, there is a difference, and a significant one. This is worth remembering when you have to quote. Let’s make a reservation right away: we don’t have a single real chronicle - a protograph! All that is available is their later repetitions, "lists".

Part 3

So, the chronicle is a historical work in which the narration was conducted over the years, each new article (it’s not me who called them that, it’s customary) begins with the words: “In the summer such and such ...”

A chronicler is the same as a chronicle, for example, the Radzivilov Chronicle begins with the words: "This book is a chronicler." As a rule, the chronicler sets out the events more concisely, especially about the past years, a kind of summary of history to prepare for the exam.

Annalistic code - bringing together into a single narrative various chronicle documents, all kinds of acts, hagiographic works, various kinds of teachings. Most of what has come down to us is precisely chronicles. Of course, they were not written in fresh footsteps and will certainly bear the imprint of the opinion of the author-compiler. Sometimes so noticeable that it is difficult to understand where is what he copied, and where is his own fiction (not always true).

Chronicle list - these are the same chronicle texts, rewritten at different times and by different people in different places. That is, the same chronicle was rewritten many times, and the text of the list often depends on who did it. For example, the Ipatiev Chronicle is known in eight lists, and all of them differ markedly from each other. At the same time, not a single chronicle was preserved in its original form - a protograph. Imagine what a surrogate we now have!

A chronicle is an editorial version of a text. Here, in general, the editor expanse! For example, Novgorod First and Sofia Senior and Junior editions differ significantly in language and style of presentation. If we also take into account that we are not able to read the text without translation even with clearly drawn letters, since we do not know the Old Slavonic language, then the personal approach of modern translators is also superimposed on all these correspondence and postscripts.

There is something else to take into account. The chronicles that have come down to us are quite “young”: the famous Tale of Bygone Years was written around 1113, the Ostromir Gospel a little earlier - in 1057, Russkaya Pravda - in 1282. And everything is not in the original, but in later lists, where those who copied, slightly, but added their own (or skipped unwanted ones). The main thing is that the events of the 9th-10th centuries were written not just from words, but from long-standing memories or other people's records. That is also not impartial. I do not want to blame the chroniclers for dishonesty, but any person sees first of all what he wants to see. Emphasis placed is a very important thing, especially when it comes to unknown or controversial facts.

There is one more “but” (how many are there in total?).

Sometimes the dates of, in general, well-known events are very different. Why? The fact is that the dating of records is from the Creation of the world, but in a different system, so to speak. No, this is not an old or new style, it’s just that part of the annals is based on the dates of the Byzantine chronicles (in them the Creation of the world falls on 5508 BC), and part on the dates of the Bulgarian chronicles (in these the world was founded in 5500 BC). AD, apparently rounded off to make it more convenient to count). The difference, as we see, is as much as eight years, so the dates of the annals sometimes vary. In some, Rurik was called to Rus' in 862, in others - in 870. In principle, the difference is small, but you have to keep this in mind when comparing chronicles. It seems that even in the same "Tale" the dates are given interspersed, first according to the Bulgarian chronicles, and then according to the Byzantine ones.

With the adoption of Christianity, the Julian calendar came to Rus'. This means that the new year began on September 1st. But this is only according to church canons, for the rest, as before, the new year came with the beginning of spring - March 1. Normans, by the way, also. The difference in the beginning of the church and civil years has led to an unimaginable confusion in our perception of chronicle dates. This situation continued until the 15th century, until the beginning of the civil year was also moved to September 1.

What could this discrepancy lead to? For us, to absolutely unimaginable absurdities. Nestor successively describes the events of July, August and even December of one of the years, and then ... What month do you think should follow December and beyond? That's right ... February of the same year! In the Kyiv Chronicle, for example, in the events of 1112, May comes, and after it ... November, January and February of the same year! And there are many such examples. But you have already understood that this is not a mess in the minds of the chroniclers, but they simply had to write down the months according to one calendar, and the years according to another.

Part 4

What's happened? The chronicler attributed the date of a campaign (especially if it lasted more than one month) freely to that of the years that fell on the place of his stay. Therefore, the difference in a year or two should not surprise anyone. After that, the discrepancy in the dates of the campaign against Byzantium - 860 or 866 - does not seem strange. The year 6368 from the Creation of the World for the Greeks is the year 860, and for the Bulgarians it is the year 867, if we remember the transition spring-summer-autumn, then the annalistic year 866 comes out quite well!

Moreover, by the Decree of Peter I of December 15, 1699, the Christian chronology was introduced in Russia and the year began on January 1 (remember the school riddle in history about the shortest year in our country?). The day after December 31, 7208 from the Creation of the world was supposed to be considered January 1, 1700 from the Nativity of Christ. Thus, 1699 lasted only 4 months. But we are not interested in this, just one of the scribes of the annals took this into account, and some did not. How can that be?

Remember the era that is already close to us. I don’t want to hint that you can remember the Battle of Mamaev by age, but you probably haven’t forgotten about the old and new styles, but we still celebrate the New Year twice, surprising the rest of the world. The new style was also "lowered" from the top on February 1, 1918. It would seem, what is simpler, everything before this date should be given only according to the old style, and after it already according to the new one. But we are not! Our national motto: first create difficulties, and then overcome them with success (though variable)! They managed to translate everything that is needed, and most importantly, not needed, into the new style. Why, one wonders, in the new style to name the dates of birth and death of great people? For example, Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin was born on May 26, 1799. Why change his birthday to June 6 of the same year?

And there are plenty of such examples. Who said that copyists of manuscripts did not do this before? Therefore, it is impossible to say with certainty how accurate the date is in this or that chronicle, but not because the chroniclers themselves were hacks (although this happened), but it’s just how it is with us ...

The fact that the Tale was ruthlessly corrected already in the 11th century during the life of the author is beyond doubt, moreover, by order, and not just from the foolishness of the copyist.

Grand Duke Vladimir Monomakh was the very powerful customer who ordered Nestorov to rewrite The Tale of Bygone Years in accordance with his princely opinion. Something was Vydubitsky Abbot Sylvester (not to be confused with Stallone!), a confidant of Prince Vladimir Monomakh, rewritten, something scraped off, and something simply torn out and thrown away. To understand what exactly interfered with the prince and what words of Nestor he might not like, you need to understand who Vladimir Monomakh is, when and how he came to power, and who Nestor himself is, what he could write at all. Indeed, in the "Tale" is not only facts, but also their assessment.

There has never been calm in Rus', but the 11th century in terms of the struggle for power turned out to be extremely stormy, the “mother of Russian cities” was shaking like a disturbed hive, or rather, a hornet’s nest. The heirs, legitimate and not, took advantage of every opportunity to help their competitors finish their lives. Often such an opportunity appeared only with the help of a sword, at the same time, of course, everyone who was defeated went to the forefathers. First of all, the people suffered, which also did not stand aside, periodically rebelled and robbed everything that lay badly or was poorly hidden, burned it clean, but immediately found itself robbed and burned by the next “winner”.

The neighbors did not lag behind, hordes of steppe dwellers from the south and east, Poles (Poles) and Ugrians (Hungarians) from the west continually rolled into Rus'. People are masters of picking up what is poorly protected, and Rus' was just like that. Having strong squads, the Russian principalities were endlessly attacked by even not the most powerful neighbors. The life of a man - from the prince to the smerd - was not worth a penny. It was impossible to believe any promises, the princes turned out to be masters of their word according to the principle: I gave my word, I will take it back myself!

Part 5

The son of Vladimir St. Yaroslav the Wise, who ruled until 1054, was indeed wise in his policy, and besides, he was God-loving, for which he was greatly honored by the church. But not everything in Yaroslav's relations with the church was so cloudless, however, this is the fault of the church itself, and not the prince.

Larion was the first primate of the Russian Orthodox Church in the suburban town of Berestov, the favorite patrimony of the Kievan princes. In the “Tale” it is said about him like this: “In the summer of 6559 (1051). Yaroslav Hilarion was appointed metropolitan, Russian by birth, and gathered bishops in Hagia Sophia.

Imagine the scandal - the prince literally appointed his confessor as metropolitan, that is, he did what only the Patriarch of Constantinople had the right to do! Could such arbitrariness atone for the fact that Hilarion was “a good man, a bookish man and a faster”? By the way, he became famous in Kyiv even before the scandalous decision of Yaroslav, because he dug himself a prayer cave outside the city, where he retired for reflection. This cave laid the foundation for the future Kiev-Pechersk cave monastery, the current Lavra.

So, the “bookish” husband was a metropolitan, of course, only during the life of Yaroslav, and then simply disappeared from all the chronicles. Strange, isn't it? This is a figure of enormous scale, the first Russian metropolitan, the first Russian philosopher, the one whose sermons were listened to for hours by both princes and ordinary laity, the first Russian Christian writer, hope and support in the glorious deeds of Prince Yaroslav. If they completely ceased to mention him in all chronicles, then, probably, this did not happen in vain. Died with his prince? Most likely no.

At the same time, a new monk appeared among the brethren of the Kiev Caves Monastery - Nikon, a personality so outstanding that during his lifetime he was nicknamed the Great. According to his sermons and the remnants of some memoirs, it is clear that this was Hilarion.

Why so much detail about the first Russian metropolitan? The fact is that the author of the Tale, Nestor, was a monk of the same monastery, and his teacher was Nikon, who had already become abbot of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery. This monastery, perhaps the first example of Russian opposition to power, was a bone in the throat of the new Greek metropolitan. Because of the too high authority of his monks, it was dangerous to simply smoke them out of the caves, then they decided to act quietly, but for sure. The fact is that, in modern terms, the monastery was not registered with the relevant authorities, that is, it was engaged in sermons without the permission of a higher organization, did not pay taxes there, the monks did not have a residence permit ... You can not explain, we are very familiar with this , Truth?

In exchange for the removal of bureaucratic claims, the authorities demanded the removal of Nikon from the monastery, the former metropolitan and disgraced monk had to flee all the way to Tmutarakan (then there was simply nowhere else, America had not yet been discovered). He returned to Kyiv much later, became hegumen in the monastery and forever remained in opposition to the government. And it was his works that Nestor used when writing his Tale of Bygone Years. Of course, one of the first pages that Sylvester mercilessly tore out of Nestor's work were texts written by Nikon, especially those that cursed the contemporary authorities.

Nikon, followed by Nestor, could not praise the dominance of foreigners, primarily the Byzantine diaspora, since he fought with him all his life, as well as with the strife of the heirs of Yaroslav the Wise.

I wonder why it was the heirs of the next prince-unifier after his death that they necessarily arranged a bloody quarrel for power? Removed from the Nestorovsky chronicle is irretrievably lost. Vladimir Monomakh, having come to power at the end of his life, wished to leave a slightly different memory of himself than the one that turned out to be on the pages of the Tale. I had to correct ... Yes, how! In some places, a text is simply inserted supposedly on behalf of Nestor (this is where about Vladimir Monomakh himself). The operation to “improve” the chronicle turned out to be clumsy, it is clear even to a not very knowledgeable reader that this is a text of a different kind. We would forgive Vladimir Monomakh if ​​he simply inserted a loved one about himself into the "Tale", after all, you can not read

---

Предлагаем посмотреть другие страницы сайта:
← Reunification of the peoples of Belarus and Ukraine on September 17, 1939 | Bloody Baptism of Russia - How It Was →