On the eras and styles of chroniclers
Radio, telegraph and television at the speed of light today inform the whole world about all events taking place in individual countries, in cities and villages, in distant polar expeditions and aboard space ships. Over time, all these events line by line fit on the pages of a single world history. The first pages of this great book ruthlessly ripped to pieces the swift wind of time, scattering them across the expanse of the planet. For thousands of years they were buried under a thick layer of debris left over by powerful states. ..
Historians and archaeologists managed to find traces of many long-forgotten peoples and, to a large extent, restore some pages of their history. This extremely important work is still going on. .. But it is extremely difficult to reduce the references to these or those events to a single channel of history. The reason for the errors that occur in this case is, in particular, the variety of time counting systems used in the past in different countries. Therefore, the event, which it was possible to learn from this or that source, as it were, "floats" in the ocean of time, until, as a result of comparison and analysis, it is possible to bring it closer to some "shore" - another event whose distance is in timefrom today is known. And yet, as NN Lyatoshinsky noted, "chronological inconsistency is one of the most important reasons not to trust the reality of this or that fact. .."
Here, on the example of domestic history, we will be convinced that in the dating of events relative to the recent pastyou can make mistakes.
"In the summer of 6463. Idea Olga in the Greeks and the King of the Deed. .. Speech to the king:" I am a pogan, but if I want to baptize, then baptize me. "This - a fragment of the story "The Tale of Bygone Years" about the Kiev princess Olga. It would seem that for the historian everything is clear: the chronicler used the Byzantine era and for the transition to our calendar from the number of the years indicated, it is necessary only to take away 5508. Thus we receive 955 AD.According to Western sources, the baptism of Olga took place under Emperor Romanus, who reigned. .. in 959. This last one would not contradict the "Tale" only if it is assumed that the chronicler used the Bulgarian era( 6463 - 5504 = 959).
In fact, this issue was much more complicated. Princess Olga visited Constantinople not in 955 or 959, but in 957. The Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus( 912-959) described in detail two receptions in which she was present at the Imperial Palace - September 9 and October 18, 957. And ifher baptism then took place, then this very fact is completely hushed up. At the same time, Constantine VII mentions that in her retinue, consisting of more than a hundred people, there was a priest named Grigory. One can not keep silent about the fact that the age of the princess( 67 years), and even of the emperor himself, who died at the age of 54, makes the story of the chronicler about the Emperor's desire to marry the princess absolutely implausible. The mention of Western European sources( in particular, the "Regnon's Continuity") that Olga was baptized under Emperor Romanus, reigning in 959, should apparently be understood in the sense that Roman in 957 was already the co-ruler of his father, but himselfThe text of the chronicle was written at a time when he was already the sole ruler.
In passing, we note that the date of the baptism of Prince Vladimir of Kiev is no less a chronological mystery, although, as we saw( p. 64), the chronicler "furnishes" it with all conceivable elements of dating. One of the oldest documents, "Memory and Praise to Prince Vladimir," refers to the baptism of Vladimir to 987, and his campaign to Korsun, in which he was "baptized" according to the Tale, by 989. By the same year, the Byzantine and Byzantine capture of Korsun by VladimirArab sources. The very fact of the baptism of Prince Vladimir and Rus Byzantine writers stubbornly hushed up.
It is known only that Vladimir in 987 sent to the aid of the Byzantine emperor Basil II( ruled the empire from 976 to 1025) troops against the rebellious commander Varda Foki in exchange for a promise to give him the wife of Princess Anna. It is clear that such a close relationship with the Byzantine imperial court greatly raised the authority of the Kiev prince, which the Byzantines hardly desired. And at some stage in the development of events, they apparently decided to abandon their promise. They lost after the capture of Vladimir Korsun. But from Byzantium came Christianity to Russia, this issue can hardly be considered resolved. Thus, in the Chronicles of Joachim, it says: "Ideal Vladimir for the Bulgars and conquer them, make peace, and enjoy the baptism of himself and his son and all the land of Russian cross. Tsar Simeon( Samuel), the Bulgarian priests, the priests and books are happy, and ambassador Vladimir to Constantinople to the tsar and the patriarch, to ask the metropolitan. .. So it is not excluded that Vladimir was baptized himself and baptized the Kievans soon after the campaign against Bulgaria in 985.Of course, the "Story" tells about these events quite differently, in it we find a lengthy story about the thoughts of Prince Vladimir, then - about his miraculous healing from blindness after baptism, etc. But the point is that the articles of the annals were repeatedly reprocessedand changes, realitiesStylish elements that had to do with the social and political life of Rus were carefully etched, in their place, after 100-120 years, inserts of a purely religious nature were made. And almost the first biographer of Vladimir Iakov Mnich wrote that Vladimir took Korsun two years after the third after his baptism. ..
In addition, there is some evidence that "the baptism of Rus" took place much earlier. So, the Patriarch of Constantinople Photius wrote in the district message to the eastern churches in 866
about the Russians that "now they themselves have changed the ungodly pagan superstition to pure Christian faith. ..".Already in the middle of the X century. Christianity is increasingly asserted in the state system in Russia. In particular, the treaty with the Greeks of 944 is also fastened in Kiev in the church: "We, though we have been baptized esmy, we vow with the curse of St. Ilie in the church church. ..".Under Vladimir, Christianity only turns into a state religion.
Interesting from the point of view of the chronology is the following entry in the Tale: "In the summer of 6473. The idea of Svyatoslav to the Kozars. .. and having been at war, overtook Svyatoslav Kozar and hail them to Bela Vezha."In translation from the Byzantine era, this would correspond to the year 965. Meanwhile, it follows from Arabic sources that the Khazar Khaganate was defeated by the Rus in 358 AH, which would correspond to 969, since from synchronic tables we find that 1 Muharram 358Hijrah = November 14, 969 ADe. Thus, in this case, from the date of the chronicler, it is necessary to subtract 5508 from 5508 rather than 5508.
No less curious and such an entry in the Laurentian Chronicle: "In the summer of 6609. The Vseslav the Prince of Polotsk, April, the month of April 14, at 9 o'clock on Wednesday."Using Appendix II, it is easy to see that in 1101 g.e.(6609 - 5508 = 1101) April 14 was not on Wednesday, but on Sunday. Wednesday also fell on April 14 in 1109( 6609-5500).It is possible that the chronicler used the time account for the era of Sextus Julius of Africa. ..
As already mentioned, the style of chronology refers to the definition of the beginning of the year. Together with Christianity, a September style came to Russia from Byzantium, but here it was customary to celebrate the beginning of the year in the spring in March. And this is the March style of the chroniclers stuck to a very long time. However, in relation to the September year, the March year( with the same designation!) May begin six months later( then it will be "younger" by its very beginning) or half a year earlier( then it will be "over" the September one half a year).In the historical literature, the first of them was called the March one, the second one was ultramartic. Obviously, the ultramartic year is always one unit older than March.
For a long time it was assumed that the chroniclers used the March years. But it turned out that the matter is much more complicated. In the annals there are groups of articles alternating in which one or another style is used. According to the famous historian N. G. Berezhkov, in the annals of the late 11th and early 12th centuries,(including the "Tale of Bygone Years") years are marked by the March style, whereas ultramartic dating does not exist at all. But hereinafter statistics is as follows: in the Laurentian Chronicle, out of a total of 165 articles dated from 1110 to 1304, 101 articles were designated as March years, ultramartic ones - 60, four articles are designated years later( ie, beginning one year later) March. In the Ipatiev Chronicle from 1118 to 1198.(before the Galician-Volyn annals) the March style has been used for 46 years, the ultramartic style is 35 years old, and all this is quite mixed. And only in the XV century.the designation of articles in September is becoming common.
The explanation is very simple: the compiler of the record used not one, but at least two different sources, in which the same year was designated differently. ..
Here are some examples. According to the Ipatiev Chronicle, "In the summer of 6672. .. Svyatoslav put the month of February on the 15th day, and in 17 was put in the coffin, on Monday."But on February 17, it happened on Monday in 1164, which means that the style of the chronicler is ultramartic. Twenty years later the same chronicle uses a different style: "In the summer of 6695. .. On the same summer there was a sign of the month of September of the 15th day, that was all over the earth. .. the sun dies and the sky burned the clouds with opaque. .."Here, firstly, the chronicler was mistaken, since the total eclipse of the Sun occurred on September 4, 1187. Secondly, one might think that the record was made a few months later, as here he adds: "Such a sign is not good, In that day of that month, Jerusalem was taken, the godless Saracens. .. "The fact is that Jerusalem was taken by Saladin a month later - on October 3.Thus, the number of the month of the event( eclipse) had to be corrected in accordance with the calculations, the style of the chronicler is March.
The above-mentioned "summer 6645" of the 1st Novgorod Chronicle is also ultramartic. This year should correspond( 6645 - 5508 =) 1137. But in 1137 the new moon was 23.8 March. The sickle of the Moon could be seen in the sky on March 7 a year earlier - in 1136, then the astronomical new moon took place on March 4.9.
Many historians encountered difficulties in setting the date of the battle of the prince's troops with the Mongol-Tatars on the Kalka River. In the Ipatiev Chronicle, this battle is described under 6732: "In the summer of 6732, the unheeded army of the atheistic moabites of the rekomy and tatariv. .. came."The chronicler goes on to say that the princes "redeemed the Dnieper on the day of Tuesday. .. therefrom 8 days before the Kalki River", but does not specify a more specific date. The Laurentian Chronicle in a few lines gives information about this battle under another year. "In the summer of 6731. .. the same evil of the month of May at 30, in memory of the holy martyr Eremiya."But the church notes the memory of the martyr mentioned not on May 30, but on May 31.
In the Nikon and Gustin annals, a report on the battle of Kalka was given under 6733, in the Rogozhsky chronicle, under 6743. In the chronicles of the fifteenth century, in particular, in St. Sophia I, Novgorod IV, Voskreseneka and other chronicles, the date of the battle is mentioned- 16 June.
In one of the sources that did not reach us, NM Karamzin read that the aforementioned battle took place on Friday. On the other hand, the Arab source reported that it took place in 620 AH, and this lunar year began on February 4, 1223. A comparison of all these data led to the conclusion that the battle on Kalka occurred on June 16, 1223.
In many historical sourcesdating occurs on the indices. For example, one of the documents of the "Lithuanian metric" ends with the words: "given Vilnia summer 6960 January 4, indicte 15".
Sometimes the chronicler indicates only the year indicator. For example, there was a message about Dmitry Donskoy's campaign "in the year of Indic 14".Dmitry Donskoi reigned from 6868 to 6897( 1360-1389), the same indicator 14 corresponds to the years 1361 and 1376. But in the first of them the prince was only 11 years old. Consequently, this event took place in 1376. So one indicator was able to establish the date of the event.