Official chronicle in Russia began in the XV century, almost simultaneously with the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks (1453), and led his so – called clerical clerks-historians report. This universally recognized fact means only one thing: we do not have reliable materials on the state history of Russia for earlier times. And interestingly, in the annals of clerical clerks no mention of “ancient manuscripts” no.
The study of history and systematization of chronicle data began even later. Russian Russian history was composed mainly by Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer (1694 – 1738), the founder of the Norman theory of the origin of the Russian state, and M. V. Lomonosov (1711 – 1765), V. N. Tatishchev (1686 – 1750), Gerard Friedrich Miller (1705 – 1783), and Prince M. M. Shcherbatov (1733 – 1790), who wrote “the History of Russia since ancient times” in seven volumes, which became a prologue to Karamzin (1766 – 1826). Look at the dates of life of these scientists! They made up the ancient Russian history in the XVIII century.
Interestingly, before starting to write the history of Ancient Russia, G. F. Miller spent ten years in Siberia, looking for copies OF documents on the history of Russia. Strange, isn’t it? Why did he go to Siberia to collect historical documents? After all, “Ancient Russia” was not located in Siberia! Evidently the archives of the old Russian cities aroused doubts in the historian, and he believed that away from the political centers he could find more reliable materials.
Only in the XIX century, in 1805 – 1809, August Ludwig Schletzer, a German historian in the Russian service, first published, and even then in German, The Nestorian chronicle. In 1809 – 1819, D. I. Yazykov translated it into Russian, dedicating his translation to Emperor Alexander I. And at the same time, at the very end of the XVIII century or at the beginning of the XIX, count A. I. Musin-Pushkin (1744-1817) opened the Laurentian chronicle, and published it only in 1846. The same Musin-Pushkin in 1795 found the manuscript “Words about Igor’s regiment”.
The first coherent “History of the Russian State” since its imaginary Foundation appeared in the XIX century. It was compiled by N. M. Karamzin, who in 1816 – 1825 published eleven volumes with the support of the government, and the last twelfth volume was published in 1826 after his death…
Such was the history of bringing together the data of different Chronicles and their primary interpretations. Let us consider the history of the appearance of the Russian Chronicles themselves.
It was only under Peter I (not earlier than 1700) that the spelling of letters which we know now, the so-called civil letter, became widespread. Before that, Church Slavonic writing was used, and the book was not the Russian language at all, but only the Church Slavonic literary dialect, akin to the Slovak. Russian Russian translation of Leonard fronsperger’s “on military Affairs”, made at the behest of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the father of Peter I, in the second year of his reign (in 1647), and the first experience of Russian grammar appeared abroad in Latin under the name “H.”. W. Ludolfii Grammatica Rossica”.
So, all the monuments of Russian literature, created before 1647, should show signs of influence of the South-Western Slavs, who are, in fact, our first teachers and educators. It is not surprising that Russian chronicle, which bore first the name of Nesterovoj, and now simply called the “Primary Russian chronicle” bears traces of the West Slavic influence. This chronicle has come down to us in several copies, of which the following were famous at the beginning of the NINETEENTH century:
1) ” The tale of bygone years Nestor Chernorizets Feodosievogo monastery Pechersk”. This list with the name of Nestor belonged first to the famous collector of manuscripts P. K. Khlebnikov (d. in 1777), then S. D. Poltoratskomu (1803-1884), and where took his Khlebnikov-is unknown. The document is written on paper in small sheet half-uncial script, the narration is brought to 1098 year.
2) ” the Russian Temporary, that is the Chronicler containing the Russian History from 6370 (862) on 7189(1681)”. 2 parts. Moscow. 1790”.
3 “ ” Chronicler, containing the Russian History from 6360 (862) to 7106 (1598) year. Moscow, 1781”, also called the Arkhangelsk list.
The most interesting of all existing lists (and it is possible to think, more ancient not to find) is the Radzivilovsky chronicle. The document is written by a semi-Gustav of the end of the XV century and is decorated with 604 interesting drawings of important archaeological significance, for which it is called a facial, that is, an illustrated list. On the sheet glued to the binding, there are three entries in the Belarusian dialect of humorous content, parodying the chronicler. For example: “Two weeks Pilipova retreat (Filippova post) Purpen Pickin the corn sowed at the rock devyatdesyat”. Or: “In rock SESAT third 6 weeks before Velikodnaya (Easter) modlog (account) of the old calendar, the Mare SIV gerbils”, and so on in the same spirit.
At the end of the manuscript there is a PostScript that it was presented by Stanislav Zenovich to Prince Janusz Radziwill. And then in 1671 it entered the königsberg library from Prince Bohuslav Radziwill, as can be seen from the printed label with the coat of arms of the city of königsberg and the signature.
In 1716, Peter I ordered a copy to be taken from this manuscript, which could then be re-shot in Russia, and not in one copy. And during the seven years ‘ war in 1760, the original Konigsberg was purchased for our Academy of Sciences. And already in 1767 it was printed in St. Petersburg all as it is “ “without any crossing in the syllable and speeches”, in the edition” Library of Russian History. Ancient record.”
Here is the real beginning of Russian Chronicles! It goes without saying that the book, distributed in hundreds of copies in the then still small oases of literacy, greatly excited the imagination of its readers, who had never seen anything like it. It, of course, has caused natural desire to fill up these data and to continue them for 1206 with which the narration comes to an end or, is more correct, breaks off, after such words: “The same month (March) 19 (numbers) 1206 (year) the Grand Duchess Vsevolozha (the wife of Vsevolod Yuryevich, the Grand Duke), prebyst Bo in monasteries 18 days bogovi. That SUSU the Grand Duke, playusa on her, and Uryu, her son, plagusia, and not hatasu Xia utility, Zane the be love it, and Vseslava the same, and the Bishop smolenskom Jonah and Bishop Michael, and the Abbot of the monastery Trocero, Zane best came and Smolenska from Mstislav prays for his apology, and Simon Abbot, otzu her spiritual and enemy Abbot, and presviterom who sang the usual songs, opatovce her body, blogish th in the coffin of the coal industry, and pologise Yu in the Church of the Holy mother of God”.
It is clear that the sudden suspension of the Radziwill chronicle in such an interesting place must have seemed directly intolerable to the inquisitive reader, who first became acquainted with it after its printed publication in 1767. That is why her correspondence with the continuations began, the most important of which are the Laurentian list and the “Manuscript of the Moscow Theological Academy”.
Russian Russian list, otherwise called Suzdal or Musin-Pushkin, has the title ” Behold the tale of bygone years, where There is a Russian land, who in Kiev began to be the first princedom and where the Russian land began to eat.” Under the title of the manuscript can be disassembled: “the Book of the Rozhestvensky monastery of Volodimir”.
This manuscript, rewritten with minor amendments the entire Radzivilovsky list, brings the story to 6803 (on our account 1305) year, but suddenly ends with an unexpected PostScript 1377 year, that is, 72 years after the end of the chronicle: “the merchant Rejoices, the purchase made and the pilot stuck to the pier, and the traveler who came to his homeland. So happy the writer and book to book. (I rejoice) and I am a thin, and unworthy, and sinful servant of God Lawrence monk. I began to write these books, called the Chronicler of the month of genvar 4 in memory of our Holy fathers avvad (abbots), in Sinai and Raif beaten, Prince Dmitry Konstantinovich, with the blessing of the Holy Bishop Dionysius (Suzdal) and finished the month of March 20 in the summer of 6885 (1377). And now, misters, fathers and brothers if where it was described, or copied do not swear, zanezhe books (which I used) became dilapidated, and mind (my) is young, did not reach”.
And the question of why the author of his “last tale” finished 72 years before the ” end of the works”, and remains open. How and when did we get the Laurentian list? His own history does not go deeper than the very end of the XVIII or the beginning of the XIX century. At the beginning of the NINETEENTH century, it was presented by the famous book collector count A. I. Musin-Pushkin to Emperor Alexander I, who donated it to the Public library. That’s all.
The second most important copy of the Radzivil list is the Manuscript of the Moscow Theological Academy, written in semi-Gustav on 261 leaves. On the first sheet it is marked: “life-Giving Trinity”, so it is called “Trinity”, and on the last sheet it is written: “Sergiev monastery”. Until 1206, the text copies the Radziwill chronicle almost verbatim, with negligible amendments. And from the moment at which the Radzivilovsky original ends, it conducts continuous externally continuation, but already absolutely in other tone, than Laurentian for the same years, and brings the story to 1419 quite independently, without repeating an original part of the Laurentian chronicle.
SO, three manuscripts were found: one in Konigsberg, another in Suzdal, the third in the Moscow province. In the initial parts of their they are almost identical, but the further parts almost do not repeat each other. If all of them are copies, even if only in the ” Initial part”, of some older original belonging to pre-printed times, it is involuntarily necessary to conclude that this original was distributed from Konigsberg to the Vladimir province (if not further). How, then, in lands so remote and unconnected, do the ancient texts repeat themselves, and the further continuations do not repeat themselves?!
It is easy to conclude that both the Trinity-Sergius anonymous chronicler and the Suzdal monk Lawrence used the already relatively widely distributed edition of 1767, or the compilers directly used the Radzivil manuscript. And these Chronicles were written at the end of the XVIII century, shortly before they were found by diligent seekers of ancient manuscripts like Musin-Pushkin.
After all, the Radziwill chronicle is literally rewritten in all other, known to us as the most ancient, as their initial parts! How else, with all the difficulties of the message of the time could have and send the same text? Only by making copies. So there was a center that made these copies incessantly (here’s the printed book of 1767). Therefore, we conclude that the text, considered the oldest piece of the chronicle, was actually made of some common prototype and made in the various annals is not the first, but one of the last.
And independent texts began to be compiled in different monasteries only from the first years of the XIII century. All this means that the Chronicles until the time of the 4th Crusade, when the knights took in 1204 Constantinople and founded in the Greek and Slavic countries of the Balkan Peninsula its famous Latin Empire, in Russia was not conducted. The Queen gave birth in the night…
The question is, can the credibility of the dynastic chronology of the first Russian chronicle be determined by purely “physiological” reasoning? It turns out, you can!
Suppose we are presented with a continuous dynasty in which the throne has always passed from father to eldest son. It is clear that the father could reign for a few years, the son for a long time, the grandson for a long time or a little and so on. But in spite of all the accidental variety of years of power of each of them, for five or six generations we shall find that the AVERAGE term of government will be only two or three years longer than the time of puberty common to all men. Indeed! If the long-lived father sits on the throne for a hundred years, his son will not fall into power at all (zero years of rule), and the throne will be inherited at best by a grandson, if not a great-grandson. It is impossible to imagine that after such a father, his own eldest son would hold the throne for another hundred years. He would die. And because the fantasies we turn to the facts.
In view of the fact that all dynasties sought to preserve the throne for their kind, heirs usually married early, and the first child was born if not a year, then two or three years after the young parents could conceive it. Hence it is clear that the average time of reigns in a dynasty where the throne passes from father to son must be only a year or two longer than the time of puberty, and therefore of marriageable age. And therefore any historical chronology is confirmed by physiology only when we see the average time of reigns from 17 to 22 years. In the case of the transition of the throne from grandfather to grandson in the calculation you need to take the father’s last, giving him the reign of zero years, and in the case of the transition of the throne from older brother to younger necessary to consider only the younger brother, up to the time of his reign two or three years, as second children are born, on average, two to three years after the first.
Here are examples from the documented histories of various dynasties: in Germany, from the accession of Henry IV (1056) to the deposition of William II (1918), 862 years passed and there were 40 shifts of lords, so that even with the gross count for each shift had, on average, about 21.5 years, that is, sexual maturity was reached by princes at 18 year.
In English dynastic history, from the accession of Edward III the Confessor (1042) to the accession of Victoria (1837), 795 years passed and there were 37 shifts, 21.4 years each. Again, puberty occurred at 18 years. It is the same in French history: from the accession of Henri I (1030) to the deposition of Napoleon III, 840 years passed and there were 42 shifts, for each an average of 20 years, which gives a sexual maturity of about 17 years.
So in the Russian dynastic history from Mikhail Fedorovich (1613) to the deposition of Nicholas II (1917), 304 years passed, and if we exclude from here killed immediately after the accession of John Antonovich and Peter III, there were 15 shifts, for each an average of 20.3 years. Again, is the sexual maturity at the age of 17 years.
What is the chronology of the ancient Russian Grand Dukes in terms of universal physiological laws? Very, very interesting chronology! Consider the “Continuation of the Novgorod chronicle” on the list of the archaeological Commission. In the Appendix to it we find the pedigree of the Moscow Grand Duke Vasily the Dark (1425-62). It is written on the model of the genealogy of Jesus in the gospel of Matthew (“Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob, Jacob begat Joseph…”):
“The first Prince on the Russian land Rurik came from the Germans (in 854).
Rurik gave birth to Igor (1st son).
Igor gave birth to Svyatoslav, who went to the Tsar-grad rathya (1st son).
Svyatoslav gave birth to Volodimir the Great, who baptized the Russian land (3rd son).
Volodimir gave birth to Yaroslav (3rd son).
Yaroslav gave birth to Vsevolod (5th son).
Vsevolod gave birth to Volodimir (1st son).
Volodimir gave birth to Monomakh (1st son).
Monomakh became the father of Yuri (the 7th son).
Yuri gave birth to Vsevolod the Great nest (5th son).
Vsevolod gave birth to Yaroslav.
Yaroslav gave birth to the Great Alexander the brave (Nevsky, 1st son).
Alexander gave birth to Daniel of Moscow (4th son).
Daniel gave birth to Ivan (Kalita), who saved the Russian land from thieves and robbers (3rd son).
Ivan gave birth to Semeon (1st son).
Semeon gave birth to Ivan (5th son).
Ivan gave birth to Dmitry (1st son).
Dmitry gave birth to Vasily (1st son).
Basil became the father of Basil.”
We see that the total period of their power (1462 minus 854) is 608 years, and there were 19 reigns, so there is an average of thirty-two years for each. If the firstborn had always reigned, then sexual maturity would have been reached by these kings only about 29 years, and this is incredibly late. But the successors were not always first-born, and sometimes even fifth sons. Counting two years on average for each new male birth, we must subtract seventy-eight years from the sum of the reigns, because: 2 (3+3+5+7+4+4+3+5) = 78.
The result is 530 years (608 minus 78). Dividing them into 19 reigns, we get an average of about 28 years for each, and subtracting another three years (since birth does not occur immediately after reaching childbearing age), we have sexual maturity at 25 years, which is also too late.
Consider another fragment, which shows a direct dynastic line ” father-son”:
IGOR RURIKOVICH (beginning in 913)
St. VLADIMIR SVYATOSLAVOVICH
SVYATOPOLK IZYASLAVOVICH (end in 1113)
From 913 to 1113, exactly 200 years passed and there were 6 shifts, each with an average of 33 from the third year, exactly three shifts per century. In the middle of the XIX century, “restoring” the dynastic history of the antediluvian Egyptian pharaohs, the Egyptologist Brugsh – for the simplicity of calculations, for the simplicity of the soul-also thought so, three pharaohs per century. Perhaps this is not just a coincidence, and the writers of our history also stood on the principle of “three in a century”?..
For the ordinary life of the middle ages did not need a measure of time in a hundred years. There is no astronomical reason to regard the century as anything remarkable. Century became necessary as a convenient decimal measure of time only when creating a chronology (in the XVI century or shortly before it), and before the century was understood by people as the duration of human life or as the ” time of the genus”, the change of generations; this can be read in Historical and etymological dictionaries or in the dictionary of V. Dahl. In the first case fifty-sixty years, in the second-seventeen-twenty years. Three centuries of generation change took place per century, 17 x 3 = 51, or 20 x 3 = 60. In fact, there are three generations in a person’s lifetime. Few people know their great-grandchildren (fourth generation) even now, although life expectancy is now higher than in the days of Rurik. Researchers folklore Chronicles, in which century at all not was considered for century, have become attach this word a modern sense, here is and lies nonsense.
But even if we bypass this sensitive issue, it still turns out that our ancestors in the period from X to XII century reached sexual maturity only in the thirtieth year of his life. This is so late, compared with the above English, German, French and Russian later dynasties that believe such chronology is impossible, and therefore can not be considered reliable and Chronicles, depicting the activities of representatives of these dynasties.
But we find similar riddles in the XIV – XVI centuries. Leads in embarrassment unusually much length of reign alternating in Moscow Vasily and Ivanov. Indeed, Basil II reigns in 1389, and Ivan IV ends his reign in 1584. It took 195 years and only five generations, each for 39 years, which gives the achievement of sexual maturity only at the age of more than thirty years. But how could it be? After all, there are five first generations in cash. Defects in the length of the reign of the ancestors are necessarily compensated by an excess of the duration of the descendants and Vice versa; we consider the AVERAGE value.
Here is at least a similar alternation of the last four Nikolaev and Alexander in the Romanov dynasty. From 1825, when Nicholas I reigned, and until 1917, when after Alexander I, II and III reigned Nicholas II, 92 years have passed. Dividing them into five, we get 18.5 years for each generation, which gives a normal sexual maturity of 16 -17 years.
And how in the alternation of the Five Moscow Basil and John we get the achievement of sexual maturity only at the age of 30? There’s something wrong here, either chronology or genealogy.
The Sun and the Moon will not lie
In the “Initial chronicle” for the first 200 years not a single Eclipse is mentioned, neither solar nor lunar, and not a single comet, and only at the very end are described in different places three or four astronomical phenomena that can be verified by calculation, for example:
“In the same summer (1102) there was a sign in the moon of the month of February on the 5th day.” In fact, according to accurate calculations, the ” sign” – the Eclipse of the moon, occurred only two of its revolution, that is, not on February 5, and April 5, 1102, about 8 am Kiev time with the setting moon. Could an eyewitness note the non-existent February Eclipse and not notice the present, which was two months later?
One would think that this is a simple mistake in the name of the month, if in the XIV century (to which, most likely, can be attributed the real beginning of the compilation, or rather compiling Russian Chronicles) did not happen in a row three eclipses, and all-February 5:
February 5, 1319 lunar incomplete with a maximum phase of 4”8 about 16 (4 PM) hours 37 minutes from Greenwich midnight and about 6 (18) hours 40 minutes Kiev evening.
February 5, 1338 at 14 (2 PM) hours 50 minutes from Greenwich midnight and about 4 (16) hours 52 minutes Kiev evening, over full (almost sunset, as it should be).
February 5, 1357, not full (10”4) at 14 (2 PM) hours 18 minutes from Greenwich midnight and about 4 (16) hours 20 minutes Kiev evening.
And the sun was setting at this time in Kiev about 5 hours 13 minutes local evening, so that the Eclipse was well visible in all the Slavic lands of Eastern Europe after sunset, during or just before sunset on the newly risen moon.
This triad of eclipses and could give reason to the author to correct on February 5, he read somewhere information about the lunar Eclipse on April 5, 1102, if the chronicle was led by a person who personally observed these three eclipses in the XIV century and therefore formed an idea of February 5, as some special “day of eclipses”. And in any case, the lunar Eclipse of February 5, 1102, is falsely shown by the author. But it is the only one mentioned in all the early Chronicles!
Let us now consider solar eclipses. During the time noted in the Initial chronicle, there were actually ten of them, walking in full or ring-shaped form along the Dnieper Russia and visible in nine cases in the huge phase in Kiev. Here they are:
939, December 19, strong for Kiev, before noon (in the chronicle is not described).
945, September 9, significant for Kiev in the morning (not described).
970, may 8, strong for Kiev in the morning (not described).
986, July 9, full in Kiev before sunset (not described).
990, October 21, almost full in Kiev in the afternoon (not described).
1021, August 11, almost complete in Kiev in the afternoon (not described).
1033, June 29, a meeting in Kiev in the afternoon (not described).
1065, April 8, hardly visible in Kiev, but only in Egypt and in the minor phase in Greece and Sicily (described).
1091, may 21, 2015 in Kiev in the morning (described).
1098, December 25, was in Kiev in the evening, on Christmas day (not described).
Only the least spectacular morning Eclipse of may 21, 1091, and even preceding it, but hardly visible in Kiev on April 8, 1065, are noted by the author. And missed all the others, which were to cause great confusion in the capital, and in all generally Dnieper Russia! It is extremely interesting that the chronicler did not notice even the Eclipse of 1033, the eve of 1037, when Yaroslav as if for the second time “laid the great city “Kiev, as we have told in the Chapter “the Initial Russian chronicle”.
So, in the Initial chronicle there are no events that could not be noted by a contemporary. And now we will show events “noticed”, but such which would not begin to write down their contemporary-at least because they actually did not occur. The solar Eclipse mentioned on may 21, 1091 is described correctly in the Laurentian manuscript. But in the 3rd Novgorod it is attributed suddenly 13 years ago, to the year 6586 (1078), when there was no Eclipse. How could an eyewitness write this?
It is also reflected in the Pskov 1st and resurrection manuscripts, and in the same edition, but attributed in both to 6596 (1088), that is, 3 years before, when there was only an Eclipse on July 20, and even then at the North pole. And in the so-called “Nikon chronicle “the same Eclipse of the sun “happened” already 2 years later, in 1093 instead of 1091.
From the beginning of the chronicle in 852 to 1064, for 212 years, it does not record any of these celestial phenomena, so terrified our ancestors, who did not understand their causes and the temporality of the sun’s corruption. And then the Eclipse of 1091 is given, placed in different copies for different years about the same time, which again shows that it was not recorded by eyewitnesses, but by distant descendants from vague recollections.
But here we pass to the successors of this Initial chronicle, whose records are traced to 1650, and the picture is completely different! Almost half of the solar eclipses seen in Russia in a significant phase are described correctly, and the absence of the rest can be explained by cloudy weather. But after all it is impossible to tell that in the previous two hundred years, from 852 to 1064, Kiev was closed by continuous clouds? And in those years should have been observed approximately the same average number of solar eclipses, as in the years of the successors of “Nestor”.
True, only if this Nestor (or Sylvester) was guided in the compilation of his chronicle by the actual records of his predecessors-monks. After all, they would describe the eclipses of the sun that terrified them most.
And since he had no record of eclipses, there were no others, and therefore everything that “Nestor ” writes is half the imagination of writers who worked much later.
It can be concluded that the solar eclipses of 1065, 1091 and 1106 are included in the Initial chronicle much later on foreign-Byzantine or Bulgarian, Czech, Polish, if not Latin primary sources, and this is confirmed by the records of comets, borrowed clearly from the Greek Chronicles.
Of the eleven solar eclipses, eight satisfy the March beginning of the year on superimposition A, two on superimposition B, one was quite erroneous. It turns out that our chroniclers also recorded astronomical events at the beginning of the March year.
To more accurately determine the time of the text, let us also look at the descriptions of lunar eclipses, not as spectacular as the solar ones and which were not of great interest to enter into the domestic annals from foreign sources.
Of the moon in the chronicle of Nestor (Sylvester) does not mention any of the Eclipse, while the followers of his labors, they at once appear, though not superstitious, and in a businesslike description. Then they began to record less often, probably because the natural cause of lunar eclipses was already figured out, and even learned to predict them.
In the Novgorod chronicle lunar and solar eclipses are mentioned since 1115. Solar eclipses there are ten, of the moon is described only three. That’s all the eclipses in the Main Novgorod chronicle on the Synodal list! Their analysis shows that the years of eclipses are taken by the compilers of the Novgorod chronicle from primary sources, who used the March account of years, but it was transferred to the January account, and not to the September one (that is, after the Decree of Peter I on the transition to the January Account, after the beginning of the XVIII century).
So, the author of the chronicle studied by us “took ” eclipses from the primary sources written on the March beginning of the year.
If the beginning of the year runs in different Chronicles between March and September, it is a clear sign that there is no unified worldview in the country, there is no unity of command in the Church, and religion is not a people’s affair, but a princely one. As the Abbot said, so in his monastery and write, and the Abbot listens to the Prince, and the word of the Prince depends on where he visited this year – in Constantinople or Rome.
The question of when the calendar year began in the country will still arise before us when we begin to deal with the original religion of Russia. If Russia lived according to the March calendar, then the Union with Rome existed from the very beginning; there are many chances that St. Vladimir, who died in 1015, baptized Russia according to the Latin, and not the Greek rite.