58

p The Tale of Bygone Years reflected the formation of the Old Russian state, its political and cultural flowering 59 and likewise the process of feudal division. Composed in the first decades of the twelfth century, it has survived in chronicles compiled in later times. The oldest of these compilations (svods) is the Laurentian Chronicle of 1377; it is also contained in the Hypatian Chronicle dating from the 1420’s and the First Novgorod Chronicle of the 1330’s.

All subsequent chronicles of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries included The Tale of Bygone Years, subjecting the text to editorial and stylistic changes.

Composition and Sources
of The Tale of Bygone Years.
A. A. Shakhmatov’s Hypothesis

p More than one generation of Russian scholars have studied the history of the primary Russian chronicle; the first was V. N. Tatishchev. Only the distinguished Russian philologist A. A. Shakhmatov, however, was able at the turn of the century to develop a scholarly hypothesis regarding the structure, sources and redactions of The Tale of Bygone Years. Shakhmatov’s hypothesis was a shining example of the application of comparative-historical methodology to the study of literature. The results are elucidated in his studies In Search of the Oldest Russian Chronicles(St. Petersburg, 1908) and The Tale of Bygone Years, volume I, (Petrograd, 1916).

p In 1039 a metropolitanate was erected in Kiev. The Most Ancient Kievan Chronicle (svod) which stops at 1037 was written in the chambers of the metropolitan. Shakhmatov believed that this version of the chronicle was based on translations of Greek chronicles and local folklore. In 1036 a Novgorod Chronicle was begun; on the basis of the Kievan Chronicle and this early Novgorod text the so-called Ancient Novgorod Chronicle emerged in 1050. In 1073 Nikon the Great, a monk at the Kiev Crypt Monastery, compiled the First Kiev Crypt Monastery Chronicle using the Most Ancient Kievan Chronicle; he included entries on historical events occurring after the death of Yaroslav the Wise (1054).

60

p The First Kiev Crypt Monastery Chronicle and the Ancient Novgorod Chronicle of 1050 were the basis foi the Second Kiev Crypt Monastery Chronicle of 1095, or, as Shakhmatov first called it, the Primary Chronicle (Nachalny svod). The author of this second Kiev Crypt Monastery Chronicle supplemented his sources with material from the Greek Chronicle, the Paremiynik, oral tales of Jan Vyshatich, and the vita of St. Anthony of the Caves.

p The Second Kiev Crypt Monastery Chronicle was’ the basis for The Tale of Bygone Years; the first redaction was compiled in 1113 by the Kiev Crypt monk Nestor; the second redaction in 1116 by Silvestr, Abbot of the Vydubitsky Monastery. The third redaction was compiled by an unknown author, one of Prince Mstislav Vladimirovich’s confessors.

p Nestor’s first redaction of The Tale of Bygone Years focused on events of the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries, highlighting the role of Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, Great Prince of Kiev, who died in 1113. The heir to the throne of Kiev, Vladimir Monomakh, had the seat of the chronicles transferred to his patrimonial Vydubitsky Monastery. Here Abbot Silvestr edited Nestor’s text, making Vladimir Monomakh into the most prominent figure. Shakhmatov made a fascinating attempt to reconstruct the text of Nestor’s redaction which did not survive (see his The Tale of Bygone Years, vol. 1). The second redaction, in Shakhmatov’s opinion, is best seen in the Laurentian Chronicle, and the third in the Hypatian Chronicle.

Shakhmatov’s ingenious hypothesis for the reconstruction of the emergence and development of the primary Russian chronicle remains to be proved.

D. S. Likhachev’s Hypothesis

p Soviet scholar D. S. Likhachev  [60•1  has made some 61 interesting corrections in Shakhmatov’s hypothesis. Likhachev rejects the theory of the Most Ancient Kievan Chronicle of 1093, and relates the emergence of chronicles to the struggle waged by the Kievan state in the mid-eleventh century against Byzantine political and religious pretensions. Byzantium wished to transform the Church into its political agent; this threatened the independence of the Russian state. The Great Prince actively resisted Byzantine demands and was supported in his struggle for political and religious independence by the bulk of the population. The struggle between Rus and Byzantium grew particularly tense in the mid-eleventh century. Great Prince Yaroslav the Wise of Kiev managed to greatly increase the political authority of his principality and the Russian state. He laid firm foundations for Rus’s political and religious independence. In 1039 Yaroslav was granted the right to establish a metropolitanate in Kiev. Thus Byzantium in effect acknowledged the authority of the Russian Church, but still required that the metropolitan be Greek. Yaroslav also succeeded in having Olga, Vladimir and his brothers Boris and Gleb (killed by Svyatopolk in 1015) canonised. When Byzantium finally recognised Boris and Gleb as Russian saints, the concession marked a triumph of Yaroslav’s Russian national politics. Veneration of these first Russian saints took on the character of a national cult related to the condemnation of internecine strife and the call to preserve the unity of the Russian land.’

p The political struggle between Rus and Byzantium developed into armed conflict; in 1050 Yaroslav sent troops to Constantinople, commanded by his son Vladimir. Although Vladimir was defeated, Yaroslav nevertheless consecrated the Russian priest Ilarion as Metropolitan of Kiev in 1051.

p The struggle for independence embraced all spheres of culture, including literature. Likhachev observes that the chronicles were compiled gradually as a result of growing interest in the history of the motherland and in the effort to retain the memory of great events for posterity.

p According to Likhachev’s hypothesis in the 1030s 62 and 1040’s Yaroslav the Wise ordered that folklore on the spread of Christianity be recorded. The resulting cycle, called by Likhachev the “Tales of the Spread of Christianity in Rus”, formed the skeleton of future chronicles. It included oral tales of Olga’s christening in Constantinople, the death of two Varangian martyrs and Vladimir’s test of various faiths and eventual baptism. These tales were anti-Byzantine in nature. Thus the tale of Olga’s christening in Constantinople stressed the superiority of the Russian princess to the Byzantine emperor. Olga managed to avoid the emperor’s attempts to marry her through a clever trick. She did not, as the tale emphasises, find any great honour in the proposed match. Olga’s encounters with the Byzantine emperor reveal a wit and resourcefulness that are purely Russian. She retains a sense of her own dignity, defending the honour of her native land.

p The legend of Vladimir’s test of various faiths shows that Rus’s adoption of Christianity was the result of a free choice and not a gift from the Greeks.

p As Likhachev sees it the “Tales of the Spread of Christianity in Rus" were recorded by scribes of the Kievan metropolitanate in the Cathedral of St. Sophia. Constantinople did not, however, agree to the consecration of the Russian Ilarion as metropolitan (in 1055 the Greek Ephrem took his place), and the Tales were not developed further.

p In the mid-eleventh century the centre of Russian culture moved to the Kiev Crypt Monastery which was in opposition to the Greek metropolitan. Here in the 1070’s the Russian chronicle was begun by Nikon the Great. He used the “Tales of the Spread of Christianity”, supplementing them with oral historical legends, tales of witnesses (including the testimony of Voyevoda Vyshata), and information about recent and contemporary events.

p Evidently influenced by the Paschal Tables compiled in the monastery Nikon organised his narrative in the form of yearly entries.

p In the First Kiev Crypt Chronicle compiled in 1073 Nikon included tales of the first Russian princes and their many campaigns against Constantinople. He also 63 apparently used the legend of Vladimir Svyatoslavich’s 988 attack on the Greek city of Korsun (Chersones of Tauris). The Korsun legend tells of Vladimir’s demand to be married to Anna, sister of the Greek emperor.

p As a result the version of 1073 was much more antiByzantine in tone than the “Tales of the Spread of Christianity”. Nikon made the chronicle political, historical and patriotic to an unprecedented degree. The chronicle emphasised that the Kiev Crypt Monastery had been erected without any participation of the Kievan metropolitan. The tale of the uprising of the pagan priests in 1071 shows how Rus was able to conduct its own campaign against the recurrencies of paganism and had no need of help from the Greeks. Nikon’s version condemned wars between princes, and emphasised the major role of the people in defending the Russian land from foreign enemies.

p Thus the First Kiev Crypt Chronicle expressed the thoughts and mood of the middle and even lower classes of feudal society. From this time on the Russian chronicles would be marked by polemicism, firm principles, a broad historical approach and patriotism.

p After Nikon’s death the chronicle was continued in the Kiev Crypt Monastery. Yearly entries were recorded describing current events; these were later reworked and compiled by an unknown author in the Second Kiev Crypt Chronicle of 1095.

p The Second Kiev Crypt Chronicle continued to propagandise the unity of the Russian land, as Nikon had before. This version also condemned internecine strife and demanded that princes join in the struggle against the Polovtsy, the nomads of the steppes. The compiler of this version had clear polemical aims: to preach patriotism, chiding the present princes by pointing out the deeds of past princes.

p Like Nikon, the author of the Second Kiev Crypt Chronicle incorporated many tales of witnesses, in particular the tales of Vyshata’s son Jan. He also used Greek chronicles, in particular the Chronicle of Georgios Hamartolos, which allowed him to include Rus’s history in the chain of events from world history.

p When Kievan Rus experienced the fiercest attacks of 64 the steppe nomads, the Polovtsy, society had to fair ilieneed to consolidate its forces for the struggle against the invaders; if the princes could not resolve their differences they would lose the Russian land “built with the blood and sweat of their fathers and forefathers”. In this period, when the consciousness of a need for a unified Russian land became clearest to the people, The Tale of Bygone Years was composed.

p In 1098 Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, Great Prince of Kiev, made peace with the Kiev Crypt Monastery; he began to support the monastery’s anti-Byzantine activities and realising the political significance of the chronicle, tried to control its writing. It was for Svyatopolk that the Monk Nestor composed the first redaction of The Tale of Bygone Years in 1113 on the basis of the Second Kiev Crypt Chronicle. Nestor ascribed to the ideology of the preceding version and continued to attempt to convince Russian princes to leave off fighting each other; in the foreground of his redaction he placed the idea of brotherly love among princes. Under Nestor the chronicle became a state document.

p Although Nestor made Svyatopolk Izyaslavich the central figure of events from 1093 to 1111, the prince was not popular among his subjects. After his death Vladimir Monomakh became Great Prince of Kiev in 1113. Under the aegis of this “great champion of the Russian land" the second redaction of The Tale of Bygone Years was written.

p Vladimir had the keeping of the chronicle entrusted to Silvestr, Abbot of his patrimonial Vydubitsky Monastery, who in 1116 compiled the new, second redaction of the Tale, stressing Monomakh’s great contributions to the defeat of the Polovtsy and the establishment of peace among princes.

In 1118 an unknown author from the same monastery compiled the third redaction of The Talc of Bygone Years, the narrative stopped at 1117. This redaction has been best preserved in the Hypatian Chronicle.

65

B. A. Rybakov’s Hypothesis

p A new, somewhat different theory for the development of the primary chronicles has been proposed by Rybakov.   [65•1  Rybakov’s study of the chronicles has led him to conclude that yearly entries were recorded in Kiev beginning in 867 during the reign of Askold; this was the date that Christian clergy first appeared in Kiev. In the late tenth century, from 996 to 997, the First Kicvan Chronicle was compiled; this version generalised upon diverse sorts of material found in short yearly entries and oral talcs. It was written in the Desyatinnaya Church and among the compilers were Anastas of Chersoncs, Dean of the cathedral, Bishop of Belgorod, and Vladimir’s uncle Dobrynya. This was the first historical summary of the events in Kicvan Rus’s century-and-ahalf existence; it ended with a tribute to Vladimir. At the same time, according to Rybakov’s hypothesis, the Vladimir cycle of bylinas (Russian folk epics—Tr.) was being created where the people were evaluating events and personalities; the chronicles, on the other hand, offered the court view, a sampling of written culture, the military epos and folk tales.

p Rybakov shares Shakhmatov’s view on the existence of a Novgorod chronicle of 1050, and believes that this was compiled with the active participation of the Novgorod mayor Ostromir; this Ostromir Chronicle should, as he sees it, be dated from 1054 to 1060. It was opposed to Yaroslav the Wise and the Varangian mercenary, soldiers and stressed the heroic history of Novgorod, glorifying the deeds of Vladimir Svyatoslavich and Novgorod Prince Vladimir Yaroslavich. This was a purely secular chronicle and expressed the interests of the Novgorod boyars.

p As to the further stages of the Old Russian chronicle Rybakov agrees with Shakhmatov and with contemporary Soviet scholars. He does suggest an interesting reconstruction of the text of Nestor’s Talc of Bygone Years. He also believes that Vladimir Monomakh 66 personally took part in the writing of the second redaction (Silvestr’s) and that the third redaction is connected to Monomakh’s son, Mstislav Vladimirovich, who tried to set Novgorod in opposition to Kiev.

p Thus the question of the first stage of Old Russian chronicle-writing and the contents and sources of The Talc of Bygone Years is a complex problem, one that has yet to be satisfactorily resolved.

There can, however, be no doubt that the Tale is the result of the work of many editors and several generations of chroniclers.

The Basic Theme
of the Primary Chronicle

p In the very title “This tale of bygone years, of the origins of the Russian land, the first to rule in Kiev and how the Russian land came to be" we can find the theme of this chronicle of Rus’s history from its very beginnings to the first decade of the twelfth century. Chroniclers inserted “legends of great antiquity" and accounts of recent events according to their patriotic desire to emphasise the might of the Russian land, its political independence and its religious independence ol Byzantium.

p The entries were extraordinarily topical, polemical and contained harsh condemnation of princely feudal wars and the internecine strife that weakened the power of Rus. The major theme, of course, was that of the Motherland, whose interests dictate the evaluation of princes’ deeds and serve as the measure of their glory and magnificence. His keen sense oi the Russian land and people made the Russian chronicler’s political views encompass a far greater range than those of West European chroniclers.

p Work on the compilation of the chronicles began in the 1030’s and 1040’s; its compilers were not only scholars, but writers of history. Above all they had to find material about the past, select among sources, rework them into literature and systematise them—polozhit po ryadu.

67

p Primary materials were oral historical traditions, legends, epic heroic songs; written sources were Greek and Bulgarian chronicles and hagiographical literature.

p Chroniclers borrowed a Christian, scholastic conception of history from the written sources and thus related the history of the Russian land to the history of the world. The Tale of Bygone Years begins with a Biblical legend about the distribution of -land between Noah’s sons Shem, Ham and Japhct, after the great flood. The Slavs were the heirs of Japhet; for like the Greeks they belonged to the family of European peoples.

p Among other information on the Slavic peoples in the chronicles are entries on their lives in the fifth and sixth centuries, on the migration of East Slavic tribes to the basin of the Dnieper and its tributaries, the Volkhov and Lake Ilmen, the junction of the Volga and Oka rivers, the Southern Bug and the Dniester. It describes the mores and customs of these tribes, distinguishing the Polyanye tribesmen as the most developed. The chorniclers sought explanations for the names of tribes and cities in oral legends, and related events occurring in Rus with events in Greek or Bulgarian history. They acknowledged the great cultural mission of the first Slavic teachers and philosophers, SS Cyril and Methodius, and record the deeds of these eminent brothers who developed the first Slavic alphabet.

p On the basis of the Greek chronicle, they were able to establish the first date of the Russian land’s existence—6306  [67•1  (852). This date allowed them to order the entries according to years. When they could not assign any events to a given year, they simply recorded the date itself (“in the year 6368”, “in the year 6369”, and so on). This chronological structure allowed a greater freedom in shaping material and permitted new tales and narratives to be included, and older entries that did not correspond to the interests of the epoch and the author to be excluded; the chronicle could be supplemented with recent events witnessed by the compiler.

68

The system of making yearly entries gave rise to the conception of history as a constant, successive chain of events; this was consolidated by the geneological, hereditary succession of Russian rulers, beginning with Rurik and ending (in the primary chronicle) with Vladimir Monomakh. At the same time this approach gave the chronicle a fragmentary appearance which, as I. P. Eremin observed, makes each fact seem like a separate unit.   [68•1 

Genres Included in
the Chronicle

Chronological entries allowed the chroniclers to include materials whose nature and genres differed greatly. Within the chronicles one finds: historicallegendary tales reflecting the people’s views on events in the distant past; tales of military.campaigns, steeped in the glory of epic heroic (druzhina) poetry; tales of princely wars and internecine strife, written by eyewitnesses; religious and secular precepts and vitae, reflecting the perspective of the feudal ruling classes; and brief yearly entries about campaigns, the building of churches, the birth of royal children, mysterious occurrences in nature—heavenly signs interpreted from a religious viewpoint. Each genre had its own style of narration. A correspondence between form and content was established creating a norm and convention which D. S. Likhachev labelled “literary etiquette".  [68•2 

The Relation Between
the Chronicle and Folklore

p The genre of historical folk traditions played a primary part in the chronicle. Materials about the remote 69 past were drawn from the treasurehouse of the people’s memory. The Tale of Bygone Years makes use of toponomical legends, tribal lore, ritual poetry, tales about burial grounds, epic tales, druzhina poetry and religious legends created from ancient folklore.

p The chronicler’s efforts to find the origins of the names of Slavic tribes, cities and the word Rus led him to investigate toponomical legends. Thus the Radimichi and Vyatichi Slavic tribesmen were connected to the legendary brothers Radim and Vyatko who were of Lyakh origin. This legend arose in the period when the tribal system was breaking down. In order to establish tribal seniority that might give a basis for their political primacy over other tribesmen, a legend was created showing foreign descent. An analogous legend, dated in the chronicles 6370 (862), is that of the summons of Varangian princes to rule Rus. The figure of three brothers—Rurik, Sineus and Truvor—shows the reliance of the legend upon folklore; three is an epic number. This legend stems from a local Novgorod tradition reflecting the relation between the feudal city-state and the princes. Novgorod often summoned princes to act as military governors. This local legend was included in the chronicle and came to serve as a basis for the princes’ right to rule over the entire Russian land. The single ancestor of the Kievan princes was the half-legendary Rurik; this allowed the chronicler to present the history of the Russian land as the geneology of the House of Rurik. The legend of the summoning of the princes stressed the absolute political independence of Kievan rule from the Byzantine empire, and thereby served as a vital argument in proving the sovereignty of the Kievan state.

p Another typical toponomical legend is the tale of the founding of Kiev by three brothers—Kiy, Shchek and Khoriv—and their sister Lybed. The chronicler himself pointed to the oral source for this material, writing: “Others say that Kiy was a ferryman.” The chronicler indignantly denied this folk version of Kiy’s occupation, stating in no uncertain terms that Kiy was a prince who led successful campaigns against Constantinople, was honoured by the Byzantine emperor and founded the 70 township of Kievets on the Danube.

p Echoes of ritual poetry from tribal times can be found in the chronicle accounts of Slavic tribes, customs, wedding and funeral rites.

p Devices of oral folk epics can be seen in the accounts of the first Russian rulers: Oleg, Igor, Olga and Svyatoslav. Oleg is characterised in folk terms as the courageous, wise warrior. His military aptitude helped him to vanquish the Greeks by placing his ships on wheels and sailing them across dry land. Thwarting the designs and stratagems of his Greek enemies he concludes a peace treaty with Byzantium. To symbolise his victory Oleg nails his shield to the gates of Constantinople so as to shame the defeated enemy and glorify his motherland.

p The fortunate prince and warrior was given the folk epithet veshchy, that is, “sorcerer” (although the chronicle stressed that he was called this by ignorant pagans); still he could not escape his fate. The entry for 912 contains a poetic legend concerning the grave of Oleg which was still extant at the time. The plot of this legend was traditional; its narrative laconic, but highly dramatic. It expressed the power of fate which could not be escaped by any mortal, even a “sorcerer”-prince.

p Igor is depicted on another level. He is also courageous and bold, and wages a successful campaign against the Greeks in 944; he attends to the needs of his druzhina. But he is greedy, and this greed leads him to extort as much tribute as he can from the Drevlyane tribesmen, which in turn leads to his death. Igor’s greed is condemned by the chronicler through the lips of the Drevlyane, who cite a proverb: “Once a wolf gets into the habit of raiding the flock, he’ll carry off every last sheep if he isn’t killed.”

p Igor’s wife Olga was a wise woman who remained faithful to the memory of her husband; not only did she reject the suit of the Drevlyan prince Mai, she also refused the hand of the Greek emperor. She cruelly revenged the murder of her husband; but this revenge was not condemned by the chronicler. The description of Olga’s four reprisals stressed the wisdom, firmness and inexorable will of this Russian woman. Scholars pointed 71 out the folk basis of this account long ago. D. S. Likhachev, for example, notes that it is structured around riddles which the unfortunate Drevlyan emissaries cannot guess. Olga’s riddles are allusions to wedding and funeral rites: both honoured guests and corpses were carried in boats; Olga’s proposition that the envoys take a bath was both a sign of ultimate hospitality and a symbol of a funeral rite. Olga’s funeral feast was both for her husband and for the murdered envoys of the Drevlyan prince. The unsuspecting Drevlyane interpreted her words in their literal sense, and did not divine the hidden meaning of this wise woman’s riddles; for this they were doomed. The entire account is based on vivid, laconic dialogue between the princess and the Drevlyan envoys.

p The heroic poetry of the druzhina epos helped to create the image of Svyatoslav the warrior: severe, simple, strong, courageous and straightforward. The qualities of his enemies, the Greeks,—cunning, cajolery and stealthiness (which, the chronicler notes, still characterise them “to this day”)—are foreign to Svyatoslav. His small druzhina defeats the superior enemy forces. With a brief, courageous speech, he inspires his men to fight on: “Do not shame the Russian lands, but lay down your bones for your country; for the dead know no shame.”

p Svyatoslav despised wealth and valued only arms and his men with whose help he could obtain any treasure. His image is characterised in laconic, but expressive terms by the chronicler:

p “He was light on his feet like a leopard and fought many wars. On campaigns he took no carts, or pots, and cooked no meat; but would cut the meat of horse, beast or cow into thin strips and roast it over the coals, and thus sustained himself. Nor did he have tents, but spread a groundcloth and used his saddle as a pillow. Thus did all the rest of his men.”

p Svyatoslav was guided by the interests of his men and even rejected the admonitions of his mother Olga, refusing to become a Christian for fear that his men would mock him. His constant involvement in wars of conquest, his neglect of Kievan interests and attempts to 72 transfer the site of the Russian capital to the Danube were condemned by the chronicler who placed his reproaches in the lips of the Kievan people.

p The straightforward prince and warrior fell in a battle against superior Pecheneg forces at the Dnieper Rapids. Kurya, a Pecheneg prince, killed him and then “took his head and made a goblet of it, binding it, and drank from it”. Although the chronicler draws no moral, he lets us know that Svyatoslav’s death is the result of disobeying his mother Olga’s wish that he become a Christian.

p Also based on folk tales is the Korsun legend, the account of Vladimir’s marriage to the Polotsk Princess Rogneda, as well as his frequent, lavish feasts in Kiev. Two styles of narrative are apparent in the chronicle: epic folk narrative and monumental, medieval historiography.  [72•1  We see, on the one hand, a pagan prince with uncontrollable passions, and, on the other, an ideal Christian ruler, endowed with all virtues; humility, meekness and love are apparent in his dealings with the indigent, and the clergy. Comparison of the pagan prince with the Christian ruler was intended by the chronicler to show the superiority of the new Christian morality over the ethics of paganism. Already in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries, Vladimir’s reign was wreathed in laurels by folklore. The chronicler could not ignore this.

p Also steeped in epic heroic tradition was the tale of young Kozhemyaka’s victorious battle against the Pecheneg giant. As in folk epics, this tale stressed the superiority of the peaceful labourer, the simple craftsman, over the professional soldier, the Pecheneg bogatyr. The images were structured in terms of contrasts and generalisation. At first the Russian youth seemed to be undistinguished; but he incorporated the great, gigantic power of the Russian people who adorned the earth with their labours and defended their land on the battlefield from foreign intruders. The Pecheneg warrior was so large that spectators were terrified. This boastful, arrogant enemy was contrasted to 73 the modest Russian lad, the youngest son of a tanner. The tale coincides with the toponymic legend of the origins of the city of Pereyaslavl: “since that youth found glory (pereya slavu)." But this is clearly an anachronism since Pereyaslavl is mentioned more than once before the recording of this event.

p The legend of the Belgorod kissel (a sort of oatmeal porridge—Tr.) was also tied to folk sources. This tale glorified the wit, resourcefulness and acuity of medieval Russian man.

p Both the tales of Kozhemyaka and the Belgorod kissel are narratives built on the contrast between the inner strength of the labourer and the boastfulness of an enemy who is frightening only in appearance, between the wisdom of an elder and the credibility of the Pechenegs. Both tales culminate in a duel, the first—-physical, the second—a duel of wits. The plot of the Kozhemyaka tale is close to the heroic plots of bylinas, that of the Belgorod kissel to folk tales.

p There was a clear folklore basis for the religious legend about the apostle Andrew’s visit to Rus as well. This legend was placed at the beginning of the chronicle to “historically” substantiate the religious independence of Rus from Byzantium. It claimed that Rus was christened, not by the Greeks, but by one of Christ’s disciples, the apostle Andrew, who once travelled along the path “from Varangia to Greece”, along the Dnieper and the Volkhov. He was the precursor of Russian Christianity. The lege’nd of how Andrew blessed the hills of Kiev corresponded to a folk legend of Andrew’s visit to Novgorod. This tale was related to the North Slavic custom of taking steam baths in hot wooden bath houses.

Thus most chronicle tales about events of the ninth and late tenth centuries were related to oral folk art and epic folk genres.

Historical Tales in the Chronicle

p As the chronicler moved from events in the remote past to more recent times, his material became more 74 precise, factual and official.

p The chronicler was concerned only with historical personalities at the top of the feudal hierarchy. His depictions of these people followed the principles of medieval historiography. Only official events with historical significance for the state were to be included in the chronicle: military campaigns, treaties, internecine strife, the erection of churches and state buildings, concern with enlightenment, and the like. Events from private life and daily existence were not of interest to the chronicler.

p The chronicle worked out a clear image of an ideal ruler, the good champion of the Russian land. He was the incarnation of love for one’s native land, its honour and glory, the personification of its might and dignity. All his deeds and actions were determined by the good of people and country. Therefore the prince, as depicted in the chronicles, could not be his own man. He was primarily a historical figure and always appeared in official circumstances, adorned with all the trappings of princely power. Likhachev compared the image of the ideal prince in the chronicle with the frescoes and mosaics of the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries. He noted that the prince was always official in the chronicle and was presented to the spectator in his most significant functions. His virtues were his dress uniform; they were mechanically affixed to each other. This allowed religious and secular ideals to be mixed: fearlessness, courage and military valour were combined with humility, meekness and other Christian virtues.

p When a prince acts for the good of his country, he was glorified by the chronicler and endowed with all the ideal qualities. If he went against the interests of the state, the chronicler spared no colours to paint him as the personification of all mortal sins: pride, envy, ambition, selfishness, and so on. The negative character was determined according to the role he played in the feudal struggle.

p The principles of medieval historiography were vividly embodied in historical tales included in The Tale of Bygone Years: the tale of Svyatopolk’s murder of his brothers Boris and Gleb (1015) and Yaroslav’s revenge, 75 the uprising in Kiev of 1068, and The Tale of the Blinding of Vasilko of Terebovl (1097). This tale was recorded by the priest Vasily who witnessed the villainous blinding of Vasilko by his first cousins Svyatopolk and Davyd.

p The tale begins with the announcement of a congress of princes at Lyubech in 1097 to conclude peace. Each prince vows to keep to his own land and swears by the cross that he will allow no internecine strife to develop. The people approved this. Unfortunately the unity proved to be temporary and weak. The terrifying example of Vasilko’s blinding by his first cousins showed the consequences of princes breaking their word.

p The motivation was traditional and based on Divine Providence. The devil, miserable at the brotherly love displayed by the princes, crept into the heart of certain men and they began to tell Davyd false stories of how Vladimir Monomakh allegedly conspired with Vasilko to overthrow Svyatopolk of Kiev and Davyd. This religious motivation then becomes a purely psychological one. Davyd believed these men and inspired Svyatopolk with doubt. The latter was confused and hesitated; he was reluctant to believe these claims, but finally agreed with Davyd that Vasilko had to be taken.

p The plot is an epic one; Vasilko accepts his cousin’s invitation only after it was stated three times.

p Vasilko is warned by one of his men that his cousins are plotting against him, but cannot believe this: “How can they be plotting to take me? They just swore an oath by the cross! "

p The tale of Vasilko’s meeting with Svyatopolk and Davyd is imbued with high psychological drama. As he leads his guest into the chamber Svyatopolk tries to strike up a conversation; he asks him to stay until Yuletide. But Davyd sits as though deaf, a detail which vividly shows his psychological state. Svyatopolk cannot bear the tension and leaves under the pretext of seeing to the guest’s breakfast. Left alone with Davyd Vasilko tries to engage him in talk, “but Davyd neither spoke nor listened”. At this point Vasilko begins to suspect what is going on. He realises the deception and is 76 overcome with horror. After sitting a bit, Davyd leaves. Vasilko is fettered, locked into the room and left with a guard overnight.

p The author shows Svyatopolk’s hesitations by explaining that he cannot bring himself to make the final decision about Vasilko’s fate. He calls together the boyars and men of Kiev and tells them of Davyd’s charges against Vasilko. But the boyars and Kievans refuse to take moral responsibility: “Prince, you must watch out for yourself. If Davyd speaks the truth, Vasilko should be punished; if Davyd speaks falsely, then God will take vengeance and he must answer before God.” Obliged to make the decision himself Svyatopolk hesitates. The abbots beg him to release Vasilko, but Davyd insists that he be blinded. Svyatopolk is almost ready to set Vasilko free. Then Davyd’s words tip the balance: “If you do not blind Vasilko, then neither I nor you shall rule.” The decision is made and Vasilko is hauled by cart from Kiev to Belgorod and taken into a hut. The plot is brought to a masterful climax when Vasilko sees the torchin sharpening the knife and guesses that they want to blind him. And he “lifted up his voice to God with sighs and lamentation.”

p The climax has a dynamic resolution. Verbs play a predominant role in the narrative, making a “speech gesture”, in Alexei Tolstoy’s words. Svyatopolk’s groom Snovid Izechevich and Davyd’s groom Dmitr enter:

p “And they commenced to spread a rug,
And upon spreading it, grabbed at Vasilko
And tried to pin him down;
And he fought them stoutly,
And they could not pin him down.
And others came in, got him down
And bound him,
And taking a board from the stove,
Placed it on his chest.
And Snovid Izechevich and Dmitr sat on either side,
And two others came up,
And took another board from the stove,
And sat down,
And pressed against his shoulders so that
his chest cracked.”

77

p The Russian text keeps to a strict rhythm created by anaphoric repetition of the conjunction “and”, which conveys the temporal succession of the actions; the rhymed verb endings also contribute to the rhythm.

p The tale is slowly describing an event without any emotional evaluation. But the reader witnesses a concrete, dramatic scene:

p “And the torchin approached with a knife in his hand and tried to hit him in the eye, but missed and struck his face instead, and the wound can be seen on Vasilko even now; and then he hit the eye and plucked it out, and then he hit the other eye and plucked it out; and all this time Vasilko lay still as a corpse.”

p Vasilko, unconscious and barely breathing, is loaded onto the cart and taken to the market place, past the Bridge of the Exaltation, to the marketplace where they remove his bloody shirt and give it to a priest’s wife to wash. Now the tale that displayed no emotion gives way to a lyrical episode. The woman has profound sympathy for the unfortunate; she laments him as though he were dead. When he hears the heartfelt weeping of the woman, Vasilko comes to: “And feeling for his shirt he said, ’Why did they remove it? Better that I die in that bloodstained shirt and stand before God.’"

p Davyd did as he has intended. He brings Vasilko to Vladimir “like a trapped animal”. The very simile reflects the condemnation of this crime committed by brother against brother.

p Unlike hagiographical narrators, Vasily does not moralise or quote the Bible. His narrative of Vasilko’s fate ends with a tale of how the crime reflected on the fate of the Russian land. Vladimir Monomakh takes the foreground at this point. For Vladimir embodies the ideal prince, “the good champion of the Russian land”. Vasily conveys his feelings through hyperbole: “ Vladimir was horrified and wept, saying, ’Such evil has never been seen in the Russian land, neither in the time of our forefathers, nor in the time of our fathers.” Vladimir tries to peacefully undo the consequences of the deed in order to prevent the ruin of Rus. The men of Kiev beg him to come to peaceful terms and take care of their land, and Vladimir weeps and says, “In truth our 78 fathers and forefathers watched over the land and we want to destroy it.” At this point, however, Monomakh begins to take on hagiographical features. His obedience to his father and stepmother are emphasised, as well as his respect for the metropolitan, and the orders of episcopate and clergy.

p The artistic leitmotif of the tale consists of two opposing symbolic images: the cross and the knife.

p The cross and “kissing the cross" symbolise fraternal love and unity among princes, strengthened by a vow. The knife is not only the weapon in a given crime—the blinding of Vasilko—but the symbol of princely strife and internecine wars.

p Thus The Tale of the Blinding of Vasilko of Terebovl strongly condemns those princes who break their own agreements; such treachery leads to terrible, bloody crimes that wreak evil on the entire land of Rus.

p As he includes accounts of military campaigns the chronicler either limits himself to a simple statement of the facts (“in the year ... a certain prince attacked the Bulgarians, or the Yatvyags”, etc.) or describes individual battles using certain characteristic stylistic formulas. These laconic, but pithy cliches were consistently used and they reflect the military tactics and technology of the times.  [78•1 

p The battle usually took place in the morning, at dawn, and began with the forces moving toward each other: “As the sun rose both armies moved forward.” Then the battle itself was described: “And there was a fierce and terrible battle" or “a fierce and mortal struggle”. Then the chronicler described the ring of weapon against weapon, the crack of breaking spears and the noise of the battle that made it impossible for people to hear anything: “And the cracking of spears and clashing of swords rendered it impossible for people to hear each other.” Hand-to-hand combat was decisive and was described in the following way: “...and grabbing each other they locked arms and began to fight". 79 Hyperbolic quantities of blood flowed like rivers “as though through the vallies”; mountains of corpses lined the battlefield. The battle ended with victory; “and the enemy was deterred”. Those who fled were pursued: “some were taken captive" and “others were slain”. The picture of the battle looked like this:

_p “For on Friday at sunrise both sides advanced; and there was fierce fighting as had not been seen in Rus, and they grasped at each other and fought hand-tohand, and met thrice; blood flowed in torrents down the valley.”

p (1019, Yaroslav’s battle with Svyatopolk)

Such description of battles occur frequently in The Tale of Bygone Years and show the emerging genre of the military tale in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries; such tales describe campaigns and battles.

Elements of
Hagiographical Style

p The compilers of The Tale of Bygone Years also included hagiographical works: Christian legends, lives of martyrs (the tale of the two Varangian martyrs), the tale of the founding of the Kiev Crypt Monastery in 1051, the tale of the death of its Abbot, Feodosy of the Caves in 1074 and many other narratives of Crypt monks. The chroniclers also used stylistic devices of hagiography in describing the ethics of the princes.

p In the chronicles the spiritual feats of the founders of the Kiev Crypt Monastery were glorified. The monastery was erected without the help of the princes, the boyars, or the wealthy through “tears, fasting and vigils" of SS Antony and Feodosy of the Caves. After the tale of Feodosy’s death under the year 1074 the chronicler told of the Crypt monks who “like heavenly bodies shone throughout the land of Rus”. While glorifying the Christian virtues of the Crypt monks, the prophet Yeremei, the sagaceous Matvei and the monk Isaky, the chronicle also noted the darker aspects of monastic life. The attempts of several monks to leave 80 the Crypt monastery and return to the world are recorded in the tale of Yeremei.

p Praise of the monks’ sanctity is combined with just condemnation of certain aspects of monastic life; these go beyond the framework of hagiographical style.   [80•1 

p The chroniclers also applied elements of hagiographical style to describe princes. This was particularly evident in princely obituaries. The death of a prince was usually followed by the lament of the nation and a short eulogy praising the departed’s moral and religious virtues. One example was the eulogy of Princess Olga.

p The virtues of the dead prince were praised by an unusual combination of secular and religious ideals. Often religious traits predominated. The “deification” of secular rulers was naturally encouraged and supported in the ruling circles of feudal society.

From Christian literature the chronicler took sententiae and similes, bolstering his judgements with quotations from Holy Scripture. Often he would compare events and personalities in history with those of the Bible. Such comparisons and reminiscences had various functions. They stressed the importance and greatness of the Russian land and her rulers, and at the same time allowed the chroniclers to transfer the narrative from the temporal, historical plane into the realm of the eternal (which is to say that they served as a means of symbolic generalisation). In addition such comparisons were a means of giving a moral evaluation of historical events and the deeds of historical figures.

Features of
the Chronicle’s
Style

p The Tale of Bygone Years combines various sorts of material written by different authors. In accordance with the demands of “etiquette” facts were set forth in 81 a strictly regulated fashion. Various genres and styles were united by a common patriotic theme, by the chronological principle of narration, and by one historicalphilosophical conception, which is religious in nature and derived from Christian teachings about Divine providence. It is based on the conviction that history has a beginning and an end in time; its movement is directed by God toward this end, the Last Judgement. The fate of men and nations, however, does not depend totally on the Divine Will, but on men themselves. Each person is free to choose between good and evil. He can choose the difficult path of service to good, that is God, a path demanding rigorous obedience to Divine commandments, that is, the norms of Christian morality; and restraint of sinful passions. Or man can choose the easier path and indulge his passions and evil intentions by choosing the road to evil, that is serving the devil.

p God is the source of goodness and beauty; He allows for the existence of evil (the devil) in order to test man’s constancy and the strength of his faith. When men show themselves to be unworthy and, yielding to demonic temptations, take the path of iniquity, God hastens to send them warning signs, and then, as a guiding “rod”, uses disease, famine, drought, swarms of locusts, foreign legions and cruel rulers. The all-merciful God afflicts men with such trials in order to make them mend their ways; out of His great love for man He wishes to guide him along the righteous path.

p The chronicler was deeply convinced of the final triumph of good and justice. The evil deeds and iniquities of men and nations would be punished by God; good deeds were always rewarded. The chroniclers saw goodness and beauty as equivalent.

p Not only did the chroniclers record worthy events, many of them passed sentence (at times this human verdict was presented as a Divine judgement, but this was part of the philosophy of the chroniclers) in their efforts to influence the morality of their contemporaries. They believed that history taught vital moral lessons for the present and future; by the example of the princes of old, they wished to correct the mistakes of the contemporary princes.

82

p This all lent the chronicles an air of polemicism. True, it was a religious, didactic sort of polemic; but their arguments are never a goal in themselves. The chroniclers sought support in concrete, accurately recorded facts. Therefore their basic efforts were directed at conveying facts with as much precision and expression as possible. They concentrated on the “speech gesture”, which, as was evident in our analysis of the Tale of the Blinding of Vasilko of Terebovl, was the basic artistic means for acting on the reader’s or listener’s emotions.

p In the chronicles the past was portrayed as a chain of events—the deeds of princes and short yearly entries recording facts.

p At the same time the chronicler tried to stress the family ties between princes who were the primary heroes of historical events. As D. S. Likhachev observed, the chronological succession of events from the creation of the world and the ancestral theory of the chroniclers were the first attempts to comprehend history as a process.

p Princes were depicted in terms of conventions and schemes. They were flat like the figures in Old Russian frescoes and icons. Their images were built on a contrast between Christian virtues (adorning the positive heroes) and vices fixed by constant subjective epithets which at times were transformed into proper names (Svyatopolk the Cursed, for example).

p The chronicles praised military prowess and Christian virtues in a prince. The prince’s glory was seen by the chroniclers as the glory of the entire Russian land.

p Folklore sources for the reconstruction of the most ancient history of Rus gave the chronicle accounts a heroic character, an epic range, and a profound patriotic spirit.

p In their reliance on concrete facts and literary traditions the chroniclers worked out the genre of historical narration and created the necessary prerequisites for the genre of the military tale.

p The language of The Tale of Bygone Years reflects the conversational speech of its times. Almost every speech was delivered before being recorded by the chronicler. Direct speeches made by historical personalities 83 comprise a great percentage of the chronicle accounts. The prince addressed his druzhina; envoys memorised speeches in order to conduct diplomatic exchanges; speeches were made at the veche meetings, and during feasts. These speeches evidence a mastery of the art of oratory: they are brief, laconic and usually expressive. For example, Vasilko of Terebovl says: “Either I shall find glory for myself or I shall lay down my head for the Russian land! " The chronicle never used imaginary speeches, but insisted on a precise, factual rendering of the words of historical figures.

The chronicles abound with special terms connected to war, hunting, legal documents and religious life. Certain expressive phrases are repeated such as: “to take a city by the spear" (seize a city), “to mount one’s steed" (start on a campaign), to “wipe away the sweat" (return victorious), “to eat the bread of one’s grandfathers" (to sit on the throne of one’s ancestors), to “kiss the cross" (swear an oath) or to “drive in the knife” (start warfare or strife). Often the chronicler used folk sayings or proverbs. The language of The Tale of Bygone Years gives evidence of an extraordinarily high level of oral and written speech in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.

The Significance of The Tale
of Bygone Years

p The Tale of Bygone Years laid the foundations for features characteristic of Russian chronicles as a whole: patriotic pathos, polemical treatment of historical material, vivid imagery, laconicism and expressive narration. It was important in the development of regional chronicles and in the creation of all-Russian chronicles during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Invariably it was included in these chronicles and served as an introduction to the history of Novgorod, Tver, Pskov, and later Moscow and the Muscovite state.

p In the literature of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries The Tale of Bygone Years often served as a source of plots and images. When Sumarokov wrote his 84 classical tragedies he turned to Russian national history and the chronicles rather than to classical subjects (see his tragedies Sinav and Truvor, Khorev). Knyazhnin wrote his tragedy Vadim of Novgorod, a condemnation of tyranny, on the basis of The Tale of Bygone Years.

p The images of Vladimir, Svyatoslav and Oleg were prominent in the romantic ballads of Ryleyev, steeped in love for freedom.

p Pushkin was captivated by the language and simplicity of the Russian chronicle which inspired his “Song of Oleg the Wise" and the image of Pimen in the tragedy Boris Godunov.

In our times the chronicle still has a great historical and educational significance. It continues to preach noble patriotic ideals and to teach people to have a profound reverence for the glorious historical past of the Russian nation.

Sources

p 1. M. Kh. Aleshkovsky, Povest vremennykh let [The Tale of Bygone Years], M., 1971.

p 2. I. P. Eremin, “‘Povest vremennykh let’ kak pamyatnik literatury ”, in Literatura Drevnei Rusi [“The Tale of Bygone Years as Literature", in The Literature of Old Rus], M.-L., 1966.

p 3. D. S. Likhachev, Russkie letopisi i ikh kulturno-istoricheskoe znachenie [Russian Chronicles: Their Cultural and Historical Role], M.-L., 1947.

p 4. D. S. Likhachev, Chelovek v literature Drevnei Rusi [Man in Old Russian Literature], M., 1970.

p 5. Povest vremennykh let, part I-II, prepared by D. S. Likhachev and B. A. Romanov, ed. by V. P. Adrianova-Peretz, M.-L., 1950.

p 6. M. D. Priselkov, Istoriya russkogo letopisaniya XI-XV vv. [The History of Russian Chronicles from the Eleventh to the Fifteenth Centuries], L., 1940.

p 7. B. A. Rybakov, Drevniaya Rus. Skazaniya, Byliny, Letopisi [Old Rus: Tales, Epics, Chronicles],M.-L., 1963.

p 8. M. N. Tikhomirov, “Nachalo russkoi istoriografii”, Voprosy istorii [“The Beginning of Russian Historiography”, iaProblemy Istorii], No. 5, 1960.

p 9. L. V. Cherepnin, “Povest vremennykh let, ee redaktsii i predshestvuyushchie ei letopisnye svody”, Istoricheskie zapiski [“‘The Tale of Bygone Years’: Redactions and Previous Chronicles”, in Historical Transactios], No. 25, 1948.

p 10. A. A. Shakhmatov, Povest vremennykh let [The Tale of Bygone Years], vol. I, Petrograd, 1916.

p 11. Istoki russkoi belletristiki. Vozniknovenie zhanrov 85 syuzhetnogo povestvovaniya v drevnerusskoi literature [Sources of Russian Fiction: The Emergence of Plot in Old Russian Literature], L., 1970.

12. O. V. Tvorogov, Drevnerusskie khronografy [Old Russian Chroniclers], L., 1975.