The history of the creation of the works of the Borisoglebsk cycle. Hagiographic cycle of works about Boris and Gleb

The origin of Svyatopolk the Accursed has been a subject of discussion among historians since the middle of the century before last, although the Tale of Bygone Years seems to call Svyatopolk's father Yaropolk, and not Vladimir, who took Yaropolkov's wife on his bed after the murder of her husband, and the Legend of the murder of Boris and Gleb reports Yaropolk's paternity is already obvious. And only in one ancient Russian monument - Reading about Boris and Gleb of Nestor, which also contains detailed information about the "second Cain", nothing is said about Yaropolk's paternity and Vladimir is named the parent of the murderer of Boris and Gleb. Nevertheless, even S. M. Solovyov considered Svyatopolk to be Vladimir's own son. Textual arguments in favor of the version of the unreliability of the news of the Tale of Bygone Years about Yaropolk and his wife, a Greek monk, not as about the parents of Svyatopolk, were brought about a hundred years later by N. N. Ilyin. He noticed that these news, contained in articles under 6485 and 6488, are interpolations that violate the coherence of the chronicle text. Recently, L. Müller recognized these reports as inserts. L. Muller believed that the ancient Russian chronicler - the author of the insert about Svyatopolk and his father and mother - confused the Russian prince with his Polish namesake, prince Sventepulk, whose mother was, indeed, a nun, the daughter of Margrave Tiedrich. (Sventepulk and Svyatopolk were in the property, since Sventepulk's half-brother Boleslav was the father-in-law of the Russian prince.) Accordingly, Svyatopolk, as born of a nun who broke her vow, appeared to be the offspring of sin - the origins of the fratricide committed by Svyatopolk were allegedly discovered even in the circumstances associated with his conception and emergence. However, this bold assumption is unprovable. The historian S. M. Mikheev convincingly showed that the news of the Tale of Bygone Years under 6488 about the pregnancy of Svyatopolk's mother should be understood more as an indication of the paternity of Vladimir, and not Yaropolk; in the Old Russian original it is written: “Volodimer is the wife of his brother Grekinya. and it is not idle”, this statement means literally: “Vladimir began to sleep with his brother’s wife, a Greek woman, and she became pregnant”6. The author of the Tale of the Murder of Boris and Gleb understood this chronicle phrase as an indication of the paternity of Yaropolk, and not Vladimir, and therefore wrote that Vladimir took Yaropolkov's wife already pregnant with Svyatopolk. It was beneficial for the author of the Tale to whitewash Vladimir, not recognizing him as the father of the accursed Svyatopolk. The idea that the origin of Svyatopolk from Yaropolk (“from two fathers” and from a mother who violated a monastic vow) was “nothing more than a hagiographic motif”, designed to discredit the “second Cain” and break the “discrediting” family connection between him and the baptist of Rus', was expressed by the Polish historian A. Poppe. But in contrast to S. M. Mikheev, A. Poppe considers the hagiographic text of the news of the birth of Svyatopolk from Yaropolk to be primary in relation to the chronicle. Both L. Muller, and S. M. Mikheev, and A. Poppe, also settled in the birth of Svyatopolk a Greek woman - a former nun, suggesting that in reality she was a "Chechina" - one of the wives of Vladimir, named in the chronicle article under 6488 (in the version of this article known to us, the birth of only one son from Vladimir, Vysheslav, is attributed to the “Czekhina”). I will dwell first on the textual arguments of the supporters of the version of Vladimir's paternity. The news about Yaropolk's wife really breaks the whole text of the annalistic article about the feud between the Svyatoslavichs: “And Olga was buried in the place of the city of Vruchoga. and this is the grave of the ϵth and until this day, oh Vruchiy. and taking power ϵgo Yaropolk. oh Yaropolka is the wife of Grekini bѣ. and more was blueberries. bѣbo brought ѡ͠ts ϵgo S͠toslav. and I give for Yaropolk beauty for the sake of her face. Hearing Volodymyr in Novgorod. like Yaropolk oubi Olga. afraid of running across the sea. and Yaropolk put his own posadniks in Novgorod. and bѣ Volodya ϵdin in Rus'. The message about the Greek woman in this fragment is clearly inappropriate.

The tragic fact of Russian history - the murder of the brothers Boris and Gleb by Svyatopolk the Accursed - had a wide resonance in ancient Russian society and led to the creation of a number of literary monuments on this topic. Despite the journalistic orientation of the works about the martyr princes, which were created, as the researchers proved, in the interests of Yaroslav the Wise, these works retained valuable historical evidence: their authors mention the circumstances, time and place of the death of Boris and Gleb, give the names of princely servants and hired hands. killers.

In the "Tale of Bygone Years" under 1015, it was reported that after the death of Prince Vladimir, one of his sons, the Pinsk (or Turov) prince Svyatopolk, seized the Kiev table and brutally cracked down on other possible contenders for the grand duke's power. His victims were Prince Boris of Rostov and Prince Gleb of Murom, as well as his other brother, Svyatoslav. When Prince Vladimir died, Boris, who "we love our father more than all" sons, was not in Kyiv. He was returning from a campaign against the Pechenegs, and the news of his father's death found him on the Alta River. "Otnya" squad was ready to force the young prince to get the Kiev table, but Boris refused to go to war against his older brother. Abandoned by the retinue (only a small detachment of faithful "youths" remained with him), Boris was killed on the orders of Svyatopolk. The "Russian Cain" sent a messenger to Gleb with a request to arrive in Kyiv as soon as possible, where his seriously ill father was allegedly waiting for him. On the way, Gleb learns the terrible truth: his father died, his brother was killed, and he himself is waiting for a quick death. And indeed, near Smolensk, hired killers attack the prince's ship, on whose orders the cook, "take out the knife, Gleba's stab, like fire is immaculate." Yaroslav rises to fight the fratricide, in a battle with whom Svyatopolk is defeated. With the help of the Polish king Boleslav, he briefly succeeds in regaining Kyiv. In 1019, Svyatopolk, who came to Rus' with the Pechenegs "in the power of gravity", was finally defeated, fled abroad and soon died.

It is possible that already under Yaroslav the Wise, local veneration of Boris and Gleb arose in Vyshgorod, where the brothers were buried. The transfer of the relics of the martyr princes to the new temple by the sons of Yaroslav in 1072 is connected by scholars with the all-Russian canonization of the saints.

Researcher's opinion

In the scientific literature there is a point of view that at first the saints were venerated in the princely environment and, possibly, separately. According to the hypothesis of V. Bilenkin (USA), there was even a separate life of Gleb, and the cult itself was Glebo-Borisovsky, because the first miracles are associated with the name of the youngest of the brothers. If at first the saints were revered as "sources of healing, not scarce", then later, by the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th centuries, the cult of brother healers was transformed into the cult of warriors-defenders of the Russian land and became Boriso-Gleb, highlighting the elder brother, who was especially revered in the family of Vladimir Monomakh. The repeated transfer of the relics of the saints in 1115 reinforces precisely this form of worship. Boris and Gleb from now on become the most authoritative national saints. Russian princes invariably turn to them, as heavenly patrons, for help in battles. It was they who helped to defeat the knights of the army of Alexander Nevsky, warning of the approach of the enemy.

A whole cycle of works of ancient Russian literature is dedicated to Boris and Gleb. In addition to chronicle stories, it includes "Reading about the life and destruction" of Boris and Gleb written by Nestor, anonymous "Legend and passion and praise" to the saints, to which in the Assumption collection of the XII-XIII centuries. adjoins the "Tale of Miracles", which arose on the basis of records compiled at various times in the Vyshegorodsk church. Saints Boris and Gleb are also dedicated to short stories in the Prologue and "readings" included in the liturgical books - Paremia and Service Menaion.

Scientific discussion

The question of the relationship and chronology of the individual works that make up the Boriso-Gleb cycle is very complicated. Currently, there are several versions in science about the order of its formation. According to the concept, which was followed, in particular, by S. A. Bugoslavsky and I. P. Eremin, the "Tale" arose in the last years of the reign of Yaroslav the Wise, i.e. in the middle of the 11th century; later, the "Tale of Miracles" was added to it, compiled by various authors during 1089-1115, and already on this basis, around 1108, Nestor wrote a "Reading" about Boris and Gleb. A different point of view was defended in their works by A. A. Shakhmatov, D. I. Abramovich, N. N. Voronin, who believed that the "Reading" is primary in relation to the "Tale"; it arose in the 1080s. and, together with the chronicle story, served as a source for the author of the Tale, which initially included stories about the miracles of the saints and was created after 1115.

"Tale" and "Reading" about Boris and Gleb in their type are lives of martyrs however, the conflict in them is not so much religious as political. Boris and Gleb do not die at the hands of pagans or Gentiles; they are killed on the orders of a Christian brother obsessed with a criminal plan: "I will beat all my brothers and accept the power of the Russian one." The younger sons of Prince Vladimir preferred death to the fight against Svyatopolk. Thus, the works about Boris and Gleb asserted an important political the idea of ​​tribal seniority in the system of princely inheritance, thereby advocating the strengthening of the state legal order. This thought also permeates the testament of Yaroslav the Wise to his sons, placed in the "Tale of Bygone Years" under 1054: "Behold, I entrust a place in myself to my eldest son, your brother Izyaslav - Kiev, listen to this, as if you will listen to me." The theme of vassal fidelity was revealed in the lives of Boris and Gleb, both on the example of the tragic fate of the brothers, and through the description of the feat of the servant of Boris, who covered the prince with his body, exclaiming: and I will be like to end my life with you!

Experts consider the most perfect literary monument of the Borisoglebsk cycle "Story and Suffering and Praise to the Martyrs Saints Boris and Gleb", the author of which, unlike the chronicler, focused on the spiritual side of this historical drama. The task of the hagiographer is to depict the sufferings of the saints and show the greatness of their spirit in the face of imminent death. If in the chronicle story Boris does not immediately find out about Svyatopolk's plan, then in the Tale, having received news of his father's death, he foresees that Svyatopolk "thinks about his beating." Boris is put by the hagiographer in a situation of moral choice: to go “fight Kiev” together with his retinue and kill Svyatopolk, as his father, Prince Vladimir, once did in the struggle for power, having dealt with his brother Yaropolk, or to initiate a new tradition in inter-princely relations by his own death – traditions of Christian humility and unconditional obedience to the elder in the family. The hero concentrated all his spiritual strength on worthily accepting martyrdom. In this decision, he is strengthened by examples from hagiographic literature that come to mind, when a righteous man was killed by his relatives. Boris recalls the "torment and passion" of Saints Nikita and Vyacheslav of Czech "and how Saint Barbara could have had her killer."

Although Boris goes to his death voluntarily and consciously, his soul is full of longing and confusion; heavy and terrible is the last dream of the prince; notes of pain and resentment against his brother break through in Boris' dying prayer when he calls on God to become a judge between him and Svyatopolk. From the author's commentary on Boris' actions, it is clear that contradictory feelings struggle in the hero: with a "contrite heart", crying, he awaits the killers, at the same time "rejoicing in his soul" that he was awarded a martyr's crown from God. The psychological complexity of the characterization of Boris makes the picture of his death vital and truly tragic.

To enhance the emotional impact on the reader, the author of the "Tale" repeats the scene of the murder of the prince three times. First, he is pierced with spears in the tent by Putsha, Talets, Elovich and Lyashko. Then, when the wounded prince "in a daze" runs out of the tent, the murderers call on each other to "end what was ordered." Finally, the body of Boris, wrapped in a tent, is taken on a cart, but it seems to Svyatopolk that the enemy is still alive and raises his head; terrified, he sends the Varangians, and they pierce Boris through the heart with a sword.

Scenes of the martyrdom of the prince now and then interrupt the hero’s lengthy prayers, forcing the killers with weapons raised over the victim to patiently wait for him to finish praying: “The artificiality of such collisions, of course, was understood by the readers,” writes O. V. Tvorogov, “but they also accepted And the more verbose and inspired the righteous man prayed in his dying moments, the more insistently he asked God to forgive his destroyers their sin, the brighter the sanctity of the martyr shone and the more clearly the ungodly cruelty of the tormentors was seen.

The expressive-emotional element that dominates the "Tale" is created by using primary lyrical genres. These, apart from prayers and psalms, include the lamentations and internal monologues of the heroes, who now and then "say in their hearts", "thinking in their minds". Boris's crying for his dead father is filled with a feeling of deep sorrow. Going back to the tradition of oral folk tales for the deceased, he gives rise to sympathy for the orphaned. Crying is built as an alternation of sentences of the same type in structure using anaphora, the repetition of the first word. It is full of rhetorical exclamations and questions-addresses: “Alas for me, the light of my eyes, the radiance and dawn of my face!.. Alas for me, my father and my lord!<...>My heart is on fire, my soul is confusing and we don’t know who to turn to and to whom to extend this bitter sadness?" Upon learning of the death of his brother, Gleb weeps, bitterly complaining about his loneliness. The exclamation "Alas for me! If only we could die with you..." sounds like a cry of despair in his weeping. The strength of the weeping doubles as Gleb mourns both his brother and father. "Bitter sighs" and "plaintive lamentations" of Boris' faithful servants, for whom he was like " a guide to the blind, clothes to the naked, a staff to the elders, a mentor to the foolish", merge into a choir and form a collective lament for the prince, "merciful and blessed". used by the author - the symbolism of water and the ship, associated with the ancient funeral rite, and a number of omens: under Gleb, who, at the call of Svyatopolk, hurries to Kiev, the horse stumbles, as if warning the owner of the danger.

The Tale tends to individualization of the hagiographic hero, which was contrary to the canon, but corresponded to the truth of life. The image of the youngest of the martyr princes did not duplicate the characteristics of the elder. Gleb is more inexperienced than his brother, therefore he treats Svyatopolk with full confidence and goes to Kyiv at his call, not suspecting anything bad, while Boris is tormented by gloomy forebodings and suspicions. Later, Gleb ns can not suppress the fear of death in himself, believes in the ability to move the assassins to pity, begging for mercy: “Do not touch me, my dear and dear brothers! Do not touch me, who has not done you any harm! What offense have I done to my brother and to you, my brethren and lords?<...>Do not destroy me, in the life of a young man, do not reap an ear that has not yet ripened, poured with the juice of malice! Do not cut the vine that has not yet grown, but has fruit! I beg you and surrender to your mercy. "The hero utters these words with a" meek look "," bursting into tears and weakening his body "," tremblingly sighing "" in heartfelt contrition ". An unknown hagiographer created one of the first in Russian literature psychological portraits, rich in subtle emotional experiences of the hero, for whom the crown of a martyr is heavy and premature. The author deliberately strengthened the motive of Gleb's defenseless youth, the childishness of his actions and words. Drawing a verbal portrait of Boris, he emphasized the youth and beauty of the hero, seeing in this a reflection of spiritual purity and beauty: Boris is “beautiful in body, tall”, but in soul “truthful and generous, quiet, short, modest”. In fact, the brothers were not so young: they were born from a "Bulgarian", one of the wives of Vladimir the pagan, and about 28 years passed from the baptism of the prince to his death.

Psychologically reliable image in the "Tale" hagiographic antihero, in the role of which is Prince Svyatopolk. He is possessed by exorbitant envy and pride, he is burned by a thirst for power and hatred for his brothers. The appearance of the name Svyatopolk in the text is accompanied by constant epithets "cursed", "cursed", "bad", "evil", etc. The medieval writer explained his actions and thoughts not only by the enslavement of Svyatopolk by the devil, but also by real facts from the biography of the anti-hero. Svyatopolk is the embodiment of evil, since his origin is sinful. His mother, a blueberry, was stripped and taken as a wife by Yaropolk; after the murder of her husband by Prince Vladimir, she, being "not idle" (pregnant), became the wife of the latter, thus, Svyatopolk is the son of two fathers who are brothers at once. The "generic sin" that turned Svyatopolk into the "second Cain" makes it possible to reveal the real origins of his hatred for his brothers.

For the crime committed, Svyatopolk bears a worthy punishment. Defeated in the "evil battle" by Yaroslav the Wise, he flees from the battlefield, but "weakening his bones, as if he were not strong enough to sit on horses, and carry him on a porter." The tramp of Yaroslav's cavalry pursues the weakened Svyatopolk, and he hurries: "Let's run further, they are chasing! Woe to me!" Because of the fear of retribution, he cannot stay anywhere for a long time and dies, "running from no one knows whom", in a deserted place in a foreign land, somewhere between the Czech Republic and Poland. The name of Svyatopolk the Accursed becomes a household name in ancient Russian literature, denoting a villain.

In the Tale, Svyatopolk is opposed not only to the "earthly angels" Boris and Gleb, but also to Yaroslav the Wise, who became an instrument of divine retribution against the murderer and an ideal ruler who put an end to "sedition" and "strife" in Rus'. It is symbolic that he won a victory over Svyatopolk on the Alta River, where Boris was once killed. In some chronicle editions of the Tale, angels help Yaroslav to defeat Svyatopolk, and nature itself unleashes lightning, thunder and "great rain" on the fratricide.

In order to surround the heroes with an aura of holiness, the author of the Tale cites their posthumous miracles at the end of the work, and in the final words of praise puts Boris and Gleb on a par with authoritative figures of the Christian church. For example, he compares them, "defenders of the fatherland", with Demetrius of Thessalonica: "You are both a weapon for us, the Russian land took away both the assertion and the sword is sharp for both sides, and we depose the impudence of the filthy and trample the devil's staggering into the lands."

Unlike traditional life, "The Tale" does not describe the lives of heroes from birth to death, but gives a close-up of only one episode - the villainous murder of brothers. The author's attitude to the "historicism" of the narrative also prevented the recognition of the "Tale" as a life itself, therefore, according to IP Eremin, there was a need for a work about Boris and Gleb, where the hagiographic principle would be strengthened. So it appeared "Reading about the life and destruction of the blessed martyrs Boris and Gleb" by Nestor created in full accordance with the church canon.

The life opened with a lengthy rhetorical introduction, where the author turned to God with a request to enlighten his mind, and to the reader to forgive his rudeness. Outlining world history from Adam and Eve to the baptism of Rus', Nestor talked about the eternal struggle between the forces of good and evil. The journalistic mood of the preface to the life, where the Christianization of Rus' was regarded as a turning point in national history, echoed Metropolitan Hilarion's Sermon on Law and Grace. Further, guided by the genre tradition, Nestor spoke about the childhood of the saints and their early piety. He likened the heroes to two bright stars in a dark sky. Boris and Gleb, as befits saints, surprised everyone with mercy and meekness, prayed a lot and tearfully, read the lives of the holy martyrs, as if foreseeing that they were destined to repeat their feat. The princes accepted death without hesitation, being champions of the Christian ideals of humility and brotherly love. In conclusion, miracles were cited that took place at the tomb of the saints.

As I. P. Eremin noted, in "Reading about Boris and Gleb" the images of the heroes are "drier, stricter, more schematic"; and if in the "Tale" they are imbued with "warm sentimental lyricism", then in Nestor - "solemn, almost liturgical pathos". "Reading" was not widely used in ancient Russian writing, while the "Tale" was very popular and has come down to us in a large number of lists.

Recently, M. Yu. Paramonova, assessing the direction of the works devoted to the veneration of the martyr princes Boris and Gleb, summarized: “The study of the cult of Boris and Gleb enjoyed priority attention in Russian medieval studies, partly due to the peculiarities of the corresponding hagiographic sources. The cult was the earliest officially established veneration of saints of Russian origin and gave rise to a vast and rich literary tradition. The most prominent Russian philologists, textologists and historians were involved in discussions about the sources of texts belonging to the Borisoglebsk cycle. For a long time the problem of the origin of the cult was usually reduced to the question of the origin, dating and authorship of individual texts.

It is only in recent decades that cult has begun to be seen as a complex phenomenon that has developed in a system of various and intertwined (intricate) factors, including the Christian practice of venerating saints, pre-Christian (or non-Christian) beliefs and practices, the interaction between ecclesiastical and secular communities (communities). ) and the wider context of European dynastic and royal cults. In connection with the specific historical context in which the cult of the two holy princes arose in Kievan Rus, the question of possible external influences on this process also arises. In these lines, the main trends and lines of development in the study of both the veneration of the holy brothers and the texts dedicated to them are very accurately noted.

Ranchin Andrei Mikhailovich - Monuments of the Borisoglebsk cycle: textual criticism, poetics, religious and cultural context

M.: Russian Foundation for the Promotion of Education and Science, 2017. 512 p.

ISBN 978-5-91244-205-6

Ranchin Andrei Mikhailovich - Monuments of the Borisoglebsk cycle: textual criticism, poetics, religious and cultural context - Contents

Foreword

• Chapter first. On the question of textual criticism of the Borisoglebsk cycle
• Chapter two. On the question of the history of the text of the chronicle story about Boris and Gleb
• Chapter three. The Tale and Reading about Boris and Gleb as part of the Great Menaion of the Fourth Metropolitan Macarius
• Chapter Four. Spatial structure in chronicle stories of 1015 and 1019 and in the lives of Saints Boris and Gleb
• Chapter five. Poetics of antitheses and repetitions in the Tale of Boris and Gleb
• Chapter six. On the interpretation of the historical and theological introduction to the Reading about Boris and Gleb by St. Nestor: the semantic archetype of the lives of Boris and Gleb and examples for veneration
• Chapter seven. Some Observations on the Functions of Reminiscences from Holy Scripture in the Monuments of the Borisoglebsk Cycle
• Chapter eight. Biblical quotation-topos in the Tale of Boris and Gleb: traditional and individual in ancient Russian literature
• Chapter nine. About one strange comparison in the Tale of Boris and Gleb
• Chapter ten. Formation of the cult of the holy princes Boris and Gleb: motives for canonization
• Chapter Eleven. Monuments of the Borisoglebsk cycle in the Slavic and Western European context: an invariant plot of the murder of an innocent ruler
• Chapter twelve. The Sanctity of Boris and Gleb Against the Background of the Cults of Passion-Bearing Rulers: Pagan Relics and Christian Interpretation

APPS

• 1. Svyatopolk the Accursed: establishing paternity
• 2. To questions about the formation of the veneration of Saints Boris and Gleb, about the time of their canonization and about the reliability of the texts dedicated to them

Instead of an afterword

List of abbreviations

Bibliography

Name index

Ranchin Andrei Mikhailovich - Monuments of the Borisoglebsk cycle: textual criticism, poetics, religious and cultural context - Instead of an afterword

As Lermontov noted in the preface to the second edition of A Hero of Our Time: “In any book, the preface is the first and at the same time the last thing; it serves as an explanation of the purpose of the work, or justification and response to criticism. But usually readers do not care about the moral goal and to magazine attacks, and therefore they do not read prefaces.

In my case, not the preface, but the afterword is superfluous: everything that the author wanted to say is contained in the chapters of the book. To draw any general conclusions is not only unnecessary, but also premature, because the study of the monuments of the Borisoglebsk cycle continues, and many of the conclusions of the author of the book are more like conscious hypotheses than claim to be indisputable truth. Nevertheless, I will still express some considerations of a general nature.

A textual study of the monuments of the Borisoglebsk cycle leads me (not me the first) to the conclusion that the relationship between the works dedicated to the holy brothers is much more complex than the simple influence of one (one) on the other (the other). It can be assumed that the history of the formation of these monuments was more whimsical and intriguing than is usually thought. What were the reasons for this? It can be hypothetically assumed that this is due, for example, to some political reasons, a kind of censorship caused, for example, by references to the designation of Boris by his father, which originally existed in works that have not come down to us, and possibly by some other unfavorable news. for Yaroslav the Wise. (But definitely not the news of Yaroslav's own involvement in this tragedy; there simply could not be such news - the version of him as the murderer of one or both brothers is untenable.)

The glorification of Boris and Gleb, apparently, refers to the reign of Yaroslav the Wise, and it is possible that by the time a little earlier than 1039, the veneration of Boris and Gleb was not formed as a “political” cult, religious motives proper were dominant. At the same time, the idea of ​​a “free sacrifice” in imitation of Christ was layered on a rich pre-Christian foundation, as was the case with the cults of other rulers or representatives of ruling dynasties who were victims in the struggle for power.

Boris and Gleb, of course, do not embody some purely Russian holiness - such saints are numerous in newly baptized Christian countries. However, in their veneration and in their life images there is a special emphasis on meekness and readiness to forgive their enemies with love. Church veneration and interpretation of the feat of the brothers in their lives is comprehended through numerous analogies from the Old Testament and, of course, in the light of the Christlikeness of the saints. The feat of Boris and Gleb was perceived in Rus' as an exceptional event, equal in significance to the events of Sacred History.

At the same time, chronicle and hagiographic monuments about the passion-bearing brothers form a single tradition; in the Latin West, where the veneration of innocently killed kings and kings was formed, the historiographic (chronicles and sagas) and hagiographic lines did not always converge, sometimes they radically diverged in assessments and interpretations. The impact of both the baptism and the passion-bearing of Boris and Gleb on the consciousness of the ancient Russian ruling stratum turned out to be immeasurably deeper than similar events in the Frankish state or in Scandinavia: in Kievan Rus, the murders of rival princes in the struggle for power after 1015 come to naught. These are some preliminary results - conclusions that partially coincided with what was written before me.

On the question of textual criticism of the Borisoglebsk cycle

The purpose of this article is to consider the correlation of the works of the Borisoglebsk cycle: the chronicle story about the murder of Boris and Gleb, Sayings and passions and praises of the holy martyr Boris and Gleb And Readings about the life and destruction of the blessed martyr Boris and Gleb, written by Nestor (hereinafter abbreviated: LP, SU, Thu.).

Ratio Thu. And SU usually interpreted as primary Thu, or SU. In 1916, in the preface to the first volume of The Tale of Bygone Years, A. A. Shakhmatov came to the conclusion that convergence Thu. And SU can be explained by the influence of a common source. The existence of a non-preserved work about Boris and Gleb was assumed by D. V. Ainalov [Ainalov 1910]. L. Müller is convinced of the existence of such a work [Müller 2000. p. 83]. LP according to the Initial Code, compiled around 1095 and reflected in the Novgorod First Chronicle, it is usually considered as a source of SU. Next under LP the story about the murder of Boris and Gleb is implied according to the Initial Code; however, since the Novgorod First Chronicle did not preserve this story in its entirety according to the Initial Code, and the surviving part is identical to the text of the legend according to Tale of Bygone Years, when comparing LP with other works about Boris and Gleb, I turn to the story of the holy brothers in the composition Tale of temporary years.

The question of ratio LP, SU And Thu. associated with the question of their relationship with Saying miracles of the holy passion of Christ Roman and Davyd(Further - MF), compiled after 1115 and read in the oldest list along with SU. A. A. Shakhmatov tied MF with SU. How initially one work considers SU and MF N. N. Voronin. S. A. Bugoslavsky, on the contrary, believes that MF and SU originally existed separately. The following speaks in favor of this point of view. In the oldest list of SU and MF are read one after the other, but do not constitute a single work. First of all, what separates them is that MF has a separate title, and it is not a subtitle within the work. The SU ends with a general praise of the holy brothers, where miracles are also reported, so the author does not talk about miracles (I do not consider the postscript “About Boris, how do you take it,” since it, apparently, ended up at the end of the text by accident). MF begins with an introduction (conclusion in MF no, because the text, apparently, is not added). As S. A. Bugoslavsky proved, the text of the SU in the oldest list is very close to the original [Bugoslavsky 1928. P. XI–XII], and the SU and MF differ from each other in terms of style. It must be added that MF is strikingly different from the SU and the fact that in MF Christian names are preferred to worldly names of brothers. In the SU lists close to the original text, the Christian name of Gleb is not given at all. For the reasons above, I do not consider MF in his textual analysis.

First of all, let's compare LP and SU. A. A. Shakhmatov, rejecting the influence SU on LP, sees the proof of its absence in the fact that "the hagiographic legend does not contain anything significant that would not be in the chronicle, it differs from the chronicle legend in one rhetoric." However, the presence in the text SU duplications indicates that the compiler SU had two texts related to LP. If LP and can be recognized as a source for SU, then only a secondary one. A. A. Shakhmatov does not recognize the existence of a common source for LP and SU, but textual research refutes this opinion. AND LP, And SU tell about the death of Vladimir. In SU, Boris receives the news of his father's death (he is told that Svyatopolk is hiding his father's death); V LP but at first the death of Vladimir is described and how it is concealed. Next, SU cites Boris's lamentation for his father and his reflections; reported on the distribution of gifts to the people of Kiev (in LP the distribution of gifts was reported before the news of the return of Boris). Following this, it is told that Svyatopolk comes to Vyshgorod and gives the order to kill Boris, there is a discussion about the devil and Svyatopolk. After that, they read: an unexpected phrase - “Then I called to myself” Svyatopolk Putsha and others (Svyatopolk gives the order to kill Boris) and a quote from Solomon (it is also in LP). The news about the return of Boris is duplicated (but there is no message to Boris about the death of his father, there is no mention of the messenger of Svyatopolk).

In all editions of the SU, except for the edition of the Solemn and two contaminated ones, we read: “Blessed and Boris, as it were, turned back and stood on Lta shatry” [Zhitiya 1916. P. 32]. The presence of the pluperfect in this message may be due to the author's desire to avoid duplication, since Boris's return from the campaign was already mentioned above. But how can one explain that the pluperfect form also contains the predicate of reporting Boris' stop at Alta, which has not been mentioned before? If the message about both of these events is taken by the author SU not from an earlier text, but written by him, why is the stop at Alta, which the author attributed to the time before Svyatopolk's order, written after the announcement of the order, and not before it? Probably the explanation is this. At source SU the return of Boris and the stop at Alta were spoken of in the aorist or imperfect form (this was the first mention of the return of Boris). Borrowing this message, the author SU drew attention to the fact that duplication appears in the text he creates; in order to avoid it, he replaced the aorist with the pluperfect, but he erroneously did this in the news about Boris's stop at Alta, which he had not previously mentioned.

The analyzed fragment has undergone a change in the edition of the Solemnist: “Fight the blessed hundred on the Alta<…>» [Bugoslavsky 1928. p. 6] - the omission of the news of the return of Boris and the replacement of the pluperfect with the aorist is clearly caused by the desire to avoid duplication. There is no doubt that we have a fragment of an unknown text, and this is not a text at all. LP: first, Svyatopolk gives the order to kill Boris, and only then is the story of Boris's return. The fragment from the text that has not survived begins, probably, with a reasoning about the intention of the devil to kill Boris with the hands of Svyatopolk, since this reasoning should follow before the order of Svyatopolk to kill Boris, as a motivation for the order (this is how they are given in Thu.).

Based on the assumption that the SU influenced only LP, then duplication cannot be explained (the hypothesis that Thu. also affected SU, does not explain the presence of these duplications, because in Thu. the composition as a whole is similar to the composition SU before duplication). But the connection between the LP and this text unknown to us (we will call it provisionally life, Further - Lives.): V LP the quotation from Solomon reads as in Lives. After duplications comes text close to LP(This proves once again that there is a connection between LP And Living, since it is difficult to assume that the compiler SU used Lives. just for duplicates). The duplication of news about the order of Svyatopolk and the return of Boris can be explained by the fact that the author is the compiler SU- incorrectly put signs on the compiled texts and therefore rewrote the fragments that reported on the news already mentioned in the compiled text.

It should also be noted that Lives. reflected not only in SU, but also in the so-called second variety of the prologue life of Boris and Gleb (hereinafter - P2). D. I. Abramovich assumed that P2 based on SU[Life 1916. S. XVI]. However, the composition P2 similar to composition Living: first Svyatopolk gives the order to kill Boris, then - the return of Boris and his stop on Alta. There is no mention of news to Boris about the death of his father (this mention is not in that part su, which goes back to Living, but is in the initial fragment). Since it is difficult to agree that the compiler P2 omitted the news of this message (it is read in the first variety of prologue life), then it remains to be assumed that in Zhit. there was no such news, as, perhaps, there was no story about the herald of Svyatopolk who appeared to Boris with words about the world (read in LP, the initial part of the SU, the first variety of prologue life). The fact that in P2 says that the order to kill Boris was given by Svyatopolk in Vyshgorod, and in a fragment from Lives. V SU this is not reported, it can be explained by the fact that the author SU refused to include it in the text in order to avoid duplication, or one of the scribes omitted this episode.

It is very difficult to explain the compositional difference LP from the beginning SU. What about Boris on Alta's stop LP is narrated before the message about the order of Svyatopolk to kill him, and in the initial fragment SU there is no mention of stopping Boris at all, allows us to assert that SU hardly goes back to LP and in this snippet. Lives. has a certain proximity to LP, but about Boris stopping at Alta in Lives. reported after the order of Svyatopolk, and not before him, as in LP. Maybe, LP And SU rely on a common source: the most ancient chronicle code (hereinafter - DSv.). In it, the news of the death of Vladimir and the return of Boris were read, apparently, in the same sequence as in LP and initial part SU(before duplication): the return of Boris, a message to him about the death of his father, a message from Svyatopolk about peace, an order from Svyatopolk to kill Boris. Author Lives. did not use text DSv. IN Lives. contains the news about the order of Svyatopolk to kill Boris, then it is said about the return of Boris and his stop on Alta. About the messenger to Boris, who informed the prince about the death of his father, and about the embassy of Svyatopolk with a peace offer in Lives. not reported. Author LP borrows from Lives. mention of Boris stopping at Alta. Author SU mistakenly borrowed from Lives. not only the message he needed about stopping Boris on Alta (perhaps many of the common messages LP And SU go right up to Living, but not to DSv.), but also a message about the order of Svyatopolk and the return of Boris, about which the author SU already mentioned. Of course, since the very fact of existence Lives. - just a hypothesis put forward by me, and the nature of the chronicle story about the murder of Boris and Gleb in the composition DSv. unknown to us, the solution to the question of the ratio LP, SU, Zhit. And DSv. - nothing more than a guess.

To establish the nature of the links between LP, SU And Thu. the episode of the murder of Boris is especially important. IN LP the following is reported about him: Boris is wounded and taken in a cart; Svyatopolk is informed that he is breathing. Svyatopolk sends two Varangians to kill Boris. One of them kills Boris with a sword strike in the heart. In the SU, the death of Boris is reported twice: first, he dies near the tent, then he is killed by the Varangians (just as in LP). IN Thu. Boris is killed near the tent with a blow to the heart; there is no killing by the Vikings here.

A. A. Shakhmatov cites this particular episode as evidence of the influence Thu. on SU. In favor of the hypothesis that SU could not influence Thu, says and absence in Thu. such episodes, read in su, like the prayer of Boris before the icon, his reflections on the martyrs, the lamentation of those around him for Boris, the speech of the lad George. These episodes emphasize the righteousness of Boris and in no way violate the hagiographic canon. What SU was not a source Thu, proves, first of all, the absence of Thu. Boris' reflections on the martyrs. Nestor (as in Thu, so in Lives of Theodosius of the Caves) quite often draws parallels between the described saint and other saints. Thus, there is no reason to believe that SU had an impact on Thu, as S. A. Bugoslavsky suggested. In my opinion, the difference SU And LP from Thu. can be explained by the proposed hypothesis about the relationship of these products with DSv. And Lives. As A. A. Shakhmatov suggested, in describing the murder of Boris, the author Thu. uses dsv. [Shakhmatov 1908. S. 64–66]; cf. [Shakhmatov 2001. P. 54–57]. The version about the murder of Boris by the Vikings belongs to the author Lives. Compilers LP And SU used as version DSv., as well as version Living, which is the reason for the illogical description of the murder of Boris and duplication in SU.

All of the above convergences LP, SU And Thu. do not disprove the hypothesis that LP, SU And Thu. do not have a direct connection with each other, thus revealing the problematic nature of the hypotheses of A. A. Shakhmatov ( Thu.- source SU) and S. A. Bugoslavsky ( SU- source Thu).

The next significant episode is the murder of Gleb by Svyatopolk. In LA we read about the murder of Gleb: Gleb, summoned by Svyatopolk, goes to Kyiv; Yaroslav receives news from Predslava about the death of Vladimir and the murder of Boris by Svyatopolk; Yaroslav sends a messenger to Gleb; Gleb learns about the death of his father and brother, prays. Further, in the story about Yaroslav in Novgorod, it is told that “on the same night, news came to him from Kiev from his sister Peredslava:“ Your father died, and Svyatopolk sits in Kiev, having killed Boris, and on Gleb the ambassador, but watch out his greatness"" [PLDR XI-XII. S. 154]. A. A. Shakhmatov considers the news received by Yaroslav from his sister as an insert, explaining this by the fact that the compiler of the Novgorod Code (from which the compiler of the Kiev Primary Code borrows news about Yaroslav the Wise in Novgorod) could not know from whom Yaroslav received the message. “But if the compiler of the Initial Code inserted the words “from Kiev from his sister Peredslava” into the Novgorod story about Yaroslav’s gatherings, then he can already be attributed to the insertion of the above message that at the time when Gleb was traveling to Kiev, news came to Yaroslav from Peredslava about the death of his father and the murder of Boris, and that Yaroslav sent news of this to Gleb” [Shakhmatov 1908. p. 80].

A. A. Shakhmatov also gives other evidence in favor of the hypothesis about the secondary nature of the news about the message sent by Predslava to Yaroslav.

The message about the notification of Gleb by Yaroslav, close to LP, is also read in SU(V Thu. the murder of Gleb is told differently - Gleb flees from Svyatopolk). D. V. Ainalov provides evidence that the message of Predslava and the warning of Yaroslav are later inserts. It should be noted, however, that the first proof of the secondary nature of Gleb's warning by Yaroslav in SU very debatable. The phrase: “It is no longer imam to see you in life seven, we will not separate her from you with need” can only refer to the squad. The appeal "be saved" can also be addressed to the deceased. Therefore, the words of Gleb can be interpreted as intercession for the dead: God can heed the merciful prayer of the saint (cf., for example, r Groomed by the Mother of God through torments). But there is also purely textual evidence that Gleb’s appeal “be saved” could only be read in su, i.e., it arose simultaneously with the inclusion in the text of the message about the news of Yaroslav Gleb. If Gleb’s appeal “be saved” to his father, mother and brother Boris is quite understandable (Boris and Gleb were the sons of Vladimir I from the same mother), then how to understand his appeal to Yaroslav and Svyatopolk? It is most likely that the additions indicated in the text arose under the influence of the message about the news of Yaroslav Gleb (then it is clear why Gleb singles out Yaroslav from all the brothers, and how Gleb knows who his killer is). But in the future, Gleb speaks of Boris as standing at the throne of God (this fragment could only appear simultaneously with Yaroslav's message to Gleb about the murder of his brother). Before the same, Gleb turns to Boris “be saved” (it follows from the second address that Gleb thought of Boris as having already been saved). Apparently, the fragment with Gleb's speech could not have been included in the text by the same author as the fragment with the second speech. Since the second speech is closely connected with Gleb's announcement of Boris's death, it could not have appeared before this announcement. The words of Gleb in the first speech about Svyatopolk and Yaroslav could also hardly have been written before the message to Gleb appeared in the text of the message. The imaginary contradiction between Gleb’s appeal to Vladimir and Boris (“be saved”) and the news of their death proves that words to Yaroslav and Svyatopolk are also included in this appeal, based on the news received by Gleb from Yaroslav. But the contradiction between the two speeches of Gleb is so significant that the appeals to Yaroslav, Svyatopolk and Boris, most likely, cannot belong to the same author, although both fragments are based on Gleb's message.

Taking into account the textual data on the existence of two texts on which the SU relied, the following interpretation can be proposed. In the text DSv. there was no news from Yaroslav Gleb. Author Living, not familiar with DSv., reports the news to Gleb and at the same time writes Gleb's prayer with appeals to Yaroslav and Svyatopolk. Author-compiler SU writes Gleb's prayer to Boris in the text. The contradiction noted by D. V. Ainalov between the news to Gleb about Svyatopolk’s intent and his expectation of honors from the killers is explained by the fact that the first message belongs to the author Lives.(Where does it come from? LP), and the second - DSv. The message that Gleb swam towards the killers belongs to the same vault. Author LP, using the Novgorod vault, inserts the name of Predslava into its fragment. He also shortens Lives.(discarding as contradictory to the report of Gleb's news the phrase, which says that Gleb expected honors from the killers); and the message that Gleb swam towards the killers is replaced by the words that he was standing on Smyadyn. Author SU leaves the DSV version. And Lives. about Gleb sailing towards the murderers, since it corresponds to the hagiographic canon of the saint's behavior (cf. Boris's behavior before the murder). True, according to A. A. Shakhmatov, in DSv. the same version of the murder of Gleb was read as in Thu. Nestor. If, following A. A. Shakhmatov, we admit that in the description of the murder of Boris DSv identical with Thu. Nestor, the message about Gleb's expectation of honors ("kissing") could only be read in Living, but not in DSv.(for there Gleb fled from Svyatopolk, knowing about the impending murder). The message about Gleb's expectation of honors is undoubtedly primary in relation to the news of Yaroslav's warning to him. Then it turns out that in SU the second message could only come from LP. In this case LP still recognized as a source su, albeit a minor one. Gleb's second speech, where Boris is honored to stand before God, can be considered an insertion of a later one in relation to SU generally. However, this version does not refute the decisive significance of the texts that have not come down to us. Words SU“But you can expect to receive kisses from them” [Life 1916. P. 40] are not found in LP and, consequently, could not get to the SU from there. They could not have been written by the author of SU either, since they clearly contradict the message about Gleb's warning by Yaroslav. Consequently, the influence of a text that has not come down to us can be traced in this episode as well.

Let us try to generalize the results obtained above. In his work, the author SU based on two texts. LP(according to the Initial Code) or did not affect SU in general, or it can be considered as an additional source, since it influenced the text su, otherwise identical to what we know.

Thus, the results of textological comparison LP, SU And Thu. suggest the existence of two lost works about Boris and Gleb, one of which can be identified with DSv. Thu, ascending to DSv., closer to su, than to LP[Life 1916. S. VII–X]. Thu. closer in composition to the part SU, ascending to DSv., and to LP. Textual convergences between SU And LP, which are not in Thu, can be explained by the influence Lives.(facts proving the influence Lives. on Thu, we do not have).

A. A. Shakhmatov assumed among the written sources of the Most Ancient Code “a brief record of the Vyshegorodskaya church about them (brothers. - A.R.) killing, burial, finding relics, glorification and their miracles” ([Shakhmatov 1908. p. 476]; cf. [Shakhmatov 2001. p. 340], not processed in literature. However, as A. A. Shakhmatov himself claims, the glorification of Boris and Gleb “was important not only for the church, but also for the ruling prince” ([Shakhmatov 1908. p. 474]; cf.: [Shakhmatov 2001. p. 339]), i.e. Yaroslav was drawn up DSv.. About the fact that the records of the miracles of the brothers are not among the sources Dsv., evidence of their absence in the annals that have come down to us.

Finally, textual data provide some basis for judgments about the time of writing. SU. The original text of the SU used the Most Ancient Code and probably did not use the Primary Code. The initial code was compiled around 1095. At least it is difficult to assume that SU compiled around 1113–1118, when editions were created Tale of bygone years which, under 1015, included a narrative close to the Primary Code. However, the assumptions made are purely hypothetical.