The front manuscript "The Legends of the Mamay Massacre": published and unread

2024 Author: Richard Flannagan | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-15 23:55

In 1980 T. V. Dianova, the Facial Manuscript of the 17th century was published in facsimile. "Legends of the Mamayev Massacre" (State Historical Museum, collection of Uvarov, No. 999a) [19]. Since then, a quarter of a century has passed, but the book was completely not included in the scientific circulation {1}, although it contains many completely unique messages.

Dianova gave a brief archaeographic description of the manuscript, but did not convey the text in modern graphics and - most importantly! - did not characterize it in terms of content. Meanwhile, L. A. Back in 1959, Dmitriev considered it necessary to devote a page to it in his "Review of Skazniy's editorial offices about the Mamayev massacre," noting that "there are places in this list that are unique to him" [4a. P. 461], and in 1966 examined 8 facial manuscripts of the "Tales" (hereinafter - C) and found that all of them - including No. 999a - belong to the Undolsky (U) version [4. P. 243]. However, during the last reprint of Y, only 4 copies were used [9. S. 134-136], and at the same time the manuscript published by Dianova (hereinafter - Persons) was not included in their number {2}.

The most surprising thing is that U is a text that in all respects is much less interesting than Lits: the latter - despite the loss of individual sheets and gaps - is more detailed than U, and often gives earlier and more serviceable readings. Moreover, in Faces. it is possible to point to a number of more clearly earlier fragments than is available in the Basic variant (O), which is now considered to be the most ancient version of C. Finally, in Lits. contains information that is not present in any of the currently published texts of S. The most important thing is that it concerns mainly not the ideological "framing", but the description of events.

Here are the most important examples. Due to the lack of space, the main attention will be paid not to the textual, but to the substantive side of the case.

1. Person: “the great prince Dmitry Ivanovich with his brother with Prince Vladimir Andreevich and with all the Christ-loving army came to Kolomna. I am in time for the month of August, Saturday 28th day, in memory of our holy father Moses Murin, who was the same many voivode and warrior, shouting the great prince Dmitry Ivanovich with all the regiments on the river on Severka. The Bishop of Kolomna will meet him at the gates of the city with miraculous icons and with krylos and with life-giving crosses and his autumn cross”[19. L. 41 / 32ob.] {3}.

If we compare this text with the corresponding versions of O, U, Printed version (Print) and Common edition (P), it is easy to see that this fragment is the most complete, while all other versions give only more or less short and distorted versions. of this text. In the Cyprian edition (K), the exact name is named - Gerasim, however, the absence of a name in Lits. and U is nevertheless more accurate than "Gerontius" or "Euthymius", as in O, R and Pecs.

2. Persons: “on the morning of the week of August, on the 29th day, the beheading of the honest head of the holy prophet and forerunner of the baptist John, the great prince Dmitry Ivanovich on that day ordered all the governors with all the people to go to the Golutvin monastery and to the Devich in the fields, and he himself there, and the beginning of the multitudes of the trumpets of the trumpets and argans are beating and roaring at the court of Panfiliev”{4} (L. 42 / 34ob.).

U: “on the holy week, after matins, I began to hear the sound of trumpets, glasity, and argans, and there were novolochenes in the garden near Panfiliev” [9. P. 158].

A: “In the morning, the great prince ordered everyone to go howling to the field to Devych. On the holy week, after Matins, I began many trumpets of the military, the voices of the voices, and many argans were beaten, and the scaffolds to roar were draped in the garden of Panfilov”[18. P. 34].

And again the text of the Faces. more complete and more accurate in essence. Mention is made of not only the Maiden, but also the Golutvin monastery, about which there is not a word in any other C texts {5}. Who would think of such a thing a hundred years later? Meanwhile, it was located where the inspection was supposed to take place - on the banks of the Oka, at the place where the river flows into it. Moscow [7. Tab. 15].

The following description is also very organic. Trumpets and organs begin to sound when the Grand Duke went out to inspect his strength: this is how it should have been; this is not a literary cliché, but eyewitness testimony. Panfiliev court, i.e. pier [3. P. 354], is also much more pertinent than the garden found in all other texts: after the survey and the regiments' harnessing, the crossing of the Oka began, and this naturally had to take place near the river and the pier, where the ships were to be prepared. The fact that this is not an accidental slip of the tongue is repeated again: “the great prince Dmitri Ivanovich and all the army went to the field, the sons of the Russians stepped on the Kalomenskaya field at the Panfiliev court” (L. 43/35 rev.).

"Court" in the meaning of "pier, port" is mentioned in the Tale of Bygone Years when describing the Russian raids on Constantinople: "you have entered the court" (6374); "And I will come to Caesaryugrad [y], and the Greeks will lock the court" (6415);. "The judgment is all burned" (6449) [12. Stb. 15, 21, 33]. This word is usually interpreted as the name of the Golden Horn Bay, the entrance to which at the moment of danger was closed with a huge chain [10. P. 428], but the last phrase unambiguously says that it is more correct to understand the Tsargrad “court” as a huge port located in the bay: the bay itself cannot be burned, but it can be done with the piers located on its shores.

A. B. Mazurov drew attention to the toponym "Panfilovo", located on the way from Kolomna to the Oka. He in the XVII-XVIII centuries. was called "Panfilovskiy Sadok", "Panfilovskiy Sadki wasteland" [7. P. 270]. However, in this it is not at all necessary to see the proof of the correctness of the “garden” and not of the “court” - more likely the opposite: the mechanical distortion in the later texts of the Legend, which gained wide popularity in the 16th-17th centuries, was influenced by the change in the name of the area. In the same way, “to the Maiden [monastery] in the fields” [Cf.: 21. P. 34] later turned into “Maiden's Field”.

3. Further, there is again a completely original presentation of the generally known information: “And a speech to the Grand Duke Dmitry, his brother, Prince Vladimir Andreevich:“make {6} the discharge of all your people, in any way, to the regiment of the voivode”. The Grand Duke Dmitri Ivanovich will take for himself a large regiment of Belozersk prince and in his right hand command his brother, Prince Vladimir Andreevich, and give him a regiment of Yaroslavl princes, and in the left hand of Prince Gleb of Bryansk, and in the first regiment were governors Dmitry Vsevolozh and Volodimer Vsev voivode Mikula Vasilyevich, and in his left hand Timofey Valuevich, Kostramskaya there were governors Prince Andrey of Murom and Andrey Serkizovich, and Prince Vladimir Andreyevich had governors Danila Belous and Kostyantin Konanovich and Prince Fyodor Yeletskaya and Prince Yurya Meshcherskaya and a commander of the Polar fiddle around”(L. 43 / 35ob.-44/36).

The main differences from the usual versions available in O and U are 1) in the placement of Prince Andrei Muromsky in the regiment of the left, not the right hand; 2) in the gaps: in fact, Timofey was not a Kostroma governor, but a Vladimir and Yuryev governor; the Kostroma were commanded by Ivan Rodionovich Kvashnya, and Andrey Serkizovich - by the Pereyaslavts [Cf.: 15. P. 34; 9, p. 159]; 3) the main thing is that all those Moscow boyars who are usually "enrolled" in the forward regiment, according to Persons, are distributed among the first {7}, i.e. a large shelf, and a shelf of the left hand. And this is very logical: first, the princes who headed the center and the flanks are listed, and then the commanders of lower rank of the same units follow, and in this case that strange situation does not arise when only Vladimir Andreevich's subordinates are named. And, in my opinion, the errors in the boyar "nomenclature", which are noticeable in Lits., Indirectly testify in favor of its reliability: Lits.copied from a very dilapidated, which means, a fairly ancient book, in which part of the page or text was damaged. The most difficult thing is to rationalize the location of Andrey Muromsky. Maybe it was just a mechanical mistake of the ancient scribe?

4. In Persons. there is a very significant addition to the story about the events preceding the Battle of Kulikovo: “Let the day on Wednesday of the month of September on the 6th day remember the memory of the former archangel Michael and the suffering of the holy martyr Eudoxius at 6 o'clock the days of the arrival of Semyon Melik with his retinue, after them the same totarove - a little indiscriminately gnasha, but also the polls of the Russian [sk] ia vidsha and returned and drove out to the place high and that, having seen all the shelves of the Rustia, Semyon Melik will tell the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich: “It befits you, Lord {8}, to go to Nepryadva and Husin ford, and Tsar Mamai is now on Kuzmin gati, but one night there will be between you …”” (L. 56/45, 57 / 46ob.).

The mention of Kuzmina gati is not the first in C: the day before, similar news was reported to the Grand Duke by the language captured by Peter Gorsky and Karp Oleksin: The tsar has no news, he doesn’t want your quest, and for three days he will have to be on the Don”[18. P. 37].

It is not at all necessary to understand the last phrase as an indication of a distance of three days' march: Mamai was in no hurry. It could be a retroactive fit for the date of September 8, known to the author of the text, as well as an indication of his plan - to move northward along the "Tatar places". Therefore, there are no contradictions in it with the words of Semyon Melik, according to which the next day Mamai continued to stay in the same place as before - on Kuzmina Gati.

But his proposal to the Grand Duke to nominate a host to Gusin ford and Nepryadva makes it possible to clarify the location of these ancient toponyms {9}. It would hardly be a mistake to say that Gusin ford is that crossing on Nepryadva, where Russian soldiers returning after the battle found killed Tatars. According to many editions of C, a certain robber Thomas Katsybeev saw on the eve of the battle how Saints Boris and Gleb beat up the Tatar army, and The soldiers who were returning to the battlefield, who had been beaten by the saints of the Tatars, found it on the banks of the Nepryadva. So in Pecs. the story is told: “The rusks were dashing, they came to the bottom of all the Tatars and returned, finding the corpses of the dead Tatars about this country of the River Nepryadva, where the Russian regiments weren’t gone. These are the essence of the holy martyrs Boris and Gleb beaten”[18. S. 123]. In Persons. the following option is given: "for the sake of returning gnavshii and vysha many corpses of the dead obapols of the river Nepryadva, the ideal was impassable, that is, deep, and that was filled with the corpse of the filthy" {10} (L. 88/77).

To the words “the Russian regiments weren’t there” from Pecs. one can give the following interpretation: according to the descriptions of the battle, Mamai was the first to flee, after whom the pursuit rushed, which could not catch up with him. Consequently, the source conveys the point of view of those who persecuted Mamai: they were the first to overcome Gusin ford, when neither Tatars nor other Russian forces had yet passed there; then the main "wave" of fleeing Tatars approached the ford, where they were again overtaken by the Russian cavalry: because of the pandemonium that arose, part of the Tatars tried to cross where Nepryadva was deep, and drowned in the river. Thus, the second "Sword", which is referred to in the sources, turns out to be in fact Nepryadva. Returning, Mamai's pursuers saw corpses at the crossing and attributed their appearance to the "actions" of Boris and Gleb.

Since Semyon Melik returned at 6 o'clock in the afternoon, i.e. around noon, then Gusin ford was supposed to be located at a distance of no more than half of the day's march - no more than 15-20 km from the Kulikovo field. Otherwise, the Russian troops, which only on September 5 began the crossing of the Don, simply would not have reached Gusin ford. However, a greater distance was not required: Nepryadva is exactly 15 km to the south, near the present village. Mikhailovsky, turns to the west, incl. You should look for Gusin ford between this settlement and the village of Krasnye Buitsy, which is 10 km to the north.

The Tatar guards, who saw the Russian forces for the first time, had to return to Mamai's headquarters on the Kuzminaya gati for the remaining 6 hours before sunset: otherwise Mamai simply did not reach the Kulikov field during September 7. Hence it follows that the distance between the named places was only one day's march - hardly more than 40 km. This means that Kuzmina gat was located in the upper reaches of Krasivaya Swords not far from Volov, the current regional center of the Tula region.

It is difficult to find a motive that would compel some late editor with an unusually exuberant imagination to invent such details. Therefore, the unique data of the Persons. should be taken as evidence of some very ancient primary source, transmitting the oral story of an eyewitness of these events.

5. Only Persons. gives an exhaustive explanation of why Vladimir Andreevich Serpukhovskoy, who was in ambush, obeyed the order of Dmitry Mikhailovich Volynsky, much less noble than him. By itself, a reference to the experience of this commander, who had already achieved several bright victories, is insufficient: in that era, only a person of higher rank could be a commander, and therefore Volynets could at best be an adviser, and the final word had to remain with the prince. Vladimir. So why, according to C, this prince, seeing how - I quote from U - "the rot has gone everywhere, Christianity has become impoverished", "who cannot win in vain", instead of giving the order to march, appeals to Dmitry Volynsky: " My brother Dmitri, that we will crawl our standing and that our success will be, then it is already for whom the imam will help”[9. S. 179-180]. Persons. conveys these words more accurately and at the same time makes a unique addition: to the question “brother Dmitry, what is our standing crawling? what will be our success and to whom can the imam help? " Volynets asks for more patience, and Vladimir, “lifting up his hand,” exclaims: “God our father, who created heaven and earth, look at us and see what sedition Volyn is doing against them and do not let, Lord, rejoice from us to our enemy the devil "(L. 83 / 72ob.-84/73). But that is not all! Further in the Face. it follows: “The sons of Ruska, Prince Vladimyrov's regiment of Andreevich began [sha] to mourn when he saw his squad being beaten, and the other's fathers and children and brethren, although it was strong enough to let it go. Forbid the Volynets …”. That is, the situation in the ambush was heating up to such an extent that the soldiers were determined to rush into battle contrary to the order!

So why is Vladimir Andreevich, essentially likening Volynets to the devil, at the same time obeying his voivode, when all the soldiers simply demand to start an attack? All this looks like literature of a later time, a dramatic whipping up of tension, a fiction. However, in Persons. even earlier, a very specific explanation was given to this: on the eve of the battle, the Grand Duke himself gave Vladimir Andreevich a strict order to do as Volynets ordered.

This ends in Faces. the famous fortune-telling scene, which makes it quite complete. According to all versions of C, on the night before the battle, Dmitry Volynets, having crouched to the ground, listened for a long time to what sounds would be heard from both sides.

As a result, he heard the cry of the Russian and "Hellenic" women and predicted the victory of the Russians and heavy losses on both sides. To this Persons. adds: “Even Volynets will take my speech to Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich:“If, sir, let your western regiment be let loose at my command, then we will beat; If, sir, they stand in the way without my command, then they will all beat us, there are many signs of those battles. It is not false to you, my lord, I will tell you these words”. Great Prince Dmitry Ivanovich of the commandment to his brother, Prince Vladimir Andreevich: “For God's sake and for our parents, according to Volyntsov's commandments, create, if you see me, your brother, you’re slain, no way can you listen to his command: you don’t take me away, only God will kill me to be”. And strengthen him with an oath: “If you didn’t do this, do not be forgiven from me””(L. 67 / 56ob.-68 / 57ob.).

Of course, these words can be interpreted as the fruit of later literary creativity, however, in this case, the reason why the ambush regiment was commanded by Volynets, and not Vladimir Andreevich, remains unclear. In addition, this kind of interpretation is in fact an implicit transfer of modern ideas to the medieval era. In our rationalistic age, for most people, including learned men, all sorts of omens and fortune-telling are just superstitions that cannot be taken seriously. Hence the attitude to this layer of information not as a part of the oldest fundamental principle C, but as a later literary fiction. However, if we renounce our baseless arrogance, and take this "mysticism" seriously, as our ancestors did, then this story about Volynets' signs will be recognized as reliable and we will even accurately name its original source - the oral story of Dmitry Mikhailovich Volynsky himself.: no one, except him and the Grand Duke, could tell about what happened on the night before the battle.

And in this respect, Persons. turns out to be the text that most fully conveys this primary source, dating back to the 80s. XIV centuries. And if we look at the differences between the text of the Faces from this angle. and other published versions of C, where the fortune-telling scene ends with Volynets's call to pray to God and turn to the saints for help, in particular, to Boris and Gleb, then the truncation of the original text, in which the main attention is paid not to the religious, but to the "mystical" side of the matter, can be perceived as the fruit of the editorial activity of a certain clergyman who reworked the purely secular text of the original C, removing unnecessary "pagan" motives from it and replacing them with proper Orthodox rhetoric.

6. In Persons. There is one more interesting fragment, which gives a unique opportunity to trace exactly how the original, very specific story about the victory on the Don was reworked into an edifying and soulful story that - I will allow myself a drop of irony - the life-giving cross can create.

Before citing data C, it is necessary to refer to the lengthy chronicle Tale (hereinafter - L), which describes the very beginning of the battle as follows: the prince left for the great regiment. And behold, Mamaev's army is great, all power is Tatar. And from then on, the great prince Dmitry Ivanovich with all the Russian princes, having sent out regiments, will go against the rotten Polovtsi and with all their warriors. " Below, when describing the losses, it is reported: the Grand Duke "fought with the Tatars in the face, standing in front of the first suim", refusing to stand "nowhere in the oprishne place."

Because of this, he almost died: "The right hand and his squad were his bishya, he himself was around the ostupish obapols, and a lot of stress hit his head, and on his splash, and in his womb. [17. S. 142, 143].

In K, a similar text is placed in the scene of Dmitry Ivanovich's search that is absent in L: “And soon his armor was all beaten and sore, but on his body nowhere would he find mortal wounds, Tatars fought a lot. " Further, the narrator informs about Dmitry's refusal to move to the "oprichnaya" place and returns to the previous topic: "Yes, like a speech, do this, first of all you start with the Tatars, but the right hand and oshuyu ostupish his Tatars, like water, and a lot on his head and on his splash and in his womb it beats and stabbing and cutting”[14. P. 63].

There is one significant difference between L and K: K states that the Grand Duke did not just participate in the first clash with the Tatars, but fought “first of all,” and this was repeated twice. Consequently, L's data that he was "running ahead of Telyak" are quite reliable. And although this circumstance is somewhat blurred by an episode of a scene of persuading him to go to a safe place (for example, in K: "He has a lot of verb riches and governors"), the suspicion arises that K and L have preserved - albeit fleetingly, each source in its own way - a fact, which later they wanted to hide, or at least not to advertise very much: the Grand Duke who went to the "watchman" for some reason attacked the Tatars, as a result of which his detachment was defeated, and Dmitry Ivanovich himself had to fight back almost alone: the Tatars, according to the description, they surrounded him, "like water". The question is: who could have seen it, if it happened during the battle, if Dmitry was barely found after the battle? Such a colorful description was preserved most likely because it happened in front of thousands of soldiers.

And here it is necessary to turn to S, first noting the sequence of events in O and U (textologically close to Persons): the Grand Duke changes clothes, takes out the life-giving cross from his "nadr", then the ambassador from Sergius of Radonezh comes to him with books and bread, having eaten which Dmitry takes an iron club in his hands and wants to personally go to battle with the Tatars. The boyars start to object. After speculations about Saint Theodore Tyrone and other very important things at the decisive moment, Dmitry nevertheless decides to go into battle: "if I die, with you, if I save myself, with you." Further, it tells how the Vsevolozhi brothers lead the leading regiment into battle, with the right hand the regiment is led by Mikula Vasilyevich, with the left hand - Timofey Voluyevich; then it is said about the wandering Obapol Tatars, about Mamai's exit to the hill with three princes, then about how a huge Pecheneg rode forward in front of the close converging forces, which Peresvet collided with in a duel; after that, the slaughter began. Wu basically repeats the general outline, but after the theological "dispute" he gives the original phrase: "And the advanced police will come out on us, and our forward regiment will come out"; further, in a distorted form, it is said about the Vsevolozhi (omitted, in particular, Timofey Voluyevich), about someone wandering "obapol", about a godless tsar in a high place and, finally, about the duel of a "liver" with Peresvet [18. S. 42–43; 9, pp. 174–177].

Persons. transmits a similar text to U in a much more serviceable and, apparently, in its original form. It is fundamentally important that here the order of events is presented in a completely different way than usual. After Dmitry Ivanovich handed over "his own" (not "royal", by the way!) And the horse to Mikhail Bryanskiy, it follows:

“The leading regiments have converged. Rottenness wanders against them, there is no place where they give in, only a lot of them have gathered. The godless tsar Mamai left with his three princes to a place high, seeing the blood of Christianity. Already close to me, the Tatar Pecheneg went out to poison the Pecheneg with the name Kalobey in front of all my husband [s] I was … The son of the Russian, who saw him and was afraid, seeing him, the great prince Dmitry Ivanovich, putting his hand in his [e] bowels and taking out his iron club and moved out of his place, desiring before all people he began to bitisya … " the heroes of rustia "kept him from going into battle on his own - although Dmitry was already" starting to beat "! At the same time, Dmitry expresses the following original, i.e. the thought that is absent in O, L and K: “Is it not I who have been honored by the heavenly king and lord more than all of you and given earthly honor? Nowadays, first of all, my head befits a truncated existence”(L. 76/65).

Then there is a repetition: "and the leading regiments of the Tatar came out and our forward regiment …" (L. 76 / 65ob.), After which half a sheet was torn obliquely in the book. On this sheet there was, apparently, a more detailed story about Peresvet and the "Pecheneg". This follows from a comparison with the usual descriptions of O and U. So on the obverse side of the half-lost sheet 77/66 used to contain most likely the usual mention of the leading regiments of the Moscow boyars (the number of characters in the lost place and in the standard text about this is approximately the same): further on the surviving bottom half of the page, the Pecheneg is mentioned again,whom Peresvet saw and wished to fight with him. The most interesting thing is that despite the loss of half of the sheet, the amount of information that the Faces gives. about Peresvet's “preparation” for a single combat with the “Pecheneg” essentially coincides with what is in the intact texts C: Peresvet is armed with an “Arkhangelsk image” - in O with a “helom”; he asks for forgiveness and blessing. In fact, only the mentions of Abbot Sergius, brother Andrei Osleb and "the child of Jacob", which did not take up much space, have disappeared, although more information should have fit in the lost part of the circulation.

What conclusion should be drawn from all this? First of all, Persons. preserved the remainder of the original text, which was omitted in other versions of C, - about how Dmitry Ivanovich at the very beginning, when the forward regiments were just converging, he himself went to meet the "Pecheneg", who, apparently, was a noble Tatar and, like Dmitry did not go forward alone. According to L, Dmitry's opponent was none other than Mamaev "Tsar Telyak". He and Dmitry probably knew each other by sight, which could have provoked their clash.

In this regard, S. N. Azbelev quite rightly pointed out to me the appropriate place from the legend "About the Godless Mamai", recorded in the 19th century. and ascending not to the currently known C lists, but to an older version of the historical narrative that has not come down to us [1. P. 100]. According to this legend, and contrary to almost all versions C known nowadays, "Prince Dmitry Ivanovich of Zadonsk" himself, taking "a battle mace, goes to see Krovolin the Tatar." At the last moment, however, he exchanges horses "with an unknown warrior" who enters into mortal combat with Krololin. Then history repeats itself: Dmitry Ivanovich again leaves for a duel with another Tatar warrior, but again another "unknown" Russian warrior fights and dies instead of him [8. S. 380–382].

The most important thing is that in many versions of C [18. P.47, 125; 9. S.249; 19. L.95 / 84], in fact, the names of these two warriors are indicated: the Grand Duke saw after the battle lying next to the defeated Peresvet and the "Pecheneg" a certain "deliberate hero Grigory Kapustin". S is silent, however, why he was noted along with the princes and the most noble boyars, which gave rise to a version of a purely accidental appearance of this name [20. S. 190].

However, the similarity of motives between Persons. and the Arkhangelsk legend makes us think that both Alexander Peresvet and Grigory Kapustin accompanied Prince Dmitry when he went to the watchman, the first to collide with the Tatars from Tyulyak's detachment (or Tyulyak himself !?) and the first to die in battle, and the initial story gave a specific description these collisions.

Subsequently, this story was replaced by a pious and completely fantastic description of a monk's duel with the Tatar "Goliath": the author of this forgery did not need the Grand Duke and the "Tsar" Tyulyak as combatants: the role of "Tsar" in C was given to Mamai, and Dmitry Ivanovich did not need to fight with the lowest rank. It was all the easier to make such a substitution because the motive for the substitution existed, apparently, already in the original story: Peresvet, and after him Kapustin, were ahead of the Grand Duke in suim, which means they replaced him with themselves. That is why Peresvet turned out to be a "repairman" and was turned into a monk: thus, the leading and guiding role of the Orthodox Church was emphasized, and the fight itself became a symbol of the confrontation between the Orthodox army and the infidels, whom C calls both "Greeks" and "rotten" - in a word, atheists.

The Value of Persons. consists in the fact that it conveys the intermediate stage of the transformation of the original story into something completely different: on the one hand, it retained the original fragment about the performance of the Grand Duke (and not Peresvet at all) against the "Pecheneg", and on the other hand, it presented an early version of the transformation of the historical narratives in a journalistic text: Dmitry was about to go into battle, but the boyars held him back, and instead of him, a monk sent by Sergius of Radonezh spoke out against "Goliath". Subsequent revisions lost the connection between the persuasion and the symbolic duel: they turned into self-sufficient “microplots”.

Indirect confirmation that this episode is inserted, secondary, is the definition in Persons. Peresvet as a black man "like Volodymer Vsevolozh in the first regiment." Previously, this boyar was mentioned only when describing the Kolomna review, where he, together with his brother Dmitry, was named the voivode of the first (but not “advanced!) Regiment.

When describing the battle, O essentially repeats the Kolomna layout of the boyars between the regiments in its original, "undamaged" form, making one "amendment": giving Mikula Vasilyevich a regiment of his right hand, the later editor provided the forces described at the beginning of the battle with symmetry: what it really was the tenseness of the regiments on the Kulikovo field, he was not interested. In a word, these data O cannot be considered reliable: they characterize the "Kolomna", not the "Don" category.

Noteworthy is also an unusual for the texts of C phrase from Lits.: “And the Pechenegs left the Tatar village to persecute”. This "persecution", which took place between individual soldiers and small detachments, is mentioned in some chronicles and corresponds to the later "Hertz", in which the soldiers demonstrated their military prowess {11}. This word clearly refers to the military vocabulary, which indirectly shows the innocence of any clergyman in this message. This also indirectly speaks of the originality of the data of the Persons. compared to O and U.

7. Original in Faces. the return of the winners from the Don is described. First, it is said more clearly and unambiguously that Dmitry Ivanovich subjugated Ryazan at that moment: “And walking past Ryazan, the great prince commanded Rezan to his own. Hearing that Olgird Litovskiy said to himself: “Oleg Rezansky gave me Moscow, but he lost his Rezan and died his belly”. When Dmitry met in Kolomenskoye, it is said: “and exclaiming all:“Live for many years, my lord, on your land in Ruska and on Rezanskaya”” (L. 97 / 86ob.-98/87, 101/90).

Secondly, it is directly said that, by order of the Grand Duke himself, a synodic was compiled with the names of all those who fell in battle: “And the Great Prince ordered messengers to send throughout the Russian region to the archbishop, and the bishop, and the saint priest in monasteries to archimo [nd] rite and abbot and to the holy abode of the life-giving Trinity to the Monk Abbot Sergius, and to the entire priestly order, ordered them to pray to God for their health and for all the Christ-loving army, and led the sons of the Russian souls killed after the Don to the Senadik to write all over the monastery [m] and to the churches as an inheritance of eternal blessings and the end of the world and ponychis, command them to serve and remember their souls”(L. 99 / 88-100 / 99).

Thirdly, in the general context with the above information, the original chronology of the last campaign is contained. According to Persons, the Grand Duke "will go from the Don to the city of Moscow in the month of October on the 28th day, in memory of Stephen Savait and the holy Great Martyr Poraskovgeya, named Friday," and "Dmitry Ivanovich arrived in Moscow in the month of November on the 8th day, the Cathedral of the Holy Archangel Michael", moreover, “the guests of the surrozene and all black people met Dmitry Ivanovich of Moscow and All Russia in Kolomenskoye, and Metropolitan Cyprian“with the entire ecumenical council”- on the Cauldron (L. 97 / 86ob., 101 / 90-102 / 91). All Christmastide dates of the Persons. accurate, which excludes the possibility of mistakes.

Outwardly, such dates look extremely strange: in comparison with the data, for example, Pech. they are a month late. But it is important that the month is this lunar, 29 and 30 days long, and not at all the usual month of the solar Julian calendar {12}. Since a detailed justification of this will take up a lot of space, I will limit myself to presenting the result: the study showed that the dating of the Persons. there is the fruit of the original lunar dating that existed in the original source; this recalculation was carried out retroactively, and this indirectly testifies in favor of the authenticity of the context in which these dates are placed.

The very content of this context speaks of this quite definitely: the toast “long years, gentleman” is hardly invented in hindsight: after his glorious victory, Dmitry Ivanovich did not live long at all - less than 10 years, which the later writer should have known about, and therefore hardly would write just such a text. It is much more natural to think that this is eyewitness testimony, which was recorded shortly after the battle.

In the same way, there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of both the double indication of the source about the conquest of Ryazan by Dmitry, and the evidence of the compilation of the synodikon: confirmation of this has been preserved in L {13}.

The matter is not limited to these examples. A more detailed textual analysis will most likely confirm that Lits. better than all other versions of C published to date, conveys the text of the original story of the Battle of Kulikovo. The texts that were still in scientific circulation are the fruit of the later revision of the original Tale. Researchers, discovering these late features, erroneously draw on this basis a seemingly logical conclusion about his late origin S. Lits., Represents a fairly early reworking of the original Tale, in which the "religious" interpretation of the events of the war with Mamai was either absent altogether, or there was much smaller in terms of its specific weight. Thus, in C it is necessary to clearly separate the specific description of events from its journalistic framing: the first goes back to the 80s. XIV century, the second - to the turn of the XIV-XV centuries. The rationale for the last statement is a topic for a special study {14}.

_

{1} Specific references to it can be found only in the works of A. K. Zaitsev and A. E. Petrov, published quite recently [6. P. 8; 11 a. P. 61]. However, their appeal to Persons. are pointwise and do not cover its main content. {2} In this book, there is no reference to the 1980 edition at all. {3} Further in the text, only sheet indications are given. The original and most complete readings are marked in italics everywhere. Due to the confusion of the sheets, the manuscript contains double - ink and pencil numbering of sheets. When transferring graphics, "ou" is replaced by "y", "h" - by "e", two dots above the vowels are transmitted as "y", the solid sign at the end of words is omitted. {4} The Epiphany Golutvin Monastery was founded by Sergius of Radonezh [11 … S. 388-390]. The exact date is not known, but the foundation of the white-stone temple found by archaeologists dates back to the second half of the 14th century. [2]. Therefore, the testimony of Persons. can be considered a confirmation that this monastery arose in the 70s. XIV century. {5} Repetitions of this kind are inscriptions to figures. {6} "H" is read presumably. {7} "First", not "forward" regiment - also in the front collection of the RSL., Coll. Museum, No. 3155. See: [9. P. 159]. {8} Hereinafter, the form "gsdr" is revealed as "master". This was substantiated by M. Agoshton [1a. Pp. 185-207]. {9} In the usual versions of S Semyon Melik says: "Already Mamai the Tsar came to Gusin ford and we have one night between us, in the morning we are afraid to come to Nepryadva" [18. P. 38]. It is important that this text omits "Kuzmina gat" and is simpler than the Lits version. Therefore, of the two formally possible versions, providing for the simplification of the text (O, Pec., Etc.) and its complication (Pers.), Preference should be given to the second: what motive should have moved the editor to alter the original text in this way? Rather, the scribe, who met twice the mention of "Kuzmina Gati", simply threw it away in one case, and "passed on" other toponyms to Mamai. {10} In U, the verb is lost: "For the sake of turning the carcass of the corpses of the dead, the obapols of the Nepryadnya river, but it was impassable, that is, deep, fill the corpse of the rotten" [9. P. 182]. {11} One of the episodes of the Kazan capture of 1552: “The sovereign ordered his regiment to stand spontaneously, and with them not beating and commanding not a single person to drive travitz” [18. S. 504; 16. S. 521]. The link of possible skeptics to the later origin of this text can hardly be considered solid: such details can only be contained in very detailed descriptions of battles, and there are not so many of them in the annals. {12} For the recalculation method, see [5]. {13} “Prince Dmitriy send a host to Olga about that. And all of a sudden, the boyars of Ryazan came to him and told him that Prince Oleg damaged his land and ran with the princess, and with the children, and the boyars. And he prayed for him a lot about seven, so that he would not send rati to them, and they themselves bish him with their foreheads and dress in a row with him. The prince, however, obeying them and accepting their petition, host not the ambassador to them, but put their governors on the Ryazan reign”[17. S. 143-144]; "… and inii many, their names are written in the books of animals" [13. Stb. 467]. {14} This issue is discussed in detail in the Book. 2 of my monograph [5a].

SOURCES AND REFERENCES:

1. Azbelev S. N. Historicism of epics and the specificity of folklore. L., 1982.1a. Agoshton M. The Grand Ducal Seal of 1497. To the History of the Formation of Russian State Symbols. M., 2005 2. Altshuller B. L. Pillarless churches of the 14th century in Kolomna // Soviet archeology. 1977. No. 4.3. Dal V. I. Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language. T.4. M., 1980.4. Dmitriev L. A. Miniatures "Tales of the Mamaev Battle" // Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature. T.22. M.; L., 1966.4a. Dmitriev L. A. Review of editions of the Legend of the Mamaev Massacre // Tale of the Battle of Kulikovo. M., 1959, 5. Zhuravel A. V. The lunar-solar calendar in Russia: a new approach to the study // Astronomy of ancient societies. M., 2002.5a. Zhuravel A. V. "Aki lightning on a rain day." Book. 1-2. M., 2010.6. Zaitsev A. K. Where was the "place recommended by Birch", "Legends of the Mamay massacre" // Upper Don region: Nature. Archeology. History. T.2. Tula, 2004. 7. Mazurov A. B. Medieval Kolomna in the XIV - first third of the XVI centuries. M., 2001.8. Russian folk tales by A. N. Afanasyev. T.2. L., 1985.9. Monuments of the Kulikovo cycle. SPb, 1998. 10. Literary monuments of Ancient Russia. XI - early XII century. M., 1978.11. Literary monuments of Ancient Russia. XIV - mid-15th century. M., 1981.11a. Petrov A. E. "Alexandria Serbian" and "The Legend of the Battle of Mamaev" // Ancient Rus. Questions of medieval studies. 2005. No. 2.12. PSRL. T.2. M., 2000, 13. PSRL. T.6. Issue 1. M., 200014. PSRL. T.11. M., 2000.15. PSRL. T.13. M., 2000.16 PSRL. T.21. M., 2005.17. PSRL. T.42. SPb., 2002.18. Legends and stories about the Battle of Kulikovo. L., 1982.19. The Legend of the Mamayev Massacre. Front manuscript of the 17th century. from the collection of the State Historical Museum. M., 1980.20. Shambinago S. K. The story of the Mamayev massacre. SPb., 1906.