?
Опыт изучения Киевской летописи К. Н. Бестужевым-Рюминым в контексте современного источниковедения
The article examines the main theses of Konstantin N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin concerning the history of the Kyivan Сhronicle: the possibility of identifying individual local chronicles, including a text, written in the Chernigov Principality, and separate legends by "ripping" the text, as well as the problem of the correlation of the Hypatian and the Laurentian Chronicles’ texts for the 12th century. The article also gives a brief overview of the Kyivan Chronicle studies over the last one hundred and fifty years (works by I. D. Belyaev, I. P. Khrushchov, A. A. Shakhmatov, I. P. Eremin, D. S. Likhachev, A. N. Nasonov, Yu. A. Limonov, B. A. Rybakov, V. Yu. Franchuk, T. L. Vilkul, V. Yu. Aristov, Yu. S. Yurjeva are especially important). Each of them proposed their own solutions of those problems, and many discussions are far from final stage. Particularly difficult is the explanation of the duplicated notes of the Kyivan Chronicle, as well as the problem of the common entries of the Laurentian and the Hypatian Chronicles, which, in turn, force us to ask questions of changes in the character of the compiler’s work at different time stages, the question of the original form of the Chernigov texts, as well as of the late editing of the whole text. K.N. BestuzhevRyumin stood at the origins of the comprehensive analysis of the medieval Rus chronicles, but despite the complexity and untouched nature of this field, he managed to make a number of observations that are of great value even today. For example, he correctly pointed out that duplicates in the Kyivan Chronicle and the common entries in the Hypatian and the Laurentian Chronicles for the 12th century in a number of cases have slight discrepancies in factography, which indicate that the editor compounded two sources, he did not expand or reduce one of them using the text of the other. K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin examined in detail the boundaries and editor’s methods of compiling the Chernigov texts with the text of the “story” written by a supporter of Izyaslav Mstislavich in the Kyivan Chronicle’s text for the late 1140s. He also raised the question of the methodology of determining the time that separates an event from its writing down, and how fully the author could record details. He made some assumptions about the degree of the chronicler’s dispassion.