Joachim Chronicle

All information about the history of the text comes from V. N. Tatishchev himself . Collecting ancient Russian manuscripts , he turned to his relative Melchizedek (Borshchov), archimandrite Bizyukova of the monastery of Smolensk province. He sent three notebooks in May 1748, supposedly belonging to the monk Veniamin, “ who worked on the collection of Russian history, collected many Russian and Polish books in many monasteries and houses ”. Tatishchev described the notebooks this way: “ These notebooks show that the letters 4, 5, and 6 were removed from the book, the letter is new, but thin, the warehouse is old mixed with new, but the most simple and Novgorod dialect .”

When Melchizedek passed away in September 1748 , the traces of the source from which the notebooks were written off were lost. Another monk told Tatischev, who was trying to find Benjamin, that the book belonged to Melchizedek himself and that he wrote it off in Siberia.

Tatishchev came to the conclusion that Benjamin did not exist, and at his disposal was the text of the annals written by Bishop Joachim at the beginning of the XI century . “ Between such unknown to Nestor and forgotten historians is Joachim, the first bishop of Novgorod , who, although nowhere to write history, is not mentioned, but it is not marvelous, for we see many others .”

At our disposal there is only the text of Tatishchev's extracts made in 1748 . The historian did not literally reproduce the text of the original, but in the part devoted to the events of the 9th-10th centuries, he mentioned in the form of a free retelling only information that, in his opinion, diverged from the " The Tale of Bygone Years ." Most fully Tatishchev reproduced the story in the first person (presumably Joachim) about the baptism of Novgorod . Researchers pay attention to the differences between the draft manuscripts of V. N. Tatishchev and the published text of the "Ioakimov Chronicle", as well as a link to its non-existent place. Thus, the text of the "annals" was changed by Tatishchev in the course of his work.

1. The legend of Scythian and Sloven , the foundation of the “great city”. It has parallels, as Tatishchev himself noted, with the “Tale of Slovene and Rus” ( XVII century ). Also contains links to the poet Juvelius and Greek legends. It contains many Hellenisms: Scythians , Illyria , Thrace , Bastarn, Pontus , Meotis , Alazoni, Amazonian. The legend is known from the Russian chronicles of the 17th century , but usually Rus also appears in it, which is absent in the Joachim annals.
2. The Legend of Vandal , Vladimir, Buryevoy , Gostomysl and the calling of Rurik . There are links to songs and novels. They have an abundance of Germanisms, including Scandinavian names: Vandal, Barmia , Gardorik , Gunigar, Kolmogard , Zimegol. This part contains an element of geographical orientation, characteristic of the Scandinavian sagas : “And there was Prince Vandal, ruled the Slavs, going everywhere to the north, east and west by sea and land, having conquered many lands on the coast of the sea and conquered peoples, returned to the Great City” . The presence of Scandinavian motives can be explained by the time the chronicle was written: during the reign of Yaroslav , married to the Swedish princess Ingergerd , there were many Scandinavian (Swedish and Norwegian) mercenaries, which corresponds to the life of Joachim . The names of the princes, except for Rurik and Gostomysl , are not found in other sources. The story of Gostomysl is often compared with the "Legend of Sloven and Rus and the city of Slovensk" , which mentions Prince Izbor , famous for the Ioakimov Chronicle.
3. “On the Princes of the Old Russian Ones”: Rurik , Askold , Oleg , Igor , Olga , Svyatoslav , Yaropolk , Oleg and Vladimir . Tatishchev , selected those parts of the text that diverged from Nestor , rewrote them, indicating the places where Joachim wrote “in agreement” or “almost” with Nestor. So the author writes about the sources of information on some princes: “The name of these axes is unknown ... unless they remember in the songs of the ancients ,” - contrasting oral and written sources. Also in this part are visible traces of the original text. Information about Askold is partially missing, Tatishchev wrote: " Here it is signed on the side: 2 sheets were lost in the chronicler ." In one place about Svyatoslav, the author indicates "it is spoken," that is, "as the source says." Tatishchev reports new information about the origin of Rurik (son of the Varangian prince from the daughter of Gostomysl ) and Princess Olga (from the clan of Gostomysl ).
   The information in this part concerns the history of Christianity in Russia, in particular, it gives details of the baptism of Askold , Olga, and Vladimir that are different from the “Tale of Bygone Years”. The author negatively assesses the pagan Svyatoslav and sympathizes with the pro-Christian Yaropolk . The description of the reign of Vladimir contains information about an earlier period - the reign of the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon: “After that, Vladimir went to the Bulgars and, having defeated them, concluded the world and was baptized by himself and his sons, and baptized all Russian land. The Bulgarian king Simeon sent priests of scientists and books in sufficient quantity. " The same insertion speaks of Joachim in the third person: “The Metropolitan, on the advice of Vladimir, put bishops in the cities of Rostov , Novegrad , Vladimir and Belegrad . These people who walked the earth from a nobleman with an army of Vladimirov taught people and baptized everywhere in hundreds and thousands, as many as succeeded where, although unfaithful people mourned and regretted it very much, but did not dare to refuse because of the soldiers . ”
4. About the baptism of Novgorod . The story is conducted in the first person. “ We stood on the trading side, walked along the streets and streets, taught people as much as we could ... And so we stayed for two days, dubbed several hundred .”
5. About the wives and sons of Vladimir. The list of the distribution of sons by city is made according to seniority and coincides with the list of "Tales of Bygone Years" under 6496 (988), but the "Tale" contains two provisions in the distribution of cities - until the death of Vysheslav and after it, the text of the Ioakimov annals only says primary distribution and indicates the name of the mother of Boris and Gleb , which is not in the "Tale".

The Joachimian Chronicle is devoid of absolute chronology in years, characteristic of the "Tale of Bygone Years . " The relative chronology of the princes is used.

Dating events "on the knees" of the rulers is characteristic of the oral tradition. It is also characteristic of the Scandinavian sagas. Traces of a similar exposition are available in The Tale of Bygone Years and The Word on Igor's Campaign. The Joachim Chronicle speaks of generations of Slovenian princes from Vandal to Gostomysl .

The relative chronology by years during the reign of a monarch is characteristic of Byzantine historiography and also, according to researchers, for the early stage of Russian annals (until the 60-70s of the XI century). She is present in the “Memory and Praise to Prince Vladimir” by Jacob Mnikh and in the so-called “List” of the principalities of the “Tale of Bygone Years”. There is a relative date in the Joachim annals: “ Rurik, after the death of his brothers, possessed all the land, having no war with anyone. In the fourth summer of his reign, he moved from the old to the New City, the great to Ilmen ... ”In the“ Tale of Bygone Years ”this date is reflected in the division of the year of the brothers’ calling and their death “in two years”. In addition, information about the campaigns of the princes, which are divided in different years in the Tale (so sometimes one campaign lasted for several years), is given in the Joachim Chronicle as an enumeration of the peoples on whom the campaigns were made.

The information of the Ioakimov Chronicle has parallels in other chronicles and non-chronic sources, which may indicate both the antiquity of its information and the late borrowing by a falsifier.

Disputes about the reliability of notebooks began since the time of Tatishchev.

Starting with M. M. Shcherbatov (1789), the idea of ​​the Joachim annals as a fake was established in science. The historiographer Karamzin considered Tatishchev's joke, emphasizing his words “ Veniamin the monk is only fictitious to close ” and arguing that the annals were false with information from there about Anna, the wife of Vladimir the Baptist , as a Bulgarian princess. N. M. Karamzin also believed that a passage from the Joachim Chronicle was gleaned from the book “On the Antiquities of the Russian State” (1699) by Timofei Kamenevich-Rvovsky ^[8] .

The opponent of Shcherbatov was I. N. Boltin. The historian S. M. Solovyov in “History of Russia from Ancient Times” speaks of Tatishchev’s news in general: “a collection of Tatishchev’s annals, the authenticity of which there is no reason to doubt ” ^[9] . P. A. Lavrovsky suggested that the chronicle was written by a contemporary of the baptism of Russia in the X century .

Church historian of a critical direction, E. E. Golubinsky, considered her a collection of 17th-century legends in Tatishchev’s compilation. I. Linnichenko, like most subsequent scholars, sees in the Joachim Chronicle not Tatishchev’s “joke”, but one of the versions of historical legends that were widespread in the 17th and 18th centuries. S. K. Chambinago compared the Joachim Chronicle with the Novgorod Third Chronicle, suggesting that it was compiled on the basis of the "Tale of the Old Princes", supplementing the Novgorod Chronicle, and written in turn on the initiative of the Metropolitan Joachim of Novgorod (1621-1690), the future the patriarch. Chambinago also indicated a late cinnabar inscription on the Commission List of the Novgorod First Annals: " Annals of the Akim of the Bishop of Novgorod ." This allowed O. V. Tvorogov to conclude that the Joachim Chronicle is included in the circle of legendary stories of the 17th century , when the authorship of Joachim was attributed to a certain group of them ^[10] .

In general, in the historiography of the 20th century, the Ioakimov Chronicle was considered the most dubious of the so-called "Tatishchev news". Но при этом сложилась практика, допускающая осторожное (с обязательными оговорками) обращение историков к её сведениям.

Среди признаков позднего происхождения отмечалось, что «сон Гостомысла » использован Татищевым для оправдания передачи трона по женской линии после смерти Петра I . Само упоминание Гостомысла говорит о позднем происхождении Иоакимовской летописи, так как его имя впервые появляется в русских источниках в конце XV века , хотя во франкских хрониках встречается созвучное имя вождя вендов ^[11] .

Б. А. Рыбаков с оговорками ссылается на текст Татищева, называя сведения о крещении Новгорода местными легендами и поговорками. Он называет летопись « компилятивным источником XVII века », но признает « что у составителя Иоакимовской летописи мог быть в руках какой-то недошедший до нас более ранний источник, сообщавший сведения, часть которых блестяще подтверждена археологическими данными ». ^[12] Этими данными Рыбаков считал раскопки в Киеве , обнаружившие, что « постамент идолов киевских языческих богов, поставленный в самом центре княжеского Киева, был вымощен плинфой и фресками христианского храма, разрушенного до 980 г. ». Этот памятник был интерпретирован Я. Е. Боровским и Д. Н. Козаком как остатки христианских церквей, разрушенных по Иоакимовской летописи Святославом ^[13] .

The most significant step for the further study of the Ioakimovsky chronicle was the excavations of V.L. Yanin in Novgorod, which were carried out according to the Ioakimovsky chronicle relating to the events of the baptism of the city. Excavations around the Church of the Transfiguration, mentioned in the text, showed that in 989 new ones were built on the site of the burned houses, which confirms the information about the arson of houses by the governor Dobrynya . In the conflagration of the houses, treasures of silver coins no younger than 989 were found , the owners of which, apparently, were killed, which confirms the story of the suppression of the uprising. A pectoral cross was found in layers 972–989, which also confirms the information in the annals about the Christian community of Novgorod. Yanin notes “the presence in the story of certain realistic details that find archaeological confirmation”, this “allows us to consider that its appearance in the middle of the 15th century was based on some rather stable ancient tradition” ^[14] . Back in 1988, Ioannina was supported by O. M. Rapov , who compared the information of the Nikon chronicle under 6498 with the data of dendrochronology - the information of the Ioakimov chronicle is not called into question ^[15] . A.V. Nazarenko (2001), with reservations, drew in his constructions the data of the Ioakimov Chronicle on sympathies for Christianity of Yaropolk Svyatoslavich . In 2018, the version of Ioannina was challenged as based on speculation and exaggeration that arbitrarily interpreted or biased archaeological data; it is also indicated that Yanin ignored the history of the text of the Joachim Chronicle in Tatishchev’s manuscripts: in the early edition there was no news of the arson of houses ^[16] .

The historian S.V. Alekseev criticized the part of the "Joachim Chronicle" that tells about the baptism of Novgorod, pointing out the internal contradictions of the text and the discrepancy with other Novgorod sources and archaeological data. He paid special attention to the inserts of V. N. Tatishchev, which were absent in the manuscript of the historian (in extracts) and appeared in the final text. In particular, the insert turned out to indicate that the rebellion against baptism was led by the pagan priest Bogomil, nicknamed the Nightingale ^[17] .

In 2005-2006, underwater excavations were carried out in Veliky Novgorod to identify the remains of the Great Bridge through the Volkhov, the earliest mention of which is contained in the Ioakimov Chronicle in the text on the baptism of Novgorod in 991. Then it was possible to find the supports of the bridge of the XIII-XIV centuries, which gave S. Troyanovsky and other participants in the project confidence in the possibility of detecting structures of the XI-XII centuries. If you trust the text of the Ioakimov Chronicle, the bridge was built simultaneously with the lower tier of the Novgorod bridges in the 970–980s, and archaeologists can both confirm this information and refute it. Confirmation of the existence of a bridge over the Volkhov in the X century was found in April 2018, when underwater archaeologists discovered a pentagonal log-block logged in stone, 170 meters from the Great Bridge upstream of the Volkhov River. Radiocarbon analysis of log houses samples carried out in the isotope research laboratory of Russian State Pedagogical University A.I. Herzen, showed that the age of this bridge, which crossed the Volkhov riverbed between St. Nicholas Cathedral on the Yaroslav Yard and the lost Cathedral of Boris and Gleb in the Novgorod Detets , can be approx. 1060 years ^[18] , that is, it was built in the X century - the trees completed their growth in approximately 959 ± 25 years ^{[19] [20] [21]} .

In a study by A. P. Tolochko (2005) published in Kiev (2005), the author concludes that the Ioakimov Chronicle was entirely created by Tatishchev (her information, from the author’s point of view, “confirms” a number of conjectures made by Tatishchev before its discovery and contains facts , which could be known only to Tatishchev, but not to the medieval chronicler). A. P. Tolochko points to the presence of V. N. Tatishchev in another volume of his work a reference to the non-existent place of the Ioakimov annals ^[22] . Opponents of the obsolescence of the Joachim annals also claim that there is no textual evidence of its authenticity, and archaeologically corroborated data referenced by Joachim apologists is doubtful for them (“construction waste” in Kiev and “traces of fire” in Novgorod). In turn, S.V. Koncha replied to Tolochko’s criticism with a counter article, which states that his criticisms are entirely based on assumptions ^[23] , while a number of facts cited in the Joachim annals could not be known to Russian historians of the 18th century, but confirmed by other sources. A.P. Tolochko, relying on the only word “to grumble”, which is present once in the Ioakimov annals and in the Radzivilov list, claims that “the author of the Ioakimov annals owned Tatishchev’s individual dictionary”, which implies that Tatishchev was its author. However, from modern dictionaries ^[24] , which were not yet in the days of Tatishchev, it is clear that in both cases the word was used to denote a narrow gorge punched in the hard ground by the Dnieper waters directly near the rapids. In other annals, the word “protrude” occurs in other forms (“protruding”, “protruding”) ^[25] .

One of the arguments of late origin is considered Scandinavian motifs present in the text. Their presence may be due to the fact that the author of the XI century used the information of the Scandinavians who served no later than 1019 at the court of Yaroslav the Wise , who was married to the Swedish princess Ingergerd . In this case, authorship of Joachim Korsunyanin himself , who died in 1030, is permissible, and the Joachimian chronicle can be considered as a later exposition of his historiographical work.

However, S.V. Koncha in his article on the Scandinavian elements in the text of the Joachim Chronicle provides convincing evidence of the late origin of toponyms found in the part about Gostomysl. The author showed that this information goes back to the correspondence of V. N. Tatishchev and his Swedish contractor E. Yu. Biorner, a specialist in Scandinavian and Latin texts. It contains, in particular, the toponyms Colmogardia (Kolmogard in the annals) and Kymenegardia (Kumen in the annals), borrowed from European geographical descriptions of Russia of the 17th century. In the light of this discovery, the historian proposes to re-examine the text of the Joachim Chronicle to find out all its sources. In particular, he doubts that V. N. Tatishchev could write sections of the chronicle describing the history of the 10th century ^[26] . The description of the Danube campaign of Svyatoslav testifies to the author's acquaintance with Byzantine sources (Deacon and Skilitsa), to which Tatishchev could not have access.

• Tale of Bygone Years
• Chronicles of Russia
• Complete collection of Russian chronicles

• Azbelev S. N. To the study of the Ioakimov Chronicle // Novgorod Historical Collection . SPb., 2003. Issue. 9 (19).
• Azbelev S. N. In defense of the Ioakimov Chronicle // Honest and formidable Ivan Vasilyevich: On the occasion of the 70th birthday of I.V. Levochkin . M., 2004.
• Alekseev S.V. Sources of the Joachim Chronicle // Historical Review. Issue 3. - M., 2002.
• Alekseev S.V. Literary and archaeological sources about the baptism of Novgorod // Knowledge. Understanding. Skill - 2005. - No. 2 . - S. 189-195 .
• Gorovenko A. V. The Story of the Ioakimov Chronicle about the Baptism of Novgorod: Can Archeological Data Refute Textological Conclusions? // Valla. Volume 4, No 5 (2018). - S. 1-16.
• Gorovenko A. V. Vasily Tatishchev and the “ancient annals”: ​​pre-Mongol Russia through the eyes of the first Russian historian. - St. Petersburg: Oleg Abyshko Publishing House, 2019 .-- 416 p. - 300 copies - ISBN 978-5-6041671-6-8 . - S. 298-321.
• Morgailo V. M. The work of V. N. Tatishchev on the text of the Joachim Chronicle // Archaeographic Yearbook for 1962 - M., 1963. - P. 260-268.

• Azbeliev S. N. Novgorod Joachim Chronicle | Reformat.ru (Posted on 12/10/2016)
• Russian-Scandinavian relations of the middle of the IX century - an article by Yu. V. Konovalov.
• Tatishchev V. N. On the History of Joachim
• Joachim, Bishop of Novgorod | Electronic Publications of the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) RAS