The culture of the three fraternal peoples-Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian-developed on the basis of the achievements of the culture of the Ancient Russian state. Its vivid manifestation, original monuments of writing, social thought and sources were the chronicles. The original centers of the ancient Russian chronicle were Kiev and Novgorod. The oldest chronicle that has survived to our time is the Tale of Bygone Years, which tells about Ancient Russia until the end of the XII century.

Feudal fragmentation of the 12th-13th centuries led to the end of the general Ancient Russian chronicle and its development in local centers-Vladimir-on-Klyazma, Suzdal, Rostov, Chernihiv, Galich, Vladimir-Volyn, Turov, Polotsk, etc. Along with them, the chronicle continued to exist in Kiev and Novgorod. The Old Russian chronicle had a significant influence on subsequent chronicle texts (XIV - XVII centuries) in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, both in terms of form, architectonics, purposefulness, and use of plots of Old Russian history. A monument of the Southern Russian chronicle, which reflected the events of the XI-XIII centuries, is the Old Russian chronicle code, which has come down to our time in the Ipatiev, Khlebnikov and other chronicles. The collection includes the chronicles of the Principality of Kiev in 1200, the Chernihiv chronicles of Prince Igor Svyatoslavich, the hero of the "Lay of Igor's Regiment", and the Galician-Volyn chronicles.

The invasion of Batu hordes in Russia in the XIII century caused irreparable damage to the monuments of ancient Russian culture. The only one of the southwestern Russian lands that remained independent was the Galician-Volhynian Principality, where the chronicle continued, completed in 1292. In the XIV - XV centuries, three new ethnic groups were formed on the basis of the Old Russian - Great Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian, between which ties were preserved 1 . The unification of the Russian lands around Moscow, the heroic struggle of the Russian people against the Horde yoke, the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380, and the formation of the Russian centralized state were crucial in the history of Eastern European peoples.

In a complex political and international situation, taking advantage of the weakening and disunity of Russia, the neighboring states-Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania - intensified their expansion in relation to the Ukrainian and Belarusian lands in the XIV - XV centuries. Polish feudal lords captured Galician Rus (1340, 1349, 1387), part of Western Volhynia (1377), and Western Podolia (1430). Transcarpathian Ukraine was captured by Hungarian feudal lords in the XIII-XIV centuries. Most of the Ukrainian lands fell under the rule of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania during the 14th century. Since it was composed of Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian lands during the period of greatest greatness 9/10, the Old Russian language (with elements of folk Ukrainian and Belarusian) became official, which favorably affected the development of the culture of the East Slavic peoples and contributed to their mutual enrichment. For this reason, the annals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania are both the property of the Republic of Lithuania and the Republic of Lithuania.

1 Крипякевич І. П. Зв'язки західноукраїнсьских земель з Росією до середини XVII в. Kiev, 1953; Pashuto V. T., Florya B. N., Khoroshkevich A. L. Drevnerusskoe nasledie i istoricheskie sudby vostochnogo slavstva [Ancient Russian Heritage and Historical destinies of Eastern Slavs], Moscow, 1982; Kovalsky N. P. Istochnikovedenie istorii ukrainsko-russkikh svyazi (XVI - first half of the XVII century). Dnepropetrovsk. 1985.

page 81

Ukrainian, Russian, and Belarusian cultures2, although their differentiation is further enhanced, it is planned to allocate their own chronicle texts and plots. At the same time, it is noted that the chronicles of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania contain news on the history of Russia and Ukraine, while the Ukrainian chronicles contain stories on the history of Russia and Belarus.

There are no original monuments of the Ukrainian chronicle dating back to the 14th century. However, the sources sometimes contain indirect traces of the chronicle art of that period. So, there are references to the Mukachevo chronicle of the XIV - XV centuries, created in Transcarpathia. One of the lists of the Gustyn chronicle contains an indication that its main source - the Chronicle of Nestor-was copied in 1340 in Kiev3 . In addition, then and later (XV - XVII centuries), foreign historical works were distributed in originals and translations, mainly by Polish chroniclers, especially B. Wapovsky, M. Mechovsky, M. Kromer, M. and I. Velsky, M. Stryjkovsky, A. Guagnini, etc. According to the definition of the pre-revolutionary slavist I. Pervolf, at that time "we do not find so much information about other Slavic peoples in any other Slavic people's historiography as in the Polish historical literature." 4 This applies equally to the history and geography of Ukrainian lands. The process of enriching historical information was mutual. Subsequently, the compilers of Ukrainian chronicles widely attracted news from the works of Polish chroniclers, and the latter used monuments of Ukrainian historiography as sources. The same applies to the annals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

The first monument to reflect the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was the Chronicler of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania, created from the end of the XIV to the 20s of the XV century. It contains news about the history of Ukrainian lands, in particular the Principality of Kiev, but of particular interest is the story "About the Podolsk land" 5 . It covers the past of Podillia, starting with the liberation of this land from the Horde yoke by the Grand Duke of Lithuania Olgerd as a result of the victory at the Blue Waters in 1363, to the events of the early 30s of the XV century. It was also told about the transfer of Podillia to the inheritance of Prince Koriat and his descendants, about their urban planning and military activities. The creation of the story dates back to the first half of the XV century. The monument established the rights of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania to Podillia. At the same time, this story proved the justice of the struggle carried out by Orthodox Lithuanian, Belarusian and Ukrainian feudal lords led by Svidrigailo during his stay on the Grand ducal throne (1430 - 1432) and later (1432 - 1440) against the Polish Kingdom and the Lithuanian feudal lords oriented towards it. It is characteristic that in this struggle Svidrigailo was supported by the masses of Volhynia and Podillia, who did not want the establishment of Polish magnates and gentry in the southern lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

In 1446, the first chronicle of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was created. It was preceded by an extensive introduction that covered the history of Kievan Rus since ancient times, as well as the history of the Muscovite and Lithuanian states. In the 1920s of the 16th century, a new attempt was made to write the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The second Chronicle of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Zhomoyt appeared on the basis of the first chronicle. The second, lengthy version of this code appeared in the 40s, and the third, most complete-in the 50s of the XVI century .6 The interest of the creator of the second chronicle to the Gediminas and the Lithuanian aristocracy did not prevent him from including in his work a number of subjects on the history of Ancient Russia and the Ukrainian lands of the XIV - early XVI century. Their sources were ancient Russian chronicles, primarily Galician-Volhynian, as well as local ones. Thus, in the lengthy version of the second codex, best represented in the Rumyantsev and Tikhonravovskaya chronicles, there are sections under the titles: "About Grand Duke Gediminas and about the Russian Empire".

2 See Ulashchik N. N. Belarusian-Lithuanian Chronicle. Voprosy istorii, 1984, No. 12.

3 Department of Manuscripts of the Central Scientific Library of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR in Kiev (OR TSNB), N 315/687, l. 2.

4 Pervolf I. Slavyane, ikh vzaimodeystviya i svyazi [Slavs, their mutual relations and connections]. 1888, p. 101.

5 PSRL. Vol. 35. Moscow, 1980, pp. 65-67, 159-160.

6 Чамярыцкі В. А. Беларускія летапісы як помніки літературы. Minsk, 1969, pp. 134-135.

page 82

the battle with Prince Volodimir of Volodimir", "About Prince Stanislaw of Kiev", which described the history of Gediminas ' conquest of Kiev, Vladimir-Volynsky, Lutsk, Zhytomyr and other cities in 1320. In the same code there is information about the struggle of Vytautas with the Kievan Prince Vladimir Olgerdovich; about the unsuccessful battle of the Lithuanian troops with the Horde near the Vorskla river in 1399; about the reconquest of Dashk (Danil) Fyodorovich Kremenets from the Polish troops and the liberation of Svidrigailo from captivity in 1418; on the capture of Kiev by Mengli-Giray Khan in 1482; on the Battle of Sokal in 1519, etc. 7 .

A special place in the Ukrainian chronicle belongs to the Short Volyn Chronicle. It is part of the collection of the beginning of the XVI century, the first part of which is an all-Russian chronicle covering the events from the settlement of the East Slavic tribes to 1382 (the destruction of Moscow by Tokhtamysh); the second part is a collection, the history of which is presented in the following form. In 1498-1517 the Metropolitan of Kiev was Joseph Soltan, before that-the bishop of Smolensk. In 1514, a certain clergyman from his entourage made a selection of news related mainly to the history of the Kiev and Smolensk principalities from 882 to the end of the XV century, from some Moscow chronicle. At the same time, much attention was paid to church history, in particular the history of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, various "signs" and "miracles". When the author covered the events of the late 15th and early 16th centuries, he relied mainly on his own impressions. In the Kiev-Smolensk part of the code, he deals with the state of Russian-Lithuanian relations, sympathizing with Ivan III, whom he called "the great autocrat of all the land of Russia", and to some extent condemning the Grand Duke of Lithuania Vytautas and the Polish King Kazimir Yagailovich for the fact that the former "captured" Smolensk, and the latter executed innocent princes Mikhail Olelkovich and Ivan Yuryevich. It should be borne in mind that the political sympathies and antipathies of the chronicler left an imprint on the concept of the Moscow source.

In the same year, 1514, the Kiev-Smolensk part of the codex was merged with another source-a short Volyn Chronicle covering events from 1487 to 1500. The creator of the latter, in all likelihood, was a clergyman of the church in Vladimir-Volyn, close to the Vladimir Bishop Vassian. The range of interests of the author does not extend beyond Volhynia and partly Podillia, the place of action of the events recorded by him is mainly Vladimir-Volynsky, Ostrog, Lutsk, Rovno, Bratslav, Korets, Kremenets and Poloyane. His attention was drawn to two subjects: the struggle of the Volynians against Turkish aggression and events in church history, in particular the election of Makarii as Metropolitan of Kiev in 1495 and his tragic death. The story of the events of 1496-1497 stands out in particular. When describing them, the author used both his own impressions and the testimonies of other eyewitnesses. Thus, recalling the secret meeting of the Polish King Jan Olbracht with the Lithuanian Prince Alexander in 1496, he refers to information he received from "some of their nobles".

A characteristic feature of the worldview of the creator of the Brief Volyn Chronicle is providentialism. He explains the Crimean raid on Volhynia in 1495 as God's wrath and supports his arguments on this subject with references to the Holy Scriptures. He also sees a "sign of God" in the victories won over the Crimean Horde in 1497 by Princes Mikhail and Konstantin Ostrogsky. He condemns King Olbracht for marching into Moldavia and Bukovina, as his troops committed "much evil... to the churches and to the images of God, to commit shame and to the Scriptures."

To the Short Volhynia Chronicle was added (not earlier than 1515) "praise" to Prince Konstantin Ivanovich Ostrog, who was then the Grand Hetman of Lithuania. The author of "praise" was probably a secular person who stood on pro-Nato positions. He admires the victories won by Prince Ostrog, compares him to Antigonus, the general of Alexander the Great, the Armenian king Tigran II the Great, and even with biblical heroes.

In the 1930s: the third national chronicle of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the so-called Bykhovets Chronicle, was created. It provides a more complete coverage of the history of this principality, including the Ukrainian lands under its rule, compared to the First and second arches.

7 PSRL. Vol. 35, pp. 193-214.

8 Ibid., pp. 113-127.

page 83

Both the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian chronicles are characterized by the widespread use of chronographs, which satisfied the increased interest of readers in the events of world history, including the history of the Slavic and Baltic peoples. The first known experience of creating an original chronograph in Ukraine and Belarus dates back to the middle of the XVI century. Then the Vilna Chronograph was rewritten - a set that covered the events of ancient history before the capture of Jerusalem by the Roman emperor Titus in 709 . The chronograph composed between 1550 and 1596, which is sometimes referred to as the "West Russian"chronograph, has become much more popular , 10 although it is more accurate to call it the Ukrainian chronograph of the first edition. A. A. Shakhmatov, V. M. Istrin, and S. P. Rozanov believed that the chronograph of 1442 by the Serbian Pachomius Logothete was used in its creation. According to O. V. Tvorogov, the unknown author came from the Russian chronograph of 1512.

In the Ukrainian chronograph of the First edition, information on biblical and ancient Russian history, the history of the Grand Duchy of Moscow, has been sharply reduced. The greatest attention is paid to the medieval history of the countries of Central and Western Europe, the description of events is brought to 1532. The author drew additional historical material from the Hellenic Chronicler of the second edition, compiled in Suzdal Russia in the first half of the 13th century; from the chronicle of I. Malala, the Life of Stefan Lazarevich, and the Chronicle of the Whole World (1550) by Marcin Velsky 11 . The author of the Ukrainian chronograph of the First edition also tried to put news on its pages that would help the Ukrainian and Belarusian readers in the fight against the advancing Catholicism.

As a result of the Union of Lublin (1569), the Ukrainian and Belarusian lands were under the rule of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which established a regime of severe socio-economic, political, national and religious oppression of the masses. The ruling circles of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Roman Curia tried to weaken the traditional ties between the East Slavic peoples, strengthen their ideological influence, and achieve politisation and Catholicization of the local population. To this end, they held a religious union in 1596. All this caused peasant-Cossack uprisings in Ukraine at the end of the XVI - first half of the XVII century. led by K. Kosinsky, S. Nalyvaiko, M. Zhmaylo, T. Tryashilo, I. Sulima, P. Pavlyuk, Ya. Ostryanin and D. Gunya. In the course of a fierce struggle against foreign oppression, a galaxy of Ukrainian writers and polemicists appeared - I. Vyshensky, H. Filalet, G. and M. Smotritsky, Z. Kopystensky and many others. In their journalistic works, they sharply condemned the policies of the Vatican and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, exposed the Catholic and Uniate clergy, and defended the right of East Slavic peoples to national and religious identity. Their ideas were developed by the chroniclers.

This applies primarily to the Gustyn Chronicle 12 - the first generalizing work on the history of Ukraine. It is also interesting because it reflects the features characteristic of the transition period - from chronicle writing to historical science. The Gustyn chronicle is named after one of the lists created in 1670 by Mikhail Lositsky, hieromonk of the Gustyn Monastery (in the village of Gustyn, now in the city of Pryluka). The author of the chronicle is supposed to have been the polemicist writer Kopystensky (mid-16th century-1627). The original monument has not been found, but about 10 of its lists and editions identified so far allow us to restore its text13 . The chronicle begins with a story about the origin of the East Slavic peoples, as well as their neighbors: Lithuanians, Yatvyags, Khazars, Pechenegs, Tatars, etc. Further, the history of Ancient Russia, especially the Southern Russian principalities, is covered. Events from the end of the 13th century to 1598 are given in fragments.

When writing the Gustyn chronicle, its author had at his disposal a number of

9 Meshchersky N. A. On the issue of dating the Vilna chronograph. - TODRL, 1955, vol. XI, p. 380.

10 PSRL. Vol. XXII, part 2. SPb. 1913.

11 Buganov V. I. Otechestvennaya istoriografiya russkogo letopisaniya [Domestic Historiography of the Russian Chronicle]. Moscow, 1975, p. 303; Tvorogov O. V. Drevnerusskie khronografi [Ancient Russian Chronographs]. Moscow, 1975, p. 191, 198.

12 PSRL. T. 2. SPb. 1843.

13 There are lists of the Gustyn chronicle that have not yet been put into scientific circulation: TsGIA of the USSR, f. 834, op. 3, d. 4053; op. 4, d. 583; OR GPB named after M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, F. XVII. 4.

page 84

printed Polish chronicles of the XVI-XVII centuries, "Palinody", "Prologue", Kiev - Pechersk patericon, chronicle of the Resurrection type, historical traditions and eyewitness accounts. Thanks to the use of sources that have not come down to our time, the chronicle contains a lot of original news. This is especially true for three stories: "About the beginning of the Cossacks", "About changes in the new calendar", "About UNI, how often in the Russian land". In the first of them, the author reproduces the history of the Cossacks, which by the end of the XVI century had become a powerful military and political force. In two others, the chronicler responded to the most pressing issues of public life in Ukraine at the end of the XVI century: the introduction of religious union and the Gregorian calendar, and sharply condemned the policies of the Roman curia, the ruling circles of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and local traitorous feudal lords. The ideas that formed the basis of the Gustyn Chronicle influenced the Ukrainian chronicles of the 17th century, primarily the Kiev Synopsis.

Simultaneously with the Gustyn chronicle, other works were created and distributed: the chronicle code of 1620 of the charter of the Assumption Church on Podil in Kiev, and then the monk Kirill Ivanovich. It describes the history of Ancient Rus, mainly the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra and the Smolensk Principality, as well as the history of Ukraine in the 14th - early 17th centuries. In 1621, this collection was edited and supplemented by the Kiev philistine Bogdan Balyka, who placed in it his historical and autobiographical story "About Moscow and about Dmitry, the False Tsar of Moscow" 14 . Then the collection was supplemented with memoirs of a certain Orthodox nobleman who served" at the side " of Prince S. M. Lyko, about events in Russia in 1607-1610 and in Kiev in 1618-1621, important historical documents .15
Among the chronicles of the early 17th century, a short Galician - Volhynian chronicle covering the events of the 16th and early 17th centuries was popular. Its fragments can be traced in the Kiev and Lviv chronicles, the work of Ya. Binvilsky, and the Ostrog chronicler. The core of the latter was composed no later than 1619 by a Ukrainian Orthodox nobleman. Based on the Chronicle of Poland (1597) by M. and I. Velsky and his own memoirs, he covered events from 1500. Special attention was paid to the struggle of Zaporozhye Cossacks against Turkish-Tatar raids. Not earlier than 1621, the monument was edited by a certain clergyman, who added materials directed against the Catholic Church16 . Later, a new (final) version of the monument was created, which was called the Ostrog Chronicler. Its author was a Ukrainian Orthodox monk, close to the Ostrog Protopop I. Berezhansky. The author made changes to the text of the monument and brought the events to 1637. If the author of the original text was mainly interested in military history, then the author of the new version was characterized by an interest in church affairs. He, an eyewitness of the events, exposes Catholicism and the union, hypocrisy and cruelty of the leaders of the policy of the magnate-gentry of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Vatican, and exalts the struggle of the Ukrainian people against national and religious oppression. This is especially true in the stories about the activities of Metropolitan Peter Mogila and Prince S. Koretsky, the Polochan uprising against the Uniate Archbishop I. Kuntsevich, and the" persecutor of Orthodoxy " Anna Ostrozhskaya.

The author of the chronicle mentions the events that took place in the Prison and its surroundings, in particular, he was attracted by natural disasters, various natural phenomena: "1614. There was a strong storm that went past the Prison from Zaslavl. It was at harvest time, at noon, and then it was as dark as night. The storm crushed virgin forests, broke gardens in villages, as it did in Borisov, Pluzhny and other villages. Several hundred kopecks of the prince's bread were carried away by the storm, just like the peasant's kopecks. Even the people who worked in the fields back then were taller.-

14 Antonovich V. B. Notes of the Kiev philistine Bozhka Balyka on the Moscow Siege of 1612-Kievan Antiquity, 1882, July-September, pp. 97-105.

15 Collection of chronicles related to the history of Southern and Western Russia. Kiev, 1888, pp. 87-92.

16 Scientific Library named after V. G. Korolenko (Kharkiv), Department of Manuscripts, N 819923, pp. 591-602. Another list of the monument was published by S. P. Rozanov (Rozanov S. P. Kroynika 1636 roku. В кн.: Український науковий збірник. Вип. I. М. 1915, с. 21 - 29). An abridged extract from the monument is also known, which was continued until 1649 (Krizhanivsky Village Ruska "Kroynika" z of the XVII century. - Notes of the scientific association im. T. G. Shevchenko, Lviv, 1904, vol. 62).

page 85

revyev. Some were found dead ,but those who clung to the tree and held fast were still alive. Some of them clung tightly to the stubble. If they managed to keep the air flow out of their way, they were still alive, and if they didn't, they were carried away to no one knows where. The storm also broke churches. In the village of Borisov there was a church with three domes. All of them were demolished and dragged away to God knows where along with the log cabin. The same thing happened to the bells, which were not soon found by shepherds in the field, and to the heads covered with white iron. These chapters were later found split into four parts. Everything else was crushed by the storm. " 17
Similar motifs developed in the Lviv Chronicle. Its author, M. Gunashevsky (1600-after 1672), came from a small Orthodox gentry, an educated man. The chronicle was written in 1646, and at the end of 1649 or at the beginning of 1650 it was supplemented with news about the initial stage of the war of liberation. The monument covers all-Ukrainian events of 1539-1649 18 . The main storyline is the anti-feudal national movement of Ukrainians against the oppression of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Union, Catholicism and Turkish aggression. Of particular interest are the stories about the peasant-Cossack uprisings led by T. Tryasilo, P. Pavlyuk and D. Guni.

Close to the Lviv Chronicle is the historical work of Jan Binvilsky (1600-1648), a native of the small Orthodox gentry or from the middle class. It was written in the 30-40s of the XVII century, but not completed and is a collection of extracts from the Polish chronicles, the Old Russian Khlebnikov chronicle, the Story of the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, etc. The most interesting news sources are historical legends, memoirs of the author and the Galician-Volyn chronicle. The annals of Binvilsky 19 tell the history of the southern Russian principalities from ancient times, Ukraine to 1587, then we talk about the history of Poland, starting from the legendary Lech to the modern events of Binvilok, the chronicle ends with news about the history of Kiev and extracts from the Galician-Volyn chronicle, which told about the history of Ukraine from 1575 to 1638.

The most voluminous work of the XIV - XVII centuries is the chronograph of the second edition of "Litopisets si est Kreunik" 20 . It was created by an unknown author no later than the 1920s of the XVII century on the basis of the Ukrainian chronograph of the first edition. In Litopisets, the coverage of world history events was supplemented by a presentation of the national history - Slavenorusskaya Kreunika. The Slavenorusskaya Kreinika contained information about Ancient Russia, primarily about the Southern Russian principalities and Ukraine before 1471. The author had at his disposal printed Polish chronicles, including the Compendium (Lubech, 1625) by Pavel Demitrovich, as well as a large number of sources of domestic origin, among which stands out the Old Russian chronicle of the Khlebnikovskaya type, the Russian chronograph of the First edition, and especially the work of Nestor's contemporary, the Pechersk chronicler Veniamin, containing original news on the circumstances of the capture of Kiev in 1240 by the Mongol invaders.

The text of the chronograph of the second edition was further revised. According to Yu. P. Knyazkov, there are three main versions of monument 21. The creator of the first one, represented by the earliest, Moscow list 22, lived in Volhynia. Its additions and changes indicate the author's Prolit sympathies. The creator of the second one, represented by the Kiev List 23, which most accurately conveys the text of the original that has not been preserved, was interested in the history of Kiev and Galicia-

17 Cit. по: Бевзо О. А. Львівський літопис і Острозький літописець. В кн.: Джерелознавче дослідження. Київ. 1971, с. 132.

18 The text of the monument was repeatedly published in its original form (see ibid., pp. 99-124).

19 ОР БАН СССР (Ленинград), N 4.7.25, лл. 381 - 427об.; см. Мицик Ю. А. Відображення деяких подій з історії Киева в літопису Яна Бінвілського. - Український історичний журнал, 1982, N 2.

20 К настоящему времени опубликованы лишь отдельные фрагменты памятника (см. ПСРЛ. Т. 32. М. 1975; Павленко Г. І. Становления історичної белетристики в давній українській літературі Київ. 1984, с. 232 - 273).

21 Knyazkov Yu. P. Ukrainian chronograph as a source on national history. Author's abstract of the cand. Diss. M. 1984, p. 10-14.

22 TSGADA, f. 196, op. 1, N 1638.

23 OR of the National Welfare Fund, N I, 171.

page 86

Lyn principalities, Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. He sharpened the monument's anti-Catholic and anti-Uniate sound. The third edition, which dates back to 1699, is represented by the Chernihiv list 24 . Its creator was hieromonk of the Kiev Vydubitsky monastery Leonty Bobolinsky, who worked in the Chernihiv Trinity-Ilysh Monastery. The lists of this edition are characterized by an anti-Turkish orientation and an emphasis on the progressive significance of the reunification of Ukraine with Russia. The Ukrainian chronograph of the second edition was no less popular than the First edition. He was known not only in Ukraine, but also in Russia and Belarus.

The period of peasant-Cossack uprisings in Ukraine, which began at the end of the XVI century, ends with the liberation war of the Ukrainian people in 1648-1654. During the years of this war and after it, various authors-representatives of the gentry, clergy, Cossacks, philistines-tried to record the events in which they were participants, and determine their attitude to them. This group of historical monuments is characterized by the relative independence of authors from the government and the weakness of official chronicle traditions. It is no coincidence that in the Ukrainian chronicle from the mid-17th century onwards, most of the monuments cover the history of the Peasant-Cossack uprisings , the liberation war and subsequent years. Excursions into the past are more often aimed at finding the roots of the Cossacks. The number of chronicles that contain a summary of Russian history from ancient times to modern events is increasing. These works were intended not only for representatives of the feudal elite, which is typical of the Middle Ages, but also for the general readership.

An example of this is "Kreunik" F. Sofonovich, abbot of the Mikhailovsky Golden-Domed Monastery in Kiev in 1655-1677, a graduate of the Kiev-Mohyla College, a teacher and its rector (1653-1655). The author wrote in the introduction to his work: "I consider it necessary to know for myself and tell the other sons of Russia: where did Russia come from and how their state, having emerged, exists to this day. Everyone needs to know about their homeland and tell others who are interested, because people who do not know their own kind are considered fools."25 Then he gives a coherent account of the history of Ukraine. The essay has three parts: "Kroynika o Rus '"(1672), "Kroynika o cob and bowl of Lithuania" (1673) and "Kroynika o zemlya Polskoi" (1673)26 . The first part of "Kreuniki" covered the history of Ancient Rus, mainly the Kievan and Galician-Volhynian principalities, from ancient times to 1292. In the second and third parts, the events were presented against the background of the history of Lithuania and Poland, and from the end of the XVI century. and especially since 1648, Sofonovich focused on the history of the liberation struggle of the Ukrainian people against the magnate-gentry of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Turkish aggression. The description of events in the "Kreunik about the cob and the name of Lithuania" was brought up to 1533, and in the "Kreunik about the land of Poland" - up to 1673.

In the first part, which makes up about 60% of the monument's volume, Sofonovich emphasized the unity of the origin of the Eastern Slavs, deriving them from one ancestor - the legendary Mosokh, "son of Japheth, grandson of Noah." It is noteworthy that he considers Kiya, Shchek, Horiva, and their sister Lybed to be the first rulers of Russia, and rejects the version of the Tale of Bygone Years, according to which Askold and Dir were "boyars" of Rurik: he calls them descendants of Kiya. Having adopted the concept of "Galich-the second Kiev", the chronicler looked at the Galician-Volyn princes as the successors of the Grand Dukes of Kiev, emphasized that Roman Mstislavich and his son Danilo were "autocrats", and spoke in detail about the latter's acceptance of the royal crown. Sofonovich considered the successors of Roman and Danila to be representatives of the largest Ukrainian feudal families, and he called the Ostrog princes direct descendants of Danila.

In the course of the liberation war, works appeared that directly covered its events (Lviv and Khmelnitsky chronicles, a number of short chronicles).-

24 Library of the Polish Academy of Sciences (Cracow), Department of Manuscripts, No. 281. The microfilm of this list containing "Slavenorusskaya Kroynika" was transferred by Yu. A. Mytsyk to the Central State Museum of Fine Arts of the Ukrainian SSR in Kiev. Another part of the list, which was considered lost as early as the 19th century, was discovered by E. M. Apanovich in the OP of the Central Library, f. 30, N 89.

25 OR GPB, Sobr. M. P. Pogodin, N 1476, ll. 1ob. - 2.

26 For more information about Kreunik, its lists and editions, see: Mytsyk Yu. A. Ukrainian Chronicles of the XVII century. Dnepropetrovsk. 1978, pp. 16-21.

page 87

tsev 27 . But only Sofonovich managed to create a generalizing work about it. At the same time, Joachim Yerlich, a Ukrainian Orthodox nobleman, completed his chronicle and memoir work, who, in assessing the liberation war and the reunification of Ukraine with Russia, was in solidarity with representatives of the feudal Catholic reaction camp hostile to the rebels. Sofonovich positively assessed these events, expressing sympathy for Russia, condemning Catholicism, the union and the activities of some hetmans who tried to break the union of two fraternal peoples. He rejects the pro-Catholic tendencies of his sources - the Polish chronicles of the XVI-XVII centuries, their denigration of the past of Ancient Russia and Ukraine, and relies on the assessments of domestic sources, primarily the Chronicle of Nestor - a special edition of the Southern Russian code of the late XIII century, close to Khlebnikov's, but not identical to it.

This edition, conventionally called by us "Zolotoverkhoy", contains some original news on ancient Russian history. It, in particular, gives an answer to the question of the reasons for the flight of Prince Rostislav Vladimirovich from Novgorod with the Novgorod Leek and the Kievan Vyshata to Tmutarakan. It should be noted that in general in Kiev of the XVI - XVII centuries there were widely used editions of the Southern Russian code of the late XIII century, related to Khlebnikovskaya, which better preserved individual readings and sometimes contained original izvestiya28 . One of these chronicles has come down to our time in its entirety. It was discovered in the 1970s by Y. D. Isaevich. Her correspondence was completed by Mark Bundur, a novice of the Kiev Desert-St. Nicholas Monastery, in 1655, who performed this work at the behest of Abbot Isaiah Trofimovich .29 Concluding the story about Sofonovich's "Kroynik", we note that this monument was very popular and served as a source of works by Panteleimon Kokhanovsky (Synopsis of 1678 and 1680, Chronograph of 1681, Extensive Synopsis of Russky 1681-1682), Mezhyhirya and Chernihiv chronicles, notes by I. Krokovsky, "The Core of Russian History" by A. I. Mankiev, the chronicles of G. I. Grabyanka and the writings of G. A. Pokas.

The first edition of the Synopsis was published in 1674, the second (1678) was supplemented with a story about the ascension to the throne of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, news of the first arrival of Turkish troops near Chigirin in 1677, etc. The third edition (1680) was significantly expanded in comparison with the previous ones. The synopsis was the first historical work of the Eastern Slavs, printed in Cyrillic. In the 150 years since its first publication, it has gone through about 30 editions, generating many handwritten copies. The synopsis was an indispensable textbook on the history of Ancient Rus in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, was translated into Latin, Greek and Romanian, and influenced the work of many Russian and foreign historians of the XVII-XVIII centuries. The monument attracted attention with its topical content and fervent patriotism. It emphasized the commonality of the historical destinies of the Eastern Slavs, and called for the unification of their efforts in the fight against Turkish aggression in the 70s and 80s of the XVII century. At the same time, the author's ideology of the monument was close to the official one, and therefore the Synopsis is characterized by both monarchism and extreme providentialism.

The sources of the Synopsis were quite accurately indicated by S. L. Peshtich30 , although the fact that the author used the chronicles of J. Dlugosz and C. S. Peshtich30 is not known. The barony is not confirmed. At the same time, the author of the Synopsis gave some reports using the chronicle of Giovanni Botero, the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon (Kiev, 1661), the Paterikon of S. Kosov, published in Kiev in 1635, the Ukrainian chronograph of the second edition, his own memoirs and eyewitness accounts. The author of the Synopsis borrowed most of the chapter "About this, when the Patriarchal throne was established in the reigning city of Moscow "from Kormchey, which he called the "book of rules"31.

27 See the Chronicle of the Self-Seer on newly discovered lists. Kiev, 1878.

28 Kuchkin V. A. Fragments of the Ipatiev Chronicle in the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon of Joseph Trizny. - TODRL, 1969, vol. XXIV; his. To disputes about V. N. Tatishchev. In: Problemy istorii obshchestvennogo dvizheniya i istoriografii [Problems of the History of Social Movement and Historiography], Moscow, 1971, pp. 246-262.

29 OR BANSSSR, 21.2.14.

30 Peshtich S. L. "Synopsis" as a historical work. - TODRL, 1958, vol. XV, pp. 284-298.

31 Synopsis. Kiev. 1680, ll. 108ob. - 109ob.; Kormchaya. M. 1653, ll. 10ob. - 12ob.

page 88

In the course of studying the Synopsis, researchers constantly tried to solve the problem of its authorship, but none of the hypotheses put forward is satisfactory. Most often, the author of the monument was called I. Gizel. The latter was archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra in 1656-1683, and for this reason, at least, all Lavra publications passed through his hands, and they were marked with a standard warning along with the author's name.: "by blessing... Father Innokenty Gizel". Gizel enjoyed great authority among Kiev scientists, and many of them gave him their works for preliminary review. So, Sofonovich gave him the manuscript of his theological work "Vklad ""for reading and correction" 32 . Thus, Giesel's role as editor of the Synopsis is not in doubt, although no arguments have been made in favor of his authorship. The key to solving the problem is provided by the material of two fundamental compilations under the titles Chronograph (1681) and Extensive Synopsis of Russky. Their creator, as evidenced by the entries on the title pages, was Hieromonk, economist of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra Panteleimon Kokhanovsky 33 . He participated in the election of Barlaam Yasinsky as the Lavra Archimandrite after Gizel's death .34 We also found a letter from the monastery's brethren to the tsar informing them of Gizel's death on November 18, 1683. This letter is written in the same magnificent half-verse as Kohanovsky's compilations.

Kokhanovsky's chronograph is a list of the famous Tver collection, supplemented with editions of the second and third parts of Sofonovich's "Kreunika" (without specifying the latter's name), fragments of the chronicle of A. Guagnini. The basis of Rusky's Extensive Synopsis was the editors of all three parts of Sofonovich's Kreunika, a number of articles from the Synopsis, excerpts from I. Galyatovsky's Skarbnitsa, from the Guagnini Chronicle, as well as a special edition of the Legend of the Battle of Mamaev. Thus, within a year and a half after the publication of the third edition of the Synopsis, Kokhanovsky created two new works, the historical concepts of which exactly corresponded to the concepts of the Synopsis, which allows us to consider him the author of this work.

Since the end of the 17th century, the number of local chronicles, which were created mainly in monasteries, has been significantly increasing in Ukraine. Thus, the Dobromilsk, Mgar, Mezhyhirsk, and Podhoretsk chronicles were written, the original core of the Chernihiv chronicle, the chronicle of the Gustyn monastery, and then the Motroninsky, Satanovsky, and a number of others, up to the "Cell Chronicler" D. S. Tuptal (Dmitry Rostovsky) and solid compilations such as "Notes concerning the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra" (1772 d.).

In one of these chronicles, Khmelnitsky (from the city of Khmelnik), the situation in Ukraine in the 30 - 40s of the XVII century is vividly described. The author sympathizes with the common people, who suffered many hardships, famine and persecution by the gentry. "People ate leaves and quinoa, various herbs," the chronicle says. "It's hard for a poor person to live up to the new harvest." The chronicle contains figurative descriptions of the severity of class battles in Ukraine, as can be seen in the following passage: "Both sickles and scythes [the rebels] forged for weapons, and not for nothing did the earth tremble... Rivers in the Ukraine were stained with human blood, swamps were filled with Lyadsky corpses, and the cities were full of Cossack corpses on stakes. " 35
Various registers and lists of metropolitans and abbots of monasteries constitute a different kind of chronicle works created by representatives of the clergy, for example, "On the Metropolitans of Russia, especially the Rivers of Kiev", compiled between 1730 and 1740, probably by the Tobolsk Metropolitan Arseny Stakhovsky, who was previously Archbishop of Chernihiv. In the second half of the XVII - beginning of the XVIII century. chronicles are increasingly created outside the monastery walls. In 1673 "Litopisets" was completed, which opened a group of historical works, the authors of which were mainly interested in the history of the Cossacks, the liberation war of the Ukrainian people.

32 GIM of the USSR, Department of Written Sources, Synodal Collection, No. 1-1195 (p. -991), l.377ob.

33 GPB PR, F. IV. 214; F. IV. 215.

34 Vostokov A. Act of election of Varlaam Yasinsky as Archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery. - Kievan Antiquity, 1887, June, pp. 574-575.

35 Khmelnitsky chronicle. In: Chronicle of a Self-Seer based on Newly discovered Lists, pp. 78, 81.

page 89

the people of 1648-1654 and the events of the following 36 years (including ruina).

The beginning of the XVIII century was marked by the appearance of three major historical works created by Samovidets, G. I. Grabianka and S. V. Velichko. Most researchers consider the author of the chronicle to be the Samovid R. Rakushka-Romanovsky (1622-1702), who held the post of General podskarbiy under Hetman I. Bryukhovetsky. The chronicle covers the history of Ukraine from 1648 to 1702. Its first part (1648-1672) is characterized by a high degree of generalization of events, the use of various sources. The second part (1673-1702) is based on the author's memoirs and eyewitness accounts. We are talking here about the events that took place in Starodub, the then regimental center. The monument contains a lot of valuable and original information presented in a simple, close to the vernacular language, which was highly appreciated by many historians and writers, including T. G. Shevchenko, I. Ya. Franko, P. A. Kulish, O. M. Bodyansky, N. N. Petrovsky, etc.

One of the features of the chronicle of the Self - Seer is its secular character, rational style of presentation. The author managed to create a wide panorama of events that took place in Ukraine, to catch many important patterns of historical phenomena, as evidenced, for example, by the news about the nationwide nature of the liberation war of the Ukrainian people in 1648 - 1654: in the regiments of B. Khmelnitsky "there were countless soldiers. In another regiment there were also more than 20 thousand Cossacks, since every village was a centurion, and in some hundreds there were even a thousand people. And so all living things rose to the ranks of the Cossacks, and one could hardly find a man in any village who either himself or his son did not go to the army. If someone was unwell, he sent a boy servant in his place. It also happened that everyone from the yard went to the army, leaving only one. Because of this, it was difficult to hire a farmhand."37
Individual statements of the chronicler allow us to state that he stood in the position of protecting the interests of the Cossack elders, condemning anti-feudal mass movements (the Peasant War in Russia led by S. T. Razin, the actions of ordinary Cossacks during the "Black Rada" of 1663). Assessing the events of the past, looking at the devastation of Ukrainian lands due to constant wars due to adventurous activities, The author also spoke with disapproval about some aspects of the liberation war. Thus, while sharply condemning the rapprochement of these hetmans with the Ottoman Empire and the Crimean Khanate, he could not even forgive B. Khmelnitsky for his forced alliance with Islam-Giray III. In general, the Self-Seer evaluated events from progressive positions for his time. He spoke as a supporter of the union with Russia, was positive about the reunification of Ukraine with Russia, and condemned the activities of Yu. Khmelnitsky, P. Doroshenko, D. Mnogogreshny, I. Samoilovich.

The chronicle of the Self-Seer influenced the work of G. I. Grabyanka (d. 1738) - "The deeds of the despicable and from the beginning of the Poles to the unprecedented battle of Bohdan Khmelnitsky, Hetman of Zaporozhye with the Poles". Grabyanka's " actions "were written to show the Ukrainian people" as an equal among other nations " and highlight their struggle against foreign invaders, emphasizing the merits of the Cossacks. In the introduction, Grabyanka was outraged by the fact that many of his contemporaries, who know ancient history well, neglect the heroic deeds of their fathers and grandfathers. Taking care that the" immortal glory " of his ancestors did not sink into oblivion, as well as to bring "benefits to the people", Grabyanka undertook the writing of "Actions" that covered the history of Ukraine from 1506 to 1709. Since 1664, the presentation has been conducted in line with the usual chronicle form. The main part of the work is occupied by "tales" - stories, each of which is dedicated to an event, has a clear composition and is logically complete, for example: "The legend of various battles and weapons of the Cossacks and their food", " Otkudu and why did the Cossacks rise up against the Poles?", " The Legend of the first battle kozatskaya na Zheltaya Vody z lyakhami".

It is noteworthy that Grabyanka paid great attention to describing the way of life and everyday life of the Cossacks. He noted that "as a result of repeated swearing, the number of victims has increased significantly."

36 Mytsyk Yu. A. "Litopisets" Dvoretskikh-monument of the Ukrainian chronicle of the XVII century. In: Chronicles and Chronicles, 1984, Moscow, 1984.

37 Літопис Самовидця. Київ. 1971, с. 57.

page 90

the strength and bravery of the Cossacks, they were accustomed to hunger, thirst and heat... Their daily food was a rarely cooked fermented rye dough called salamaha... When they cooked fish with it, it turned out, according to the nickname of the Cossacks, sherba, which they considered the best food. The Cossacks live in huts of one hundred and fifty people or more, and all eat the same food... In [each] kuren, everyone honors and obeys as the highest chief after the koshevoi ataman, only one elder who is most skilled in military affairs... There is absolutely no theft or fornication among the Cossacks, but for one stolen rope or whip, they hang [the guilty person] on a tree... The weapons of the Cossacks are samopals, sabres, butts, arrows and spears, which they wield so skillfully that even the best Polish Hussar or German Reitar cannot match them... If the eldest calls for volunteers, the host will gather as many as necessary. Well answered the Turkish Sultan on his question about the number of Cossack troops: "We have, of course, what is a vine is a Cossack, and where there is a bayrak, there are a hundred or two Cossacks." They are all very brave in war,.. the Turkish sultan also said about them: "When neighboring states go to war against me, I sleep without hearing anything, but when the Cossacks, I have to listen with one ear." 38
17 "tales" covered the course of the liberation war of 1648-1654, which was not accidental. Grabyanka was a representative of the Cossack foreman, who took a leading place in the Ukrainian lands reunited with Russia. Therefore, he was deeply interested in the history of the war of liberation, which ended the rule of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth over a large part of the Ukrainian lands and made possible their reunification with Russia. Analyzing the past, Grabyanka put it at the service of the present, proved the need to preserve the autonomy of Ukraine. The author of" Actions " did not confine himself to the narrow framework of class interests, acted as a patriot, sought to contribute to the enlightenment of the people, in assessing the events of the past, in most cases stood on progressive positions for his time, emphasized the huge role of the liberation war and the reunification of Ukraine with Russia, the merits of B. Khmelnitsky as a national hero of Ukraine, Russian-Ukrainian combat community in the fight against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

"Actions" became widespread in Ukraine of the XVIII century, about 50 lists of the monument, representing its various editions, have survived to this day. Grabyanka's work was known to many prominent cultural figures in Russia and Ukraine, primarily Ya. P. Kozelsky, V. Ya. Lomikovsky, A. I. Martos, G. A. Poletika, A. F. Shafonsky, and others, and in 1793 it was even published by Fyodor Tumansky .39 Grabyanka's "actions" influenced the Ukrainian historiography of the XVIII-early XIX centuries, and first of all, the"Brief Description of Little Russia".

A special place in the Ukrainian historiography of the XVIII century is occupied by the work of S. V. Velichko 40 (1670-about 1728). Its author was an educated person, who spoke, in addition to Ukrainian, Russian, Church Slavonic, Polish, German and Latin. He served as a clerk for Colonel V. L. Kochubey, and from 1705 - in the General Military Chancellery. In 1708, Velichko was dismissed from office by the then Hetman I. Mazepa and thrown into prison, from which he was released seven years later. Velichko spent the rest of his life in the village of Zhuki near Poltava, where he was engaged in teaching, translating some chronicles and cosmographies from Polish and German. There he also created his own work on the history of Ukraine, which covered the events of 1647-1700.

Even in the initial period of the Northern War, the future historian participated in the campaigns of Cossack units against Swedish troops on the territory of Right-Bank and Western Ukraine. There he saw a terrible picture of the desolation of many Ukrainian lands, which were once "like a second earth covered with honey and boiling milk." Shaken by what he saw," sick in heart and soul, "Velichko asked himself:" what are the reasons and through whom our land was devastated?", but he could not get an exhaustive answer from either contemporaries or chroniclers. Outraged by the " laziness of long-standing pi-

38 Chronicle of Grigory Grabyanka. Kiev, 1854, pp. 19-20.

39 For more information, see: Apanovich E. M. Handwritten secular book of the XVIII century in Ukraine. In: Historical Collections. Kiev, 1983, pp. 137-187

40 Velichko S. Chronicle of events in South-Western Russia in the XVII century. Tt. 1-4. Kiev. 1848-1864; it is the same. Сказаниє о войні козацкой з поляками. Київ. 1926.

page 91

Sarey", Velichko, as "a true son of Malia Russia", decided to independently write a work that would adequately reflect the" chivalrous courage " of his ancestors. At the same time, he used numerous written and oral sources: documents, Ukrainian historical and literary works, Polish chronicles, works of ancient (Titus Livy, Tacitus), medieval (Torquato Tasso) and modern Velichko authors. A number of these sources have not reached our time, and the original and important information on the history of Ukraine contained in them is preserved only in Velichko's work.

His work is of great importance both as a monument of historical thought and as a literary work. The presentation of events in it is conducted in a secular spirit, from the standpoint of progressive pragmatism. The author's critical attitude to the sources is noticeable, as well as his desire to highlight reliable facts in them. Velichko takes an interest in questions of social and class struggle, defines the forms of state government, distinguishes between the ruling circles and the working people, clearly separating the Polish feudal lords from the masses of the Polish people, and never shows hostility towards the latter. Velichko paid considerable attention to the literary processing of his work, which in this respect is deservedly considered the best in Ukrainian historiography of the XVIII century. Especially successful are historical stories about B. Khmelnitsky, about the koshevy ataman of the Zaporozhye Sich Ivan Sirko, the fantastic story "About Satyr and Lucifer", numerous characteristics of historical figures.

Velichko's work is imbued with patriotism, the desire to philosophically comprehend the past, to find in it the answer to many phenomena of modern reality. All this gave his work an extraordinary relevance, a deep socio-political sound. The author exalted the anti-feudal and liberation struggle of the masses of Ukraine against foreign invaders, praised its leaders-the" Ukrainian messiah " B. Khmelnitsky, I. Bohun, M. Krivonos, sharply criticized the aggressive actions of the Turkish sultans, Crimean khans, Polish kings and their military leaders J. Vishnevetsky and S. Charnetsky, who carried out punitive operations in Ukraine. With pain and anger Velichko wrote about the treacherous policy of many Ukrainian hetmans, who incited fratricidal war, strife, sought to break the alliance with Russia and contributed to the division of Ukraine by their actions. While condemning I. Vygovsky, Y. Khmelnitsky, P. Teterya, M. Khanenko, P. Sukhoviy , and others, 41 and blaming them for their adventurous foreign policy, Velichko also condemns the domestic policy of these hetmans, as well as I. Vyshinsky. Bryukhovetsky, Ya. Somk, D. Mnogogreshny and I. Samoilovich, which was aimed at strengthening feudal relations, increasing the exploitation of the masses of the people. Here the author's humanism and democracy, his sympathy for the working people are revealed. Velichko not only adopted the democratic traditions of public thought in Ukraine, but also developed them, being in a certain sense the forerunner of the famous Ukrainian philosopher-educator of the XVIII century G. S. Skovoroda.

All this makes it possible to consider the view of Velichko as a representative of the intelligentsia, close in worldview to the masses, and to abandon the common stereotypes that define Velichko as a "Cossack - senior chronicler". In addition, his work goes beyond the traditional chronicle and is a different type of historical work. Therefore, its creator can be called a chronicler only conditionally, rather in the sense in which V. N. Tatishchev is called a chronicler. As a monument of historical thought, Velichko's work has no equal in the Ukrainian historiography of the XVIII century. He had a profound impact on the work of a number of historians and writers.

The process of turning chronicles into a historical science was contradictory. Note the sharp increase in socio-economic and national-religious oppression in the lands of Right - Bank and Western Ukraine, Transcarpathia and Bukovina, which was carried out by the magnate-gentry Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Hungary, the Ottoman and Austrian Empires. Under these conditions, the chronicle work is weakened, and in some areas

41 Дзира Я. І. Самійло Величко та його літопис. - історіографічні дослідження в Українській РСР, Київ, 1971, вип. 4.

page 92

it stops completely. Only brief chroniclers 42 are created, mostly written in Polish or Latin. In the left-bank Ukraine, which was part of Russia, serfdom oppression is also increasing. Nevertheless, the left-bank Ukraine was in a better position than the rest of the Ukrainian lands. As a result of the rapid development of productive forces, crafts and trade, the emergence of bourgeois relations, and the strengthening of ties between the Russian and Ukrainian peoples, science and education are making significant progress there, and they are also partially being freed from the monopoly of the Orthodox Church. In this regard, a huge number of historical works are being created, the authors of which were mostly secular persons, mainly clerks. The content of chronicles is changing, more attention is being paid to modern issues, as well as the liberation war of 1648-1654, and the literary form and language are being modernized .43
One of the most common chronicle monuments is the "Brief Description of Little Russia" (1735), which originated on the basis of the chronicle of Grabianka. An unknown author revised and shortened the "Actions", but at the same time continued the account of events up to 1735. A short sketch of the history of Ukraine from 1340 to 1735 appeared, in which the main attention was paid to the Cossacks and their participation in the war of liberation, the struggle against foreign invaders. The brevity and accessibility of this chronicle made it easy to use. Numerous copyists and editors made their own amendments and additions to the text. Thus, V. Ruban continued to cover events in the "Brief Description of Little Russia" until 1770, and then published it .44 This edition was soon translated into French and published in Paris in 1788, making it well-known in Western European countries.

Of great interest is the revision of the" Brief Description of Little Russia", undertaken by the clerk G. A. Pokas in 175145 . Among the additions made by the author, the source of which was his direct observations and eyewitness accounts, there is a report about an anti-feudal performance in the village of Slavavets in 1738: "This year the impostor Ivan Minetsky, Kiev regiment in the village of Slavavets, was executed, put alive on a stake. And with him 4 of his comrades, including Priest Roslavsky, were executed there. " 46 The collection of Pokas was, in turn, copied in 1756 by the clerk A. A. Krestov. Dzivovich, who attributed several important messages: the reception of the Hetman Razumovsky koshevoy ataman of the Zaporozhye Sich Ya. Ignatovich (August 1750), natural disasters in Kiev and Nizhyn, which occurred in 1754. E. M. Apanovich identified among the editors of the "Brief Description of Little Russia" and such an addition, which dealt with the events of 1776. It described the Russo-Turkish War of 1768-1774 and, most importantly, mentioned the Peasant War in Russia of 1773-1775 under the leadership of E. I. Pugachev .47
In some cases, the "Brief Description of Little Russia" formed the basis of independent chronicle works. An example is "The Chronicler, or a brief description of significant events and incidents", "A brief chronicle of famous events and incidents description", a variant of the latter-Lizogubovskaya chronicle 48, as well as" A story about what happened in Ukraine, since it was taken over by Lithuania " (late XVIII century). Along with the" Brief Description of Little Russia", other chronicle works were also in circulation in the second half of the XVIII century. Among them are the "Historical Collection" (1770) of the Prilutsky regimental wagon train S. V. Lukomsky 49, the Chernihiv Chronicle in its second and especially third edition, created by the Chernihiv regimental clerk I. Yanushkevich. The Chernihiv chronicle, including its non-preserved lists and editions, had a serious impact on a number of chroniclers of the XVIII century. These include N. Verbovsky's "Chronography" and its Pereyaslavsky version - " Short Little Russia-

42 См.: Крипякевич І. П. .Літописи XVI - XVIII ст. в Галичині. В кн.: історичні джерела та їх використання. Вип. I. Київ. 1964.

43 Apanovich E. M. Uk. soch.

44 Ruban V. Kratkaya letopis Maloy Rossii [Short Chronicle of Malaya Russia], St. Petersburg, 1777.

45 GPB OP, F. IV. 812.

46 Ibid., l. 49.

47 Apanovich E. M. Uk. soch., pp. 196-199.

48 Southern Russian Chronicles, published by N. Belozersky, Issue I. Kiev, 1856; Collection of chronicles relating to the history of Southern and Western Russia.

49 Chronicle of the Self-Seer according to the newly discovered lists.

page 93

Russian chronicler " covering the events of 1648-1738 and 1697-1751, respectively 50 .

Even more interesting is the "Short Chronicler", copied in 1740 by G. I. Ananievich. In this monument, which reflects the events of 862-1739, some news of the Chernihiv chronicle is transmitted more fully, including those that are borrowed from a Russian source. Thus, the "Short Chronicler" contains information about the Galician Prince Dmitry Shemyak (under 1445), about the origin of False Dmitry I ("boyar son Grigory Andreev"), about the Peasant War in Russia at the beginning of the XVII century, which recorded a hostile attitude to the anti-feudal struggle of the masses ("1608. The traitor Ivashko Bolotnikov and Petrushka Tushinsky came to Moscow with the Don Cossacks, who were caught and executed " 51). The Short Chronicler also contains important data on the liberation war of 1648-1654, on the anti-feudal uprisings in Ukraine in 1663, 1670, and 1684, and on the death of the chronicler Grabyanka in 1739 near Perekop.

Thus, the Ukrainian chronicle continued until the turn of the XVIII-XIX centuries, contributing to the formation of the socio-political consciousness of the Ukrainian people and Ukrainian historiography. At the same time, as a result of profound changes in the socio-economic, political, and cultural life of Russia in the eighteenth century, historical works appear that have more in common with scientific research than with chronicles. These include the work of Velichko, " A brief description of the Cossack Little Russian people and their military affairs "(1765) by P. I. Simonovsky, and "History of the Rus" (90 - ies of the XVIII century), probably created by A. A. Bezborodko. The latter was awarded high marks by A. S. Pushkin, N. V. Gogol, T. G. Shevchenko, I. Ya. Franko. In the second half of the XVIII century, N. N. Bantysh-Kamensky (1737-1814) began his creative activity, the appearance of his printed works at the beginning of the XIX century coincided with the complete cessation of chronicle work in Ukraine.

The Ukrainian chronicle of the XIV - XVIII centuries grew up on the basis of the chronicle of Ancient Russia and continued, as well as Russian and Belarusian, its traditions. Over the centuries, the Ukrainian chronicles underwent changes that reflected the experience of generations, the development of historical, socio-political and literary thought, contact with the chronicles of other East Slavic peoples, as well as Lithuania and Poland. Although the worldview of the authors of the chronicles in most cases reflected the ideology of the ruling class, the chroniclers in general more often spoke from progressive positions for their time, castigating foreign invaders, primarily from the magnate-gentry Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and Catholic expansion, the aggressive policy of the Ottoman Empire and the Crimean Khanate. They glorified the liberation struggle of the Ukrainian people, supported the reunification of Ukraine with Russia, and helped strengthen friendship between the East Slavic peoples. These chroniclers captured for posterity many facts of Russian history. Ukrainian chronicles are of lasting importance not only as sources, but also as monuments of socio-political, historical thought and literature. They also played a role in the development of cultural and political ties between the fraternal East Slavic peoples.

50 Dnepropetrovsk Regional Historical Museum, Department of Manuscripts, N Arch. - 1532, ll. 92-94; OR GPB, F. IV. 813, ll. 1-4ob.

51 OP GPB, F. IV. 889, l. 30-31ob.

page 94

Permanent link to this publication: