Part 1 - Part 2
Although all this is presented incidentally and in insufficient detail, much allows us to make fairly well-grounded conclusions, since we are dealing with original material and presented in various forms and versions, which makes it possible for comparison. One tablet contains the entire pagan "credo". The main conclusion is that the religion of our ancestors was not polytheistic, but monotheistic. A single god was recognized, but he was threefold in persons, the rest were minor gods.
3. "Vlesova's book" is an unusually valuable document for studying the history of the language. As you know, all the most ancient sources of writing that have come down to us, firstly, are relatively late (the oldest are related only to the 10th century), and secondly, they do not come from the territory of Russia, and thirdly, all of a religious nature, reflecting an unusual colloquial speech, but specifically religious and, moreover, probably not in the dialect of Kievan Rus. Finally, in our hands there are only small passages, and we cannot get a sufficient understanding of the composition and forms of ancient speech from them. The Vlesova Kniga is an original document, undoubtedly created in Russia and consisting of at least a text of up to 3 printed sheets. This gives a much more complete picture of the language and its forms. Her language, of course, is much closer to colloquial speech,than the language of religious Christian passages.
Recall that the chronicle of Nestor was written around 1113 and reached in a much later copy. Thus, the language of the Vlesova Kniga is no less than 250 years older than the language of the Nestorovo chronicle, and its first tablets are probably centuries older.
4. "Vlesov's book" - an indicator of the height of culture in the 9th century. There was not only its own writing, which was a simplified and modified Greek. But there was also a written original history of its people. Russia IX century. was no longer a barbaric country, but a cultured one, interested in its past and knowing it. It had already passed the stage of history in the mouths of storytellers and was passing into the stage of scientific history. "Vlesov's book" completely destroys the erroneous statements about the primitiveness of the culture of southern Russia in the 9th century.
More about the "Isenbeck tablets"
What were the "Isenbeck boards"? To the question of the author of these lines, Yu. P. Mirolyubov, in a letter dated 11.11.1957, replied the following (given in the extract): “I saw the first 'boards' under what circumstances in 1925. Isenbeck and I met at the church on the rue Chevalier in Brussels, and he invited me to his studio to see the paintings … I started talking about the fact that we live abroad and that we do not have any sources at hand, and that I need “the language of the era “That I would like to write an epic poem about“Svyatoslav Khorobor”, but I can't find anything about him even approximately similar to a mention!..
Promotional video:
- Why do you need "the language of the era"? - he asked.
- How? You write, you need motives of ornaments of Turkestan, but I do not need the language of the era?
- What exactly do you want?
- Well, at least some chronicles of that time or so … There are not even chronicles here!
- Over there in the corner, see the bag? Sea bag. There is something …
This is how my work began. In the sack I found "planks" tied with a belt passed through the holes (two, as in the photograph of "Vleskniga"). I looked at them and became numb!.. However, Isenbek did not allow them to be taken out even in parts. I had to work in his presence.
The planks were approximately (underlined by Mirolyubov, as in other places below. - S. L.) the same size, thirty-eight centimeters by twenty-two, half a centimeter thick. The surface has been scratched from long storage. In some places they were completely spoiled by some stains, in some places they warped, puffed up, as if they were damp. The varnish that covered them, or the oil, lagged behind, came off. Under it was dark wood. Isenbek thought that the "planks" of a birch tree. I do not know this, since I am not a wood expert.
The edges have been cut unevenly. It looks like they were cut with a knife, not a saw. Some were larger, others were smaller, so that the "planks" were unevenly adjacent to each other. The surface, probably, was also scraped before writing, it was uneven, with depressions.
The text was written or scratched with an awl, and then rubbed with something brown, darkened from time, and then covered with varnish or oil. Maybe the text was scratched with a knife, I cannot say with certainty.
Each time a line was drawn for the line, rather jagged, and the text was written underneath it as it appears in the photograph you reproduced on the pages of your book. On the other side, the text was, as it were, a continuation of the previous one, so that it was necessary to turn over a bunch of "boards" in order to read them (obviously, as in the leaves of a tear-off calendar - S. L.). In other places, on the contrary, it was as if each side were a page in a book. It is immediately clear that this is a long time ago.
On the margins of some "boards" there were images of a bull's head, on others - the sun, on others - different animals, maybe a fox, a dog or a sheep. It was difficult to disassemble these figures. In my opinion, these were symbols of the months of the year. I will write about them separately, at the very end of the publication of texts.
The letters were not all the same size. There were small lines, but there were (and) large ones. It is evident that more than one person wrote them. Some of the "boards" were cracked from time to time, others were rubbed, and I glued them together with silicate varnish. I already wrote about this.
However, the first of the "tablets" were read by me back in the twenty-fifth year, and I had already forgotten the details about them. The Roman numerals on some of them were made by me. You should have numbered them somehow.
I sent to the Museum (Russian Museum in San Francisco - S. L.), as the texts were deciphered, what I could send, and Kur numbered them “document 13”, that is, according to the order of receipt, and then selected within the meaning and numbered. It seems to me that in the bundle the "boards" were confused, and Kura's numbering is close to the truth. So far, that's all I can tell you about the "boards".
I read the first "boards" with great difficulty. And then I got used to them and began to read faster. I wrote down what I read. Letter by letter. This work is delicate. We must not be mistaken. It is necessary to read it correctly, write it down … I had one tablet for a month! And after that I also checked the text, which also took many days …
… My role in the “boards” is small: I accidentally found them at the place of Isenbek, who had found them before. And then I rewrote them for 15 years … Why did I undertake this census? Because I had a vague presentiment that I would somehow lose them, I would no longer see that the texts could be lost, and this would be a loss to history. I was not expecting that! I was waiting for a more or less accurate chronology, a description of the exact events, names that coincide with the adjacent era of other peoples, as well as the dynasties of princes and any such historical material that was not in them!
But it turned out to be something else, which I did not expect: a description of events about which we knew nothing, an appeal to the patriotism of the Russians, because the grandfathers experienced the same times, etc."
The above letter essentially exhausts almost everything that we know about the tablets as such. It goes without saying that Yu. P. Mirolyubov did not publish anything about glyphs, that is, about the figures in the margins of the tablets. However, it is unlikely that he could report anything significant about them after more than 35 years. The main thing was missed: when rewriting the text, nowhere was it noted that such and such a tablet had such and such a glyph.
Let us note by the way that Mirolyubov in his letter in vain dramatized the circumstances: he rewrote the text of the tablets not because he felt that they would be lost, but because he needed an ancient language. Isenbek did not give him tablets, and in order to understand at least something, it was necessary to break the text into words. He did this hellish job, but he did not have enough time, energy and interest to understand the contents of the tablets. There is a chronology, events, and persons, but only the form that came in the chronicle centuries later is missing.
How was Vlesova's book technically written? At first, a horizontal line (lowercase) was drawn across the entire plank. Then they began to write letters from left to right, which were all capitalized, there was no division of letters into uppercase and lowercase. All letters touched the upper parts of the lowercase line. The letter "P" merged with its upper horizontal part with the lower case line. The letter "i" was simply written in the form of a vertical stick down from the lowercase line. The letter "T", in order to differ from the "i", had an upper horizontal line drawn just below the line line, and so on. The entire space of the line was filled with letters completely, without gaps and hyphens. If the word was not completed, the end would be wrapped in another line, even if it was completed, the end would be wrapped in another line, even if it was just one letter. There were no paragraphs. There were no punctuation marks, accents, or titles, even though many words were abbreviated. When the line ended, the second line was drawn and letters were written, etc. The text passed from one side of the tablet to the other side or the other tablet without any marks. If the text ended before the end of the line, then the end was not marked with anything. In the upper part of the plank there were two holes through which the strap was threaded, and, thus, it fastened the planks. There was no page numbering. If the text ended before the end of the line, then the end was not marked with anything. In the upper part of the plank there were two holes through which the strap was threaded, and, thus, it fastened the planks. There was no page numbering. If the text ended before the end of the line, then the end was not marked with anything. In the upper part of the plank there were two holes through which the strap was threaded, and, thus, it fastened the planks. There was no page numbering.
Alphabet of the "Vlesova Book". For simplicity and clarity, we assumed to call the alphabet of the "Vlesovaya Kniga" "Vlesovitsa" (compare: "Cyrillic" and "Glagolitic"). Its characteristic feature is its proximity to the "Cyrillic", "Vlesovitsa" is only much more primitive. In what? Firstly, all Greek sounds like fita, izhitsa, xi, psi, etc., which are absent in Slavic speech or transmitted by a combination of already existing letters, are completely absent here. "Vlesovitsa" is a purely Slavic alphabet. Secondly, the letters "y" and "u" were completely absent, being replaced by a combination of existing ones. For example, "y" was rendered as "oi" and "u" was rendered as "iy". This created considerable inconvenience, because it was possible to distinguish when to read "s" and when "oi", etc., was possible only by guesswork. Thirdly, the letter "and" was completely absent and was pronounced only by ear. The letter "i" was everywhere. Although Kur,and Mirolyubov assert that the letter "and" was not, we believe that this applies only to most tablets, while others (less often) also had "and". We conclude this from the fact that in the texts of both Kur and Mirolyubov this letter occurs so often along with the "i" that it is impossible to assume only an oversight or a typo.
Being a primitive Cyrillic alphabet, "Vlesovitsa", however, had a number of distinct letters. For example, "y", "d", "u". But these letters still did not deviate too much from the corresponding Cyrillic letters. So, "d" was transmitted in a triangle, without additional sticks at the bottom, as in the Cyrillic alphabet.
In general, the shape of the letters was uniform, without strong deviations. The only exception was "b", which had at least 5 different options, which are reduced to 2 types. We think that the second type, which is not similar to Cyril's "b", is an echo of the use of another alphabet, far from the Greek type. The scribe, accustomed to writing in a different alphabet, inserted a different version of the letter out of habit. Comparison with inscriptions on ancient coins, objects, for example, from the Black Grave in Chernigov, etc., can confirm our assumption with a degree of probability.
It should be added that there was a feature that apparently was not noticed by either Mirolyubov or Kur: often, if the letter that began the word coincided with the letter that began the next, then it was written once, but read twice. We find this in the annals, where instead of "is Smolensk" was written "and Smolensk." Since in those days there were no grammars, and they wrote "by ear", then the same word was written almost side by side now with the "s", now with the "e" of the Old Church Slavonic. They confused "o" and "a", "e" and "and", etc.
Difficulties in reading and understanding "Vlesovaya Kniga". The researcher of the "Vlesovaya Kniga" is often faced with many almost insurmountable difficulties.
1) The entire text of the tablets is far from being published. We are unlikely to be mistaken in assuming that about 3/4 of the text has been published.
2) We know for certain that some sides of the tablets for unknown reasons were not rewritten by Mirolyubov.
3) It can almost certainly be argued that not all the boards and their parts were picked up by Isenbek, especially since it was not he himself who collected them, but his messenger.
4) The boards were in varying degrees of preservation: some had parts broken off, other places were eaten by a worm, some places were chipped off, many letters were illegible or completely erased. Sometimes not only letters are missing, but even whole lines.
5) The text was published unsatisfactorily - with misprints, omissions, permutations in comparison with the original record of Mirolyubov. Finally, some tablets published as one piece are actually a mixture of excerpts from various tablets.
6) The boards were not numbered, and the researcher faces real chaos, unable to figure out where the beginning is, where is the end, which side of the board is even, which side was the previous and which is the next. Some of the plaques were not tied, and there is reason to believe that the ligaments have an initial sequence, but there is no certainty about this, because the ligaments could have been made later, without any order.
7) There is not always confidence that Mirolyubov read the text correctly or rewrote it, because "it is human nature to make mistakes." And it is extremely easy to make a mistake in such chaos, for attention soon gets tired.
The listed items can be combined under the heading: "incomplete text and lack of order in it."
The next huge difficulty is writing in a "continuous line", that is, without punctuation marks, paragraphs, division into words. As a result, a line of "solid" can be broken down into a number of words, but in different ways. And each division can give a certain meaning, but which division will be correct is often difficult or almost impossible to say. This is especially true when there is a gap in at least one letter. There are also intentional omissions of letters by the chroniclers of the "Vlesova Kniga" to shorten the letter. These abbreviations at that time were generally accepted and well-known, but these conventions become clear to us only after study and during the initial reading they are not easily grasped.
Finally, it happens when the chronicler makes a mistake, but "crosses out" what was written. So, for example, in the second line of the beginning of the "Vlesova book", at the end of it, he wrote the letter "t", and followed by "o", he crossed out this letter with two oblique lines. Kur did not notice this and read the crossed out letter as "u".
In addition, since the tablets were written at different times, the same word sounds or is spelled differently:
one chronicler spoke and wrote "menzh", "renka", etc., the other already pronounced and wrote "husband", "hand". The spelling was also confused.
There were also difficulties with the letters "y" and "u", which could be read in different ways in a new way. Finally, “I” and “ia” were not always the same. Some letters were similar in outline, nalr., "D" and "o", "o" and "y", etc. It was enough to lose a piece of paint, chip off the wood, set a stain, etc., and the letter could be read incorrectly.
Finally, even when the text is completely preserved and the division of lines into words does not raise doubts, we encounter misunderstandings due to unfamiliar words, unusual phrases, or ignorance of the customs or persons in question. Some words, of course, have changed their meaning or semantic shades since that time.
In a word, the researcher is faced with a chaotic mass of linguistic, historical and other materials, which can only be put in order by the combined efforts of many people.
Success can only be facilitated by a strictly scientific system, in which logic and knowledge are given first place, not fantasy or "inspiration."
The experience of studying The Lay of Igor's Host, which has been much better preserved, shows how many absurdities were put forward because of unbridled imagination and, most importantly, ignorance of the subject. Let's hope that the study of the "Vlesova Book" will follow a reasonable path - a slow, gradual disclosure of the truth.
Technique for reading and translating the "Vlesovaya Kniga". We used the following techniques: first, we rewrote the entire “solid”, then clearly understood words were highlighted with apostrophes. Unclear places remained untouched, even if they occupied entire lines. One and the same place was read many times in a row to memorize a certain combination of sounds, and also other places were read to enrich the memory. At the same time, it was often found that the same expression was repeated, and when compared with different contexts, it made it possible to finally understand what was being clarified.
First of all, individual, very often repeated words and particles arose from the chaos. For example, the word "bo" occurs a huge number of times, playing the role of only a connecting particle. It was used by our ancestors to make speech smooth. "Bo" most often means "for", but often it should not be translated at all, since in most cases it is just a decoration of speech, an element of style. The very frequent use of the word "a" is striking. This is not an opposition, but a connecting word and means "and", although "and" existed simultaneously. This "a" was used for fluency in speech and can be omitted.
Everywhere we come across the word "is" instead of "is." In the overwhelming majority of cases, this is a verb form, a separate word, and not part of some other. Therefore, its isolation is almost infallible. The word "is" is already an intermediate stage in the simplification and reduction of the most common forms, later they completely died out and disappeared. It was the original "natural". Then it became "is". Then "you", then, for example. among Ukrainians, "e" and, finally, the word has completely died out. Nobody will say now: “I am” or “you are natural”, but simply: I am such and such, you are such and such.
The presence of complex old verb forms is striking. For example, the "Book" is replete with the words "laughter", "a hundred", etc. All of them are untranslatable, for they have already died out in modern language.
In the dialect of the Hutsuls in the Carpathians, that is, in the area where our ancestors undoubtedly lived for one time, to this day there is a form of "sme" or "media" for the first person of the present and the past, for example: "I walk media "-" I went. " A particle of "sm" is a form of the verb "to be". It is interesting that this form survived only in the mountains, in the dialect of the Hutsuls, in the foothills, that is, on Pokutga, it is no longer there.
We also note that in the Hutsul dialect, the conditional mood, both in Church Slavonic and in Old Russian, is expressed with the help of the remnants, the aorist: “bym, be, would, be, quick”. Hence: "I would walk" - "I would walk", "I would know faster" - "if only you knew", etc.
The dead particle of the complex verb form "stakhom" or "hundred" has survived to this day, having lost its meaning, in the expression "mysta", meaning some superiority. Many, now shortened forms of words have survived, for example. "Brother", found among other Slavs to this day. Especially often the final consonants died out when there were two of them. For example, instead of "mogul", "brought", "brought" the result is modern "could", "brought", "brought", etc.
Not only abbreviations, but also frequent truncations of words, draw attention to themselves in the "Vlesova Kniga". Some of the reductions appear to have been permanent. For example, they wrote "bzi" instead of "bozi", "slva" corresponds to "glory", etc.
Truncations were expressed in the fact that they did not write “Dazhdbog”, but - “Dazhbo.” Similar to how our “save, God” turned into “thank you.” It is interesting that the derived forms were also truncated: “Dazhdbov vnusch”, and not "Dazhdbogovi vnutsi".
It should be noted once again that if the final letter of a word coincided with the beginning of the next one, then it was written once, and read twice. For example, "sploshnyak" "arechemusvarg" stands for "and more often (e) mu Svarog", etc.
With repeated reading of texts, the marked words, like some others like them, can be easily isolated and make it possible to separate the “solid” much faster. Details will be provided later.
Even a perfectly clear grammatical text can be misunderstood and compared. Therefore, it is necessary to note a few inaccuracies in the comments of A. A. Kur so that they do not receive further dissemination. As the photo of one of the tablets shows, all letters were written under a horizontal line running along the entire line. The first commentator of the "Book" AA Kur ("The Firebird, 1954, Jan., p. 13) writes:" … and some signs were placed above the line: either signs of division into words, or abbreviations-titles ". This detail refers to the writing of India, and not to the “Vlesovaya Kniga.” However, AA Kura’s phrase is constructed in such a way that one can understand, they say, this is precisely what refers to the Vlesovaya Kniga. In general, AA Kur's presentation is not always sufficient clearly, and some of its explanations need to be treated with caution:he is clearly inclined to bring the "Vlesov book" closer to the tradition of India, Babylon, etc., while the "Book" is completely original and very far in content from the sources mentioned.
Further (p. 14) he writes: “On some tablets among the text there are figures depicting a bull and dogs. These are glyphs, that is, picture writing, the presence of which in the text by itself indicates that picture writing as the basis of symbols, signs-letters has not yet been outlived … This statement is completely wrong. There is a dog (or horse?) Sign in the photo, but outside the text. Yu. P. Mirolyubov does not say a word about the presence of these signs in the text, but he is talking about signs on the margins of the tablets. Likewise, there is not a single mark in the text that these signs were. The signs were not part of the text. They denoted something completely different, having only an indirect relation to the text. They played the role of some kind of pointers.
In general, A. A. Kura's desire to link Vlesov's Book with India, Assyria, etc. is unproven and forcibly, at all costs, although it is understandable: A. A. Kur is an Assyrologist. However, we can positively assert that pictorial, ideographic writing is completely absent in the "Vlesova Kniga". Likewise, the following statement by AA Kura (p. 13) is incorrect: “This prototype was born somewhere in the south and, of course, basically has the Asura alphabet, or, as it is called, the ancient biblical, that is, on which those ancient documents were written, from which the ancient Bible subsequently grew. Of course, you shouldn't mix this alphabet with the so-called. Jewish, or Judeo-rabbinical, as invented much later and after the birth of Christ."
Let's not retreat into the darkness of times, about which we know almost nothing. One thing is clear to us: "Vlesovitsa" certainly had the Cyrillic alphabet as a prototype, for at least 9/10 of it is almost identical. Both of these alphabets are based on the Greek alphabet. Therefore, if you link the Asura alphabet, then you need to compare it with the Greek alphabet, taking into account also whether the letters were written from right to left or left to right, because this affects the writing technique and the shape of the letters. It is quite possible that the letters of the Psalter found in Korsun by St. Cyril, were close to the letters "Vlesovitsy", but it is impossible to assert that they were (p. 14) "exactly the same letters" (emphasized by AA Kur).
AA Kura got the impression that the language of the Vlesova Kniga (p. 14) is "a mixture of Russian, Slavic, Polish and Lithuanian languages." Analysis of all tablets available to us showed that Lithuanian words are completely absent. "Vlesova's book" is written in a primitive Slavic language (is the Russian runic script primitive ?; comment alexfl).
According to AA Kuru (p. 14), “there are purely biblical words, for example, when she praises Suri, they call her Adon - mistress”. If we turn to the text ("SURIA, CBETI, NA NL, A, DO, NYA, VIDIMO"), then we will be convinced that this passage is not a doxology at all, and there is no word "adon" at all; there is "a to n", that is, "to us." Anyway, how could a biblical expression get into the book of pagan priests, imbued with hatred of the Greeks and Christianity? Biblical expressions are completely out of the question.
On the same page we find: “There are also ancient Hindu expressions; apparently, part of some hymn or prayer in the Prakrit language … for an example I will indicate:
"ANIMARANIMOROKAN …" It is difficult to understand that AA Kur found the Hindu in this passage. Firstly, this is not a hymn, the passage is taken from the phrase: "neither Mara, nor Moroka can accept slaniti." In fact, this is a prohibition to worship "Chernobogs" Maru and Moroku. Secondly, there is no connection with India. Likewise, A. A. Kur, without reason (ibid., P. 14; Sept., P. 32), connects the forefather Orya with India. The Black Sea region and the Huns ("ideally from the land, where our brothers will kill the hunie.") A. Kuru find some Indian "motives".
In general, even in texts with the usual meaning, A. A. Kur makes mistakes. A perfectly clear phrase (boards 7) - “KIE BORZO IDE, BORZE IMA GLORY, BUT THERE IS A FLEXIBLE IDE, THEN BPAHIE DOESN'T KRYSCHUT” understands this way: “He cites as an example Prince Kyi, who always goes on a campaign quietly, even cautious crows do not shout when they see his warriors on a campaign.” The word “cue”, that is, “which” AA Kur turns into a prince Kiya and completely distorts the meaning of the phrase. In fact, it is said: "(those) who soon (greyhound) go on a campaign, have glory, and those who walk slowly, then crows grunt at them (the dead)." The meaning is completely opposite to that of A A. Kur. Moreover, it has been added: "we will attack like falcons", etc.
These examples show (and they can be significantly multiplied) that A. A. Kur's comments should be treated with great caution.
The time of writing "Vlesova Kniga", or rather the last part of it, is established quite precisely: between Askold, Dir and Rurik ("Erek"), on the one hand, and Oleg, on the other; probably around 880 the Chronicle was not something strictly uniform. Mirolyubov already noted that there were at least two scribes. The analysis of the tablets shows that, when talking about various events, the chronicle mentions more than once, "to the present time" ("to the point"). It is quite obvious that this "present time" was very different. As time went on, new events were added to the main chronicle. The timing of the entries is also confirmed by the difference in language and style. The beginning of the Book is probably several centuries older than its final part. It is interesting to note that there is not a word about the attack of the Russians on Constantinople in 860. However, the question of which Russia attacked Constantinople has not yet been clarified. There is a place where the time of writing is set exactly. Unfortunately, we do not have a very clear understanding of this place. It is said that the Varangians drove out the Khazars for … (not deciphered) until now.
With regard to the place where the chronicle was written, we expressed the idea that the “area” of the author of the “Vlesova Kniga” lay somewhere on the line of the Polotskturs, that is, where paganism held on for a particularly long time in Russia”(“History of the “Russians” in an undistorted form ", 1957, issue 6, 619-620). We saw the reason for this in the language of the book, which contains many" Polonisms ", as well as in the indication of the localities, names and peoples, most often mentioned in it. careful acquaintance and study of a large number of tablets, we tend to move the place of the narrative more to the south. If the author lived to the north of Pripyat, he should have mentioned more about yatvigs, Lithuania, zhmudi, etc. In fact, the center of gravity is all the time in the Black Sea region, namely - in its steppe part. Kiev, although it is mentioned, but does not play a leading role. On the contrary, Volyn, Golyn,Ruskolun, Voronzhets, etc. Likewise, among the Ilmer people one can hardly see the inhabitants of Lake Ilmeria (its coast) or Ilmeni, that is, Novgorodians. From the additional texts it is clear that Ilmen is associated with the Goths. Besides, Boplan noted that as early as the 16th century, the Dnieper-Bug estuary was called Ilmen. All this takes the place of action (and the author of the chronicle) to the south, to the steppe Black Sea region.
Who was the author of The Vlesovaya Kniga? We suggested that it was a priest or priests of the pagan religion of the ancient Russians. This is both true and false. As far as can be judged from all available data, the religion of the Russians was distinguished by the following features:
1) the Russians did not erect temples, although, of course, there were places that were especially revered and served the purposes of various religious ceremonies; 2) they did not erect idols and 3) as a result, they did not have special priests. The function of the priests was performed by the oldest of the family. Thus, there were no “de jure” priests, but they existed “de facto”.
One might think that with the complication of human relations, with the emergence of the rudiments of feudalism, under the influence of barbarians, etc., a caste like the priests should have crystallized. They were elders, keepers of antiquity and traditions. Their age and knowledge distinguished them from the general mass and thus created the preconditions for their isolation. They probably also healed, wondered, and were advisers. It was from this environment that the author of Vlesovaya Kniga came out.
Despite the fact that some parts of the chronicle were written by different authors, the chronicle has the main core, written by one person. Subsequent additions were made according to a given stencil.
Dislike for Christianity and the presence of a stubborn political and ideological struggle against it are a common thread everywhere. The author was an inveterate pagan and above all a patriot. In the betrayal of his faith, he saw the death of a nation, he zealously defended traditions.
Almost certainly we can say that he was not a Kievite. The family relations of the tribes around the concept of "Rus" will be discussed later.
Publication about "Isenbeck tablets". The magazine "Zhar-Bird" for 1954 contains articles by A. A. Kura (Jan., Feb., Sept. and Dec.). Ibid for 1955 (Jan., Feb.). In 1956, nothing was published about the tablets.
Part 1 - Part 2
