Part 2 - Part 3
The universe is not only more unusual than we imagine, it is more unusual than we can imagine
Before proceeding to the presentation of this issue, it should be recalled that "Vlesova's book" is not a chronicle with a sequential arrangement of historical events, not a description of reigns, etc. (which Yu. P. Mirolyubov expected at one time), but a kind of collection religiously instructive content, in which, along with the glorification of the gods, the presentation of religious customs, etc., there are also large passages devoted to history. In the pagan religion of our ancestors, the veneration of grandfathers and ancestors played a huge role, in this regard, and tells about their deeds. The examples of their lives show the need for unity, love for the motherland and faith in their gods, who helped the ancestors in their struggle against enemies. Therefore, the presentation of historical events is fragmentary, fragmentary. They return to the same event more than once,and often the coverage or details do not quite coincide with what is said elsewhere. This is probably also due to the fact that several persons, significantly separated in time, took part in the writing of Vlesova Kniga, which is reflected in the style of speech and spelling.
Therefore, compiling a historical review based on the "Vlesova Kniga" is not an easy task, especially since much has been lost, spoiled or confused. We will take the following path. On the one hand, we will select excerpts that outline the main milestones in the history of Russia, as it was depicted by the authors of the "Vlesova Kniga", and on the other, we will focus on some bright passages, the position of which in the general scheme is not clear, but the content of which can largely help in general coverage of events. With further research and deciphering of the text, it is possible that these passages will find their place in the general scheme, but for now it would be imprudent to include them in the scheme only at the first impression: we will try to unravel the threads of the tangled ball gradually, not to tear them.
A researcher of Vlesova Kniga must always remember that this is not a chronicle, but a religious collection, based, however, significantly on history. Hence - constant deviations from the historical line and endless repetitions of religious and moral formulas. However, as a secular history does not know the Russian prince Bravlin, but his deeds are brought to us by a Christian source - the "Life" of St. Stefan Surozhsky, and in the "Vlesovaya kniga" comes across names that are not preserved in secular history. And, what is most interesting, we find here Bravlin's mention with the additional remark that his great-grandson now reigns - a circumstance that makes it possible to clarify the time of writing this tablet.
For convenience, the history of the Russians can be divided into two parts: 1) legendary and 2) historical. The legendary tablets include the tablets, which describe the actions of legendary persons (Russian Adam, whose name did not even reach the author of the "Vlesova Book"), the forefather Bohumir, whose family members' names have already been preserved, and the forefather Orya, about whom so much is said that he follows most likely to be put first in a row of historical figures. It is even possible that in the future it will be possible to establish approximately the century in which he lived.
In the tablets that speak of truly historical persons, we find a number of names, starting with the forefather Aur and ending with Askold and Erek (probably Rurik). In addition, we find indications of the times of Germanarich, Galarekh and other Hunnic leaders, as well as of the times of Bous, Mezeimir and a number of Russian princes unknown to us from history. Quite a lot of data about Kie, his brothers, etc. In addition to these names, which could be chronological milestones, important events in the life of the Russian tribe are repeatedly mentioned, for example, the appearance in the Carpathians, leaving from there to the Dnieper, etc.
Promotional video:
We will try to give only the shortest schematic outline of historical milestones, noting, of course, that much will be clarified in the future when the entire text is published, and many dark passages are deciphered.
1. The name of the Russian Adam is unknown. The 15th tablet only says that "at the time of it there was a husband (" menzh ") valiant, who was called a father in Russia." He had a wife and two daughters. He lived in the steppes, had a lot of cattle - cows and sheep. But the daughters did not have husbands. However, God gave him the beaten, that is, he gave his daughters in marriage (the reverse side of the tablet, apparently, was not rewritten).
In this message, two points are of interest: 1) not a single name was named, 2) the unknown forefather lived in the steppes and had a lot of cattle. We consider the failure to mention the name of the forefather very characteristic and speaks in favor of the authenticity of the chronicle: this is the hallmark of the Russian people - a dislike for fantasies. The name of the forefather is forgotten. This is considered. And it would never occur to anyone to invent a name, although the names in the legend about the next forefather have already been given. Whether it was the Greeks or the Romans, the name would have been given without fail. The indication of the steppes and cattle is extremely important and interesting, especially if we take into account the further content of the tablets, where the mention of cattle, grass, steppes literally does not leave the lips of the storytellers. The authors of the "Vlesovaya Kniga" portray the ancient Russians as typical herders. If they were engaged in agriculture, then it was an auxiliary trade.
Until now, not a single historical source has reported the existence of tribes of Slavic pastoralists. Everyone considers them to be either farmers or hunters and fishermen. If we take into account that the scene of all the main events in the "Vlesovaya Kniga" is confined to the Black Sea steppes, then theoretically the cattle breeding of our ancestors is fully justified: this is a zone of predominant cattle breeding, although agriculture can play a leading role in the valleys of small and large rivers.
The pastoralist way of life of the Russians also makes clear the large territorial coverage of the "Vlesovaya Kniga": from the Carpathians to the Volga, then constant instructions on movement, change of place of residence - for pastoralists this phenomenon is completely normal, even integral.
Therefore, the mention of the Surozh (Crimea), the Bolshaya and Malaya rivers Kalki, the Danube and Don, the Volga and Danube are realistic details of these wanderings.
At the same time, it becomes clear and the predominant mention of the Huns ("Yengushti") and Goths ("God"), who were constant rivals in the possession of the Black Sea steppes. In one place it is directly stated that the Goths had to be fought for 400 years. This remarkable detail reveals to us a whole special section of the history of Russia: the period of nomadic, or, rather, semi-nomadic, which apparently prevailed in the first centuries of our era. This stage of the economic development of Rus' remained completely unaccounted for in official history. The way of life, the growth of the productive forces had a completely different character than it had been imagined until now. This feature of Vlesova's Book speaks again in favor of its authenticity: it does not repeat what is already known, but reveals what is unknown to all of us, it is completely original and does not imitate anything.
2. The second legendary hero - Bohumir, whose wife was called Slavunya, daughters - Dreva, Skreva and Poleva, and sons - Sev and Rus (the younger), are depicted as the same cattle breeder. The legend says that Bugomir did not have husbands for his daughters. On the advice of his wife, he went in search of suitors. Towards evening he stood in a field by an oak tree and built a fire. Then he saw three horsemen rushing towards him. They drove up and said: “Wake up good! What are searching for? Bohumir spoke about his need. They answered that they were looking for wives. Bohumir returned to his steppes, leading three husbands to his daughters. Then several lines are destroyed. Then it is said that three glorious families originated from here - Drevlyans, Krivichi and Polyana. From the sons came the northerners and the Rus.
There are two interesting points in this legend. First, the influence of matriarchy is clearly still felt: the tribes bear the names of their ancestors. And, secondly, in another place in the "Vlesovaya kniga" the origin of the names of the tribes is explained differently - exactly as in the Nestorovsk chronicle, that is, the inhabitants of the forests are called Drevlyans, the steppes - glades. This shows that already in ancient times the Russians thought about the origin of the names and put forward various hypotheses. Moreover, two different hypotheses existed in the same work. The legend of Bohumir also attracts by the fact that at the end of it there are interesting details about the place and time - a circumstance that is also very original in relation to the legend. Usually every legend shies away from accuracy, but simply says: "in time it is." It is said literally like this: "… Ytvopice dear ones about the seventh retsekh i even living in the overseas about the greens and camo cattle! (…) Ancient i descent to karpenstea gopi … then she will be latsh before a thousand three for ermanrehu "…
It can be translated approximately like this: "those clans were created (from the daughters and sons of Bohumir) along the seven rivers where the overseas lived in the Green Land and where the cattle were taken before the exodus to the Carpathian Mountain … it was before 1300 years before Germanarich."
Where this Green Land was and what kind of overseas we are talking about is unknown. But he is mentioned again. And there is a hope that its location will be established accurately.
In another tablet, 15a, 7-14, there are some details of the most ancient stay of the Russians. Said:
“Forebears … I’m going to the edge of the seventh country about the mountain ipstia and the zagogria obentysh’s Viek and this is how it’s going to be, I’m two to one … and you’ll get to the land, and there’s a hundred times, I’d go to the steppe and let’s go from … gopia karpenst …"
Thus, the most ancient place of residence of the Russians was the edge of seven rivers. They left the Paradise Mountain and Zagorje, lived a century, then went to the Mesopotamia region … and got into the land of "Cpstie" (?), There they stood, waited and went in large mountains, snow, ice and got into the steppe … and went to the Carpathian Mountain …
Since Germanarich died in 375, and allegedly lived for more than 100 years, we will take conditionally his time - 300 AD. e. This means that the Russians lived in the area of seven rivers for 1000 BC. e. near some paradise mountain, and then went to the two rivers, then, after long trekking through the snowy mountains, we found ourselves in the steppe, and from there we went to the Carpathians.
3. There is a tablet (5a, 1-10), which contains, as it were, a diagram of the main stages of the life of the Russians. She says:
“Liats to diru for tensense penta one hundred idosha prada nasa to gure karpaneske and tamo from the settled living kladno”, that is, “1500 years before Dir our ancestors went to the Carpathian mountain and settled there, richly tenacious”.
If we take Dir's time conditionally - 850 g, the arrival of the Russians in the Carpathians belonged, therefore, to approximately 650 BC. e. Prior to that, they had been in the area of the seven rivers and elsewhere since 1000 BC. e. We will not now strive for clarification, we will try first of all to establish the main milestones.
Further it is said (we omit the trifles) that “tako sets 6iash live pepte for a hundred years and tamo ptschekhomsep to vshdiatsu sune a adehom to ppre ta bo rieka esse to morizhe tetsaia then midnight is not but sepimated (and) deepre apeno years.
Having lived in the Carpathians for 500 years, the ancestors went to the sunrise to the Dnieper, that river flows into the sea, and sat on it to the north of the so-called Nepre Priputi, that is, Pripyat, and they sat there for 500 years.
It is noteworthy that the Dnieper is called Nepra everywhere. Boplan noted on his maps that the people of Dnipro are also called Nepra. And here the author of "Vlesova Kniga" is at the height of the knowledge of that era.
Who was the leader of all these movements is not said. The forefather Or, apparently, belongs to the post-Carpathian and even the last Dnieper era.
From what has been said, it is clear that the arrival of the Russians to the Dnieper refers to about 150 BC. e. It took place in a direction already quite precisely defined: from the Carpathians to the east to the Dnieper. We cannot say anything about all the previous movements and directions.
It is further said that the ancestors were allies of the Ilmerites and that they lived richly, raising cattle in the steppes. However, the Ilmerites left the Russians and went south. At the same time, the fight against bone-bones called "bone-bones" began. The fight against bone-bones lasted 200 years. In the end, the Russians, having been defeated, were forced to flee to the forests (“and our mother-in-law is prebending to the heart of our mother-in-law”). And they stayed there for 100 years. Further we are talking about the Goths of Germanarich. We leave aside the specification of the chronology for now.
4. An interesting milestone is the first encounter with the Goths, recounted in Tablet 9. The time of this meeting has not yet been clarified. An approximate translation is as follows:
"… They came from the Green Land to the Gothic Sea and there they stumbled upon the Goths who blocked the way. And so they fought for that land, for our life. Until that time, our fathers were at the shores of the sea on the Ra river (obviously, the Volga) and with the great through difficulties, they ferried their people and cattle to the other side, going to the Don ("going to the Don"), and there they saw the Goths. Walking further south, they saw the Gothic Sea and the Goths armed against us, and so they were forced to fight for their lives and good."
The content is extremely interesting because of the geographical indications that can be recognized immediately. Green Paradise is the steppe east of the lower Volga along the Caspian Sea. The Pa River is undoubtedly the Volga, as it turns out from other sources - the texts of the Vlesovaya Kniga, and also because many ancient authors called it that way. "Gothic Sea" - Azov, of course.
We are talking about the resettlement of the Russians from the east from across the Volga to the Don and further south to the Sea of Azov, where they met with resistance from the Goths, whom they saw for the first time. A realistic detail is curious: the crossing of people and cattle across the Volga was accompanied by great difficulties. Here again the importance of livestock is emphasized. We are not yet talking about other details, considering it premature.
5. An excerpt from the tablet 26c is very interesting: "… and Kie Vendé for rush i Sheko Vendé tribes and Khorev Khorev svea … Odeide Khorev i shekh odo Ine and Sekh to Karpaneske gopia i tamo biakhom in the city we create in the family imiakhi god tribes more vrzi on top of us i that mother-in-law to some hail and until golun and takhom you will stay …"
Here we have a variant of the well-known legend about Kie, who ruled Russia, Schek, with his cheeks, and about Horev, the leader of the Croats. The passage mentions the moment when the Croats and cheeks (weren't they the Czechs?) Moved away from the Russians again to the west to the Carpathians, but their stay there was short-lived: the enemies forced them to flee again to Kiev and Golun and, obviously, finally settled there.
The city of Golun, which has been mentioned more than once, or Golyn, about which our history knows nothing, comes up. The name involuntarily suggests that the term "splitter", which is also used many times, is one and the same. And, perhaps, the expression "Ruskolun" is explained as Rus Koluni. And this, in turn, coincides with the word "Roksolan" changed by foreigners. Decryption still seems premature to us, but possible in the future. This passage is followed by an equally entertaining one:
"… i, some will die for trescents, rule i by the family of the Lebedians ix still more glorious still live two septates, but still, it is true that the sky is now two seresente i that serezhen descent …".
It is established in such a way that Kiy reigned for 30 years. Behind him was Lebedyan, also called Slav, who reigned for 20 years. After him was Veren from Velikograd (or Velikograd). Finally, Serezhen, who reigned for 10 years. In other words, we have a successive row of four princes who reigned for 80 years in total. It is unlikely that this figure is accurate, for the reigns of all are clearly given in rounded figures.
Finally, almost certainly, these are not representatives of one Kiya dynasty, but the princes who were elected after Kiy. For, firstly, there is not a word about their relationship. And secondly, in many places it is emphasized that earlier they were elected to reigns and only recently (when it is unclear) have reigns become hereditary. The point is very important - you can approximately establish the time of the birth of feudalism.
The name Lebedyan involuntarily prompts one to think whether this is about the "voivode Lebed" (and his country "Lebedian"), who is mentioned in Byzantine sources. Comparison of data about Kiev, "building the city", and the governor Lebed, along with Stryikovsky's data that Kiev was built in 430, can significantly clarify the times of Kiy. We do not have the opportunity to deal with detailing this and other similar issues here.
6. About Askold and Dir there are several deaf and direct indications on different tablets. For example: "… that right vorenze went to russe askld sylou pogramli our knzez and ptoltse go askld and later dir usedshisia on not iako neprshen knza ti then knzhite posha over she until ista … iako biasta she knzer as gr'cehdehde dnesne od grtsekh osvecen … ".
This passage clearly indicates that Askold and Dir were strangers, moreover, Varangians. Askold defeated the forces of the local prince and became "an uninvited prince", that is, began to rule by force. In what relationship Askold and Dir were, and here it is unclear. But most of all, Askold was only the governor of Dir. The latter appeared and sat down in Kiev after Askold's victory over the local Russian prince. Eastern sources do not know Askold at all, but only Dir. Both appear to have been baptized by the Greeks.
In the tablet 7, 2 we find the following lines: "… for three years of tensenz, one is gone krpensta askold, the people are angry with us that zegnense …".
The adjective "evil" in relation to Askold and the indication that the people "bent" show the chronicler's hostile attitude towards Askold, who appeared uninvited and who conquered the Kievites by force. It is very important to indicate that Askold appeared in Kiev after 1300 years after the exodus of the Russians from the Carpathians. Since the appearance of Askold can be conditionally dated to 850 AD. e. (probably a little later), then the exodus from the Carpathians falls around 450 BC. e. The roundness of the figure (1300) indicates its approximation. But its accuracy up to a century is very likely. Since the "Vlesknig" gives several different dates of the exodus from the Carpathians, in the future the date, apparently, can be specified.
In other passages it is said that the Vikings are "predators". These instructions refute the version that the "evil" Askold and Dir were the descendants of Kiy. In many places it is always said about the election of princes. And only in one place it is said that now the power of the prince has become hereditary. Therefore, the assumption of Askold's Slavism, apparently, should disappear. And we cannot but accept the version of all our chronicles that Askold and Dir were Varangians who broke away from Rurik.
Along the way, by the way, we recall that while looking through Bayer's work, we came across his indication that the name Rurik had a lot of variants. There were, for example, both Regorik and Rugerik. That from these words by abbreviation (for example, Boris turned out from Bogoris) it is quite easy to get Rurik, it is not particularly necessary to prove. But the fact is that Rugerik makes sense - after all, Rurik was a "swear". Among the names of Igor's ambassadors, one is simply named by nationality - Yatvig. It is possible that the same happened with Rugerik.
The fragmentation of the tablets, their damage, incomprehensible places, etc., do not make it possible to have a general picture of Russia according to the "Vlesova book" with all the details. Above we have noted only its main milestones. However, many passages, although not connected with the previous and the next, are still of great value in themselves. For example: “then our family was called carpene”. In this case, it is not so important to establish the time as the fact that russians and carps are one and the same. Consequently, the historical data on carp, still completely isolated, should go down in the history of the Russians. Even such an excerpt: "Russia, which perished three times, rebelled." Since he sums up a huge period in the history of Russia and proves the vitality of this people.
In this chapter, we'll tackle such concise, isolated messages. However, there is hope that in the future, when the transcript progresses significantly and the entire text is published, these passages will come into closer connection with the rest of the text.
1. So (plaque 6, a series of them): “od Ori, then, promise our otse s Borusi odo Rai rece to Nepra”, that is, “from the forefather Orya lived our ancestors with Borus from the river Ra (Volga) to the Dnieper ". There is an interesting connection between the habitat and the time of a certain historical person. The Volga region to the Dnieper is huge even for a nomadic tribe. It follows that the tribes were large and spread further eastward than is usually thought. Further. The chronicler's ancestors did not belong to the Borus tribe. They were only related to them. The name of the Borussians has been mentioned in the Vlesovaya Kniga many times. And there is no doubt that the "Boruscs" of other historical sources are the same. In addition, the data of "Vleskniga" establish the belonging of the Borussians to the Slavs. We draw attention to the fact that the Greeks in ancient times called the Dnieper Borisfen. Borisfen flowed through the Boruska area. The country, according to Vleskniga, was called Boruskeni. The similarity of names and the coincidence of location forces us to take into account that both names - the river and the tribe that lived on it - are in connection with each other. In addition, note that the word Borisfen is not Greek. It must be assumed that in antiquity, even before the arrival of the Slavs there, the Dnieper was called Borisfen or a very close-sounding name. The Slavic tribe that settled on its banks took on the name, as we observed in many examples: Polotsk, Danube, Gavolyan, Zapenyane, etc. Since Herodotus already wrote about Borisfen, the existence of the Slavs on the Dnieper can be considered already proven to the V century. BC e.who lived on it - are in communication with each other. In addition, note that the word Borisfen is not Greek. It must be assumed that in antiquity, even before the arrival of the Slavs there, the Dnieper was called Borisfen or a very close-sounding name. The Slavic tribe that settled on its banks took on the name, as we observed in many examples: Polotsk, Danube, Gavolyan, Zapenyane, etc. Since Herodotus already wrote about Borisfen, the existence of the Slavs on the Dnieper can be considered already proven to the V century. BC e.who lived on it - are in communication with each other. In addition, note that the word Borisfen is not Greek. It must be assumed that in antiquity, even before the arrival of the Slavs there, the Dnieper was called Borisfen or a very close-sounding name. The Slavic tribe that settled on its banks took on the name, as we observed in many examples: Polotsk, Danube, Gavolyan, Zapenyane, etc. Since Herodotus already wrote about Borisfen, the existence of the Slavs on the Dnieper can be considered already proven to the V century. BC e. Polotsk, Danube, Gavolyan, Zapenyane, etc. Since Herodotus already wrote about Borisphenes, the existence of the Slavs on the Dnieper can be considered already proven by the 5th century. BC e. Polotsk, Danube, Gavolyan, Zapenyane, etc. Since Herodotus already wrote about Borisphenes, the existence of the Slavs on the Dnieper can be considered already proven by the 5th century. BC e.
2. It also says that “a bird of God flew in and told them to leave at midnight,” they (ie, the ancestors) moved away and became “stuns along the river Romi”. Is this not an indication of the region of the river where the modern city of Romny stands, or does it refer to the region of the city of Rimov, mentioned in the "Lay of Igor's Host" and located somewhere nearby in the same region?
3. Ibid: "The Berendei had Prince Sahu, who was wise and always our friend." Indicating the name of the prince can be useful when decrypting other sources. In addition, it was reported about the help to the Berendey, which was provided by the Russians against the Yagi. Friendly relations with Sakh justify this.
4. In the same place Ruskolun is mentioned repeatedly - a mysterious name (it is only clear that it was a state union of the Russians). It seems that this name gave rise to the historical, but distorted name of "Roksolania" on the lips of foreigners. As is often the case, the inversion of the letters took place. Although the word production of Ruskoluni is still unknown to us, the presence of the word Gretskolunia in Vleskniga shows that there was a word “splint”, which probably meant some kind of space. It also occurs in a different verbal environment. But it has not yet been possible to find out its meaning.
5. In the same place: "Byasta Kimore also oce nahshe, and shake those Roma, and shake the grytse, as if they were frightened", that is: “Our fathers were Kimri (Cimmerians), and they shook Rome (probably a hint of Odoacer, etc.), and the Greeks were scattered like frightened pigs. " Valuable information establishing the relationship of the Russians with the Cimmerians, or Kimrs. At the same time, the scope of the activities of the Russians is shown: from Rome to the Greeks. Comparison of the flight of the Greeks with the movement of frightened piglets is very figurative.
6. In the same place, next to: "Potlzena by Rousse ode grtse a reme, otherwise I walked along the brezeh morenstech to Surenzhe, and tamo ugvori Surenzh krye, bo ten ye suren …", that is: "Rus was defeated by the Greeks and Romans, and went (obviously, the Russians) along the coast of the Surozh and there they settled the Surozh region, since it was sunny. " Apparently, the region was named by the Russians in honor of the sun, which also bore the name Sura. Surozh is a modern Pike perch in Crimea. In "Vleskniga" there is a lot of information about Sourozh Rus. In the area of Surozh lived the Russians, mostly subordinate to them and working for the Greeks. Many were grieved and accepted the Christian faith, which is described with indignation. However, more than once the Russians threw off the yoke and, as it is said, “let the Greeks breathe”. The age-old struggle was waged, of course, with varying success. What kind of defeat we are talking about and whether the Romans were united with the Greeks, it is impossible to say definitely.
7. Board. 7: “To the Bo Roma, you will hide the evil against us, and the armor has passed from the carriage of the gland to the end, and that the Branichom will long about not and grow out our land, and the Rome Venda, like laugh about our belly, but ponehsha us ", ie:" The Romans envied us and planned evil on us - they came with their wagons and iron armor and hit us, and therefore fought them off for a long time and threw them away from our land; and the Romans, seeing that we strongly defend our lives, left us. " It is difficult to locate the place or area where the struggle took place, but most likely on the Danube, as other passages about the encounter with the Romans definitely refer to the Danube, and it is even directly named.
8. In the same place: “Tako grtse at least you will keep us horsune while hiding … and bya borya and directing trdesente lata and that ponehshya sen …”, ie: “The Greeks also wanted to take us into slavery near Korsun (Chersonesos in the Crimea), but we fought … the great struggle lasted 30 years and stopped …”Here is a clear indication that the Russians lived in the Crimea not far from Chersonesos. Probably Neapolis ("Novgorod" of Prince Bravlin) was their city. A long thirty-year struggle testifies to the fact that the matter is not about some kind of raid of the Greeks on the Russians, but about the struggle of two neighboring peoples. The Russ, apparently, at one time sat very tightly in the Crimea. There is a plaque calling to "fly like falcons to Korsun" and avenge offenses.
9. In the same place: "… and not dakhom our land, like a serpent with a trojan horse, not a dakhom sen roman, but let us not stand up to the offender, dazhbov as a grandson," that is: "And they did not give our land (to the Greeks), as they did not the land of Troyan to the Romans and may no offense arise to Dazhdbog's grandchildren "… This wonderful passage connects" Vleskniga "with the" Word about Igor's regiment ", in which there are expressions" the land of Troyan "," resentment arose in the forces of Dazhdbov's grandson. " Borrowing is allowed by us. "The Word" was written in 1187, "Vleskniga" - shortly before 890, that is, there were about 300 years between them. It is not surprising that the author of the Lay, who was clearly not far removed from paganism, used the expressions of ancient times - the walking turns. By the way, note that there are several words that bring both sources closer together. For example, the expression “I will stretch my mind” and the word “haraluzhny” are encountered. Obviouslythere was some kind of tradition from Vleskniga. The "Word" could not have arisen from scratch. It undoubtedly relied on centuries of written culture. Again, the land of Troyan is mentioned here in connection with the Romans. Probably the action takes place somewhere in the west in the Danube regions.
10. Ibid: “Imam pronudente khorsun, pay for the tears of our daughter has been clarified, and our sons have taken the encouragement, the dress is not sbna ani gold, I’m even the head, it’s scared to whisper …”, that is, “we have to force the Korsunians to pay for the tears of our daughters, for the sons taken into slavery; This payment is not in silver, not in gold, but only to cut off their heads, to shred them into splinters”. Next comes a long call to hike.
11. Ibid: “Dazhbo us krenz zamun and then poor kravenets and skufe, onti, bers, borusen and surenzhians”, ie: “Dazhdbog gave birth to us through the bloody (incomprehensible) and blood relatives became: Scythians, Antes, Russia, Borussen and Surenzhians”. A very interesting place indicating the kinship of the Slavic tribes. There are several similar places, but their exact meaning cannot be deciphered.
12. In the same place: "and the tough bird about gryneh borusenkov yakov od rum fallen kola danaev vendle trojan valu", that is, "and that bird speaks about the brave Borusks who fell in the fight against the Romans near the Danube, near the Troyanov shaft" … Here the place of the struggle with the Romans - at the Danube, at the Troyanov Rampart - is indicated absolutely precisely. The Troyanov shaft is undoubtedly the one that protected the Romans from the attack of the "barbarians" from the north. Why the Troyanov shaft is called the Troyanov shaft is not clear. The name is associated not only with the imp. Trojan. After all, the Troyan Shafts were not far from Kiev. It is quite possible that Trajan and Troyan are not synonymous at all. The phonetics of the word "ptytsya" is remarkable - it quite accurately conveys the modern form of the Ukrainian language. In general, the language of Vleskniga is a strange combination of Polish, Czech, Russian and Ukrainian words, but in very peculiar combinations.
13. Ibid: "Grab beriai his own howl only in ischech, selenshe z russeva and so z not dressing the land, but nichma uvore ruskolane, kii bo usedes about kyeve …", ie: "Horvath (Croatian tribe) he took his sons then, looking for another part (land), settled with Rus … and with them he set up Ruskolan, who settled near Kiev. " An extremely informative passage, unfortunately, is not entirely clear. Next comes a passage with a confusing meaning, but it is still clear from it that "we will not seek another land, but we will be with Russia", because that "is our mother, and we are her children" and we will, they say, with her to the end … Here the chronicler, recognizing Russia as his mother, at the same time notes that he is a Russian not in a narrow sense, but in a broad one. Obviously, he belonged to some kind of tribe descended from Russia, but had a different name. It is possible that he belonged to the Croats, about whom it is said that they,joining with Russia, they formed Ruskolun. Whether this understanding is correct - other passages will show.
14. Board. 8: "… from the oce orei there is one kind of slven, and by (o) tseo tseo son (e) it is divided into a trinity, and so a hundred about Ruskolan and a wenze hedgehog is divided into two. soon descent … ", ie:" … under Father Orya there was one glorious people (but you can also understand "Slavic" - a word that occurs hereinafter), and after father (Orya) his three sons were divided into three parts, and so Ruskolan was formed, and the crowns, which were divided into two parts … so that soon there were ten parts. " The text is largely unclear. But there is hope to clarify it. With regard to the word "Ruskolun", it should be noted that there is also a variant of "Ruskolan". If the last option is more correct, then you can understand the word differently: "rusk (th) doe". Lan is a field. The whole expression: "Russian field". It is still impossible to say which of the options is correct.
15. Curious is the message, repeated twice (boards 4 and 6) and giving a new chronological date: "a glorious deyana for the passage of the people on the Russian descent of the hundredth summer …" We are talking about the time of Prince Svetoyar (Sventoyare), when Bolyar defeated the Goths and the scots (an unknown tribe whose name is mentioned several times). If we read literally, we get ten times a hundred, that is, a thousand and a third year. Such a figure cannot be accepted, for such accuracy (1003) simply could not have been at that time. And everywhere the word “one thousand” is used, not “ten one hundred”. Obviously, the figure should be read in a different way. It seems to us that one should understand 310, that is, they said "ten" and "three hundred". In this case, the term turns out to be more than three times less and of such magnitude that the national memory could keep it.
In another tablet it is said about the same: "… one hundred treshetyago descent odo the Karpensky exodus." The starting point is indicated here - the departure from the Carpathians. And further it is said that the bolar Segenya killed the son of Germanarich. This sets the approximate moment of the battle. Since Germanarich already had an adult son, it can be tentatively and tentatively accepted that the battle took place in 350, and, therefore, the exodus from the Carpathians was at the beginning of our era. We cannot dwell on details and critical consideration (a subject of special labor).
16. It is repeatedly mentioned about Voronzents (isn't it Voronezh?). Apparently, this was an important point, but destroyed during the fight against the goyu. "… sebo voronzents bia place about iakova yciiliceše year in russe 6iere i that hail 6ia is not enough and also where the other partners are ashes i you are puppies you are three puppets are grown around the floors i are left are not that i do not have land you will forget teiy there bo krv otsy natspekh sen lilasche … "It is about the struggle with the Goths, as a result of which Voronzents was burned to ashes and ashes and the place was left by the Russians, but that Russian land should not be forgotten, because the blood of our fathers was shed there.
17. There is also an excerpt: "..iakozhde right now Mezenmipy taco from antie sme", - indicating that at the time of Prince Mezenmir the Russians were "antas". On the reverse side of the same tablet there is again a passage confirming what has been said: "… se bo antie biakhom according to ruskolani i dievle biahom russe … i antie mesenmiru to win victories about the year …"
So, the Russians, tenacious in the area called Ruskolan, were called Antas, since ancient times they were Russians … The Mezenmir ants won victories over the Goths. This message is very important. We do not know why, but some of the Russians were called antas (maybe they returned from Antlan? Note alexfl). This is now established by a direct indication of Vleskniga. In addition, it is obvious that the name "anta" was later lost, but the national memory has retained it, although the original name of the Rus was restored.
In the bundle of tablets 24 there is still a very dark passage that speaks of the times of the ants: "… just the same viediekhom itself otyzé stapia nashia empolstva antieva …"
18. On the same tablet, an oak and a sheaf are mentioned in a passage on religion. This combination is repeated more than once. The oak is apparently a symbol of Perun. What the sheaf meant is unknown. However, a sheaf appears in Ukrainian Christmas customs to this day (isn't it a symbol of the harvest?). Here is some kind of comparison, clear only to those who knew the meaning of the religious customs of the ancient Russians.
19. Immediately it is said: "… Behold, about Volyn, Ide, about the predeh i, without vrze iaxo xopo6pia ece i that volyn is the feather of the genus …" Volhynia is here called the "core" (first) of the genus. In general, Volhynia, Mezenmir and antes form some kind of set, the meaning of which, apparently, can be deciphered later.
20. On the board. 26 is a long account of the attempt at the time of the forefather Aur to unite his tribe with the tribe later called Kiya. The unification attempt failed. Or left separately and built the city of Golyn.
21. A geographical indication (also a plaque) is very important: "… and the year is still on kalzza little i mother-in-law to the brezi mpshti i takve zeme hold until don i potou don piecie i se kalka vlika ie except between the first tribes …", i.e. That is, the Goths settled on Malaya Kalka and to the seashore and thus received land to the Don River, and Kalka Velikaya is our border.
It is unclear to which century this indication belongs, but the mention of both Kaloks, the Sea (obviously of the Azov Sea), Don shows quite clearly the boundaries then occupied by the Goths.
At this point, we will allow ourselves to interrupt the presentation of individual parts of the text, which give a lot of new things. There is much more such material than is given. And even more so, where the meaning is dark. It is impossible to expound it in full - it would take too much space. We hope to return to it in a special work on the "Vlesovaya Kniga", in which all the texts known to the author will be fully presented, many dark passages will be deciphered, different passages are compared, and all data are comprehensively analyzed.
It is necessary to think that the above gives enough to understand what material the researcher deals with in the "Vlesova Book". The material is enormous, and it is not enough for just one researcher.
Part 2 - Part 3
