After the first excruciating pain, Vasilko lost consciousness and woke up only in another city, Zdvizhentsya. And we don’t know anything about what happened during this period of time. Since the prince woke up, we again know everything that he felt, heard, said, demanding the bloody shirt, which they gave him to wash, and in which he wanted to appear before the Supreme Judge. Vaeilko also remembered the difficult path through frozen mud all the way to Vladimir-Volynsky.
Thus, Vasil’s living source was the story of Vasil’ko Rostislavich himself. The episode about the truce in Kyiv, where the author cites the words of Monomakh, he most likely learned in Kyiv. He did not constantly live in Vladimir - this is obvious from his words: “I exist then in Vladimir.” The author talks about the remaining events related to the blinding of Vasilko like all chroniclers. Details during the siege of Vladimir-Volynsky indicate that everything related to this city was closely known to the author. He lived there. The author knows more about the events in the camp of the Volypian and Galician princes than the events in the camp of Svyatopolk-Mikhail.
His inclination towards Monomakh and his stay in Kyiv during Monomakh’s coming, his lack of sympathy for Svyatopolk-Mnkhail show that the author was not alien to the house of Vsevolod, and perhaps also to the monastery of Vsevolozh-Vydubitsky. This monastery, where Vaeilko went to pray, was, perhaps, the first connection between the Terebovl prince and the author of the legend about him, a native of the Volyn land.
Sylvester, abbot of Vydubitsky, included Vasil’s story in the chronicler rewritten by him. Probably a monk of the Pechersk Monastery. Sylvester, in the monastery where ngumentpu called him, could have met Vasily’s legend or even Vasil himself, who passed on his work to him.
The narrator Vasil belongs to the same category of narrators as Vnlgarduiv. We can say about him the same thing that the French say about their chronicle-teller: he is a Christian, although not a theologian, he is imbued with the pure faith and simplicity of a Christian, he sincerely talks about what he saw
I'm Slovak. His rshr—dg u&bі tspas—go. that Bt shashnt for gray. Op-m deeply soul-satisfying session in Gorvka. g vrzhvdash i • irtnsaiii shtsh. Vera p Bop y veto vdeg hand in hand with hyaaeyayaashp vvgeryaoa rvt. Feel a little bit of evil in the araateavo, just like a little bit of the yashtya aaeavs - in the water of the ag, having exuded. From the United States of America, its century, ieyadocheobi and vraoucheaia iraggiavgvoD reaagia.
Local legends about the Battle of Kulikovo.
In Ryazan province, 7 versts south of Skopin
...at 45 versts to the northeast of the Kulikovo field, on the left bank of the Verda river, there is the "Dmitrievskaya" mountain. It is so called because on it stands the "Dmitriev" monastery, and next to it is a small village — "Dmitrievka". The mountain is about 3 versts in circumference, and rises more than 50 sazhens above the river level.
■ dominates the entire surrounding area. To the fuse, south and east, areas of 20 versts are visible from it. In the monastery, located on the top of this mountain, there are two stone churches: one is the main church of Demetrius of Thessalonica, and the other is a small one in the name of St. Sergius. In the monastery archive, which is not older than the end of the past centuries, there are only documents testifying to the construction of the Sergius Church. According to these documents, its construction dates back to 1799; but they also say that it was built instead of a wooden church, which by that time had become extremely dilapidated, had grown into the ground and was falling apart. The Right Reverend Simov of Ryazan, when the NRC visited the Dmitriev Monastery on a tour of the diocese, ordered that wooden church to be completely destroyed, since the monastery absolutely did not have the means to restore it; but one of the neighboring landowners, a certain Knreev, volunteered to rebuild it again and built the present stone church on its site. As for the time of construction of the main church in the name of Demetrius of Thessaloniki, this is neither in the monastery records nor in local tradition no evidence of this has survived. The year 1740 is indicated on the antimension of this church; but, taking into account the extreme massiveness of its walls, the simplicity and roughness of the architecture, as well as its similarity in appearance with some very ancient churches of the Ryazan diocese, we can conclude that it was built earlier than the last century.