The goal of drafting the SRG
Nicholas Zharkikh
This goal did not give rest to researchers, and many hypotheses were expressed.
1, SRG – church directory (with special specification – of the Kyiv Metropolitanate). It cannot be so. The SRG does not indicate any seat of metropolitans or bishops.
2, SRG – guide to holy places (pilgrim’s guide). It cannot be the same, because shrines make up a very small part of the total number of objects.
3, SRG is a guide along trade routes. This is how one can explain the "Moldavian" group, the objects of which are quite neatly lined up along the road from Bilgorod-Dnistrovskyi to Kolomyia, and among them are twice mentioned markets. But this group is an exception in the SRG, which generally shows no interest in trade.
4, SRG – a traveler’s guide, a guide to routes (not only trade routes). It cannot be so. On the example of objects located on the Dnieper, it is clearly visible that the route along the Dnieper was not an organizing principle for them. The location of objects along some hypothetical paths can only apply to small fragments of the SRG, not to any extent the SRG as a whole.
5, SRG – tax register (with special concretization – Golden Horde tribute). It cannot be so. Any subject of taxation is mentioned anywhere in the SRG; the objects named in it were part of different states, each of which organized taxation in its own way. It is also indisputable that the Golden Horde khans did not receive any tribute from Jerusalem.
6, SRG – military reference book. There is no doubt that fortifications, especially stone ones, were of interest to the SRG scribe. But again, the belonging of the objects to different states raises the question – which of them was supposed to serve the military needs of such a directory.
7, SRG – administrative directory. And it cannot be so, because no administrative units are indicated, which undoubtedly existed at that time, even if in a poorly developed form.
8, SRG is a border document. It can be assumed that the SRG used some documents demarcating the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Veliky Novgorod, as well as the GDL and the Grand Duchy of Moscow. The duplication of the same names in different parts of the SRG can be considered as traces of these documents, which was a consequence of the different origin of these parts (each side of the demarcation considered such settlements their own and recorded them in their lists). But the SRG as a whole was not such a demarcation document – primarily because it does not specify the participants of demarcation.
All these hypotheses are completely unsatisfactory and must be rejected.
In my opinion, the purpose of compiling the SRG was to compile a list of towns. And this is not a tautology. I will try to explain.
In the 2nd quarter 15th century among Novgorod scribes, a grandiose idea arose – to create an annals collection that would absorb the materials of all previous annals, would become an Annals with a capital letter. For this, preparatory work was carried out, from which the Novgorod Karamzin Chronicle remained, and work on the Annals itself began. But this work exceeded the strength of one person, and after the death of the initiator of this enterprise, no one could continue processing the accumulated materials, their organization stopped. The materials were transcribed "as is", and thus the Novgorod 4th Chronicle was formed with its characteristic very numerous duplications of records of the same events. I think that this chronicle was only a faint hint of the intended project.
And further, I think that a geographical encyclopedia was also planned for this volume, which was supposed to somehow highlight the geography of Rus’. SRG was, speaking in modern language, a dictionary of this encyclopedia, that is, a list of slogans for which explanatory materials had to be selected. Those mentions of fortifications and temples that are in the SRG are only insignificant fragments, were reference points of descriptions of settlements that had to be compiled.
Judging by these remains, the full form of the article should include the name of the river / rivers on which the settlement stands, the presence and nature of fortifications, the names of Orthodox churches. Perhaps it would have reached the state affiliation of the settlements and their governmental / administrative / ecclesiastical role, although there is no indication of this in the preserved text. It is also possible that in the process of work it would be necessary to reject part of the collected names, and some, on the contrary, to be supplemented.
But the work broke in at the initial stage (probably due to the death of a key person), and the collected material was mechanically transcribed, without much understanding of the idea and content of the list. Thus, Jerusalem was included among the Lithuanian cities, which was mentioned in the preparatory materials for some special (unknown to us) purpose.
It is not possible to speak about the systematicity of SRG in the modern sense of the word, although one should give credit to the writer who put great effort into the work in which he had no predecessors.