Lev Dmitriev (1970)
This Leningrad researcher wrote a section "Storytelling in the biographical monuments of the late 13 – 15 centuries" in the collective monograph "» [Leningrad: Nauka, 1970, p. 208 – 262]. He considered the SMF in the p. 212 – 216, the origin of the texts he did not touch, referring to the book by N. I. Serebryansky.
Vladimir Kuchkin (1990)
Kuchkin V. A. in the coverage of ancient Russian scribes: 13 – 1 half 14 centuries. – "Russian culture in the conditions of foreign invasions and wars 10 – beginning 20 centuries», M., 1990, vol. 1, p. 15 – 69.
Vadim Stavysky (1992 – 2021)
V. S. returned to the topic of the SMF from 1992 to 2021, so for (for today) 29 years.
(1) Stavysky V. the pious prince Michael of Chernihiv and his boyar Fedor. – "1000 years of the Chernihiv Diocese", Chernihiv, 1992.
(2) Stavysky V. I. – К.: Kyiv-Mohyla Academy editorial house, 2005. – 107 p.
(3) Stavysky V. I. «». – Ruthenica, 2017, vol. 14, p. 207 – 214.
(4) Stavysky V. I. ritual "worship of the bush." – "Eastern Europe in antiquity and the Middle Ages", M., 2020, vol. 32, p. 198 – 202.
(5) Stavysky V. I. glorification of Prince Michael of Chernihiv (origin of texts). – Ruthenica, 2021, vol. 16, p. 44 – 61.
(6) Stavysky V. I. Vvedensky synodikon of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra. – Ruthenica, 2021, vol. 16, p. 166 – 171.
Sergey Pavlenko (1996)
Pavlenko S. and his challenge to the Horde. – Chernihiv: 1996. – 79 p.
Vladimir Rudakov (2009)
Rudakov V. N. through the eyes of ancient Russian scribes of the mid 13 – 15 centuries. – M.: Quadriga, 2009. – 258 p.
Maria Antonova and Ekaterina Ivanova (2013)
Antonova M. V., Ivanova E. M. "The passions of the saint" in "The Tale of the Murder in the Horde of Prince Michael of Chernigov and his Boyar Fedor." – Bulletin of Bryansk State University. Series History / Literary Studies / Law / Linguistics, 2013, № 2 (2), p. 175 – 179.
Nadiya Milutenko (2016)
Milyutenko N. I. . – Proceedings of the Department of Ancient Russian Literature (St. Petersburg), 2016, vol. 64, p. 180 – 198.
Over the century since the publication of N. Serebryansky’s basic monograph (1915), the historiography of the subject has gone through two distinct stages of development. The first of them lasted until August 24, 1991, ie until the proclamation of Ukraine’s independence. The second stage began with the proclamation of Ukraine’s independence and continues to this day.
Traditionally, we see that the science of history does not have its own forces for development, and adapts to current political conditions. I believe that historical science in Russia should also be grateful to Ukraine for declaring independence, because the academic freedom that came to Russia and has been partially preserved to this day is due to the positive political changes of 1991. (I’m not talking about other freedoms in Russia – modern Russians want nothing but the rebuilding of the All-Union prison in every detail. They don’t care about freedom of scientific research, because it’s neither a TV nor a refrigerator.)
Historians have taken advantage of new opportunities provided by the abolition of the All-Union march, and research in the our specific field has significantly increased in the last 30 years. There are three main areas of study.
Archaeographic direction showed that the possibilities of studying already known manuscripts are far from exhausting. Important clarifications are provided by research on the composition of manuscript collections containing SMF, the time of their occurrence and their places of residence. The situation with the publication of texts is worse.
Source study direction studies are based on already published texts. Attempts to reconstruct the origin of the SMF show a great variety of hypotheses (to which I added my own). Many literary parallels to the SMF have been identified. Regarding the source value of the SMF, two groups of estimates have been outlined: some researchers try to see in the SMF the features of a real event in the middle of the 13th century, others pronounce еру cautious about this realism (I take this extreme point of view).
Literary direction studios, oddly enough, are represented so far the weakest. I would like to see the history of Michael and Fedor in all its literary evolution (up to and including modern historical novels), in all its connections with previous, modern and subsequent hagiography, to see how literary technique and tastes have changed.
Finally, I would like someone to compare the Tales of Michael and Fedor with Boris Polevoy’s "The Tale of the Real Man" and determine whether socialist realism really dates back to the early 20th century or whether it stems from old-fashioned hagiography.
Shortened text of the section. Full text in ukrainian version.