Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reconstructing the original of the Povest’ vremennyx let: a contribution to the debate

К реконструкции оригинала Повести временных лет: продолжение дискуссии

  • Published:
Russian Linguistics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The reconstructions of the Povest’ vremmenyx let made by L. Müller and D. Ostrowski have prompted discussion of issues related to textual criticism. I begin the article by summarizing the state of the debate and then, responding to Ostrowski’s defense of his position, I present additional evidence to support my claims that the version of the Povest’ vremennyx let in the Novgorod First Chronicle is independent of the archetype of its six full copies and that the Hypatian branch of the Povest’ vremennyx let is linked to the Radziwiłł branch by contamination. Questions concerning the nature of the contamination are also discussed: what direction it operated in and which representatives of the two branches of the tradition were involved in it.

Аннотация

Статья является продолжением дискуссии по вопросам критики текста Повести временных лет, развернувшейся после выхода в свет немецкого перевода Л. Мюллера и издания Д. Островского. Полемизируя с Островским, автор приводит новые доводы в пользу независимости текста Новгородской 1 летописи младшего извода от архетипа полных списков Повести временных лет и наличия контаминации, связывающей ипатьевскую ветвь рукописной традиции с радзивиловской. Уточняются параметры контаминации: ее направление и то, какие из представителей двух ветвей были в нее вовлечены.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A complete list of the abbreviations is provided at the end of the present paper.

  2. See also Krivko (2005) and Ostrowski (2006), where the genealogy of witnesses is discussed in passing.

  3. On ЛТ, however, see part 4 of this article for discussion of Mixeev (2011), where the existence of such an archetype is denied.

  4. The archetype of ЛТРА is usually held to be a Vladimir compilation of the late twelfth century (1185?) which goes back—probably via the mid-twelfth century Compilation of Andrej Bogoljubskij—to hegumen Sil’vestr’s 1116 manuscript of the PVL of (S). The archetype of РА is taken to be a Vladimir compilation of the early thirteenth century. In addition to this compilation (РА1), Р and А certainly had a later archetype (РА2), which was created in the western Rus’ lands after the Mongol invasion (as is shown by shared lexical variants characteristic of western texts—see Lunt 1994, p. 13—, and the famous replacement of ‘Polovcians’ by ‘Tartars’ in the entry for 1154). In the southern branch, И and Х are supposed to have had at least two archetypes: the Kievan compilation of 1198 (ИХ1) and a southern Rus’ian compilation of the end of the thirteenth century (ИХ2) in which the text of the Kievan Chronicle was combined with the text of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle. According to Šaxmatov, the earliest stage in the development of the ИХ-branch was the ‘third redaction’ of the PVL created in 1117–1118; here I denote this stage as ∗ИХ.

  5. This work referred to the stemma in Ostrowski (1999).

  6. I confess that by not participating in that discussion I have broken a friendly agreement made with Ostrowski on 21 November 2006 in the lobby of the Hotel Alberto Aguilera in Madrid in the presence of David Birnbaum, Ines Garcia della Puente, Jos Schaeken and Susana Torres Prieto-Hay (cf. Ostrowski 2007, p. 306, footnote 2).

  7. Strictly speaking, Vilkul does not even claim that Н1 is independent of ЛТРАИХ; rather, she is inclined to consider it a third branch of the manuscript tradition, parallel to those represented by ЛТРА and ИХ (Vilkul 2003, p. 209).

  8. Vilkul (2013), giving primacy to the reading of N1, considers it a ‘micro-borrowing’ from the Xronika Georgija Amartola. That explanation does not seem appropriate, for we are dealing with an etiquette formula which is well attested outside the PVL (e.g., in the annal for 6664 in the Kievskaja letopis’: добр приде, брате сну Нифонте (PSRL 2, p. 483)).

  9. The page and line references are to Ostrowski (2003). The Л = Н1 variants are cited from Л, the РА = ИХ variants from И.

  10. Л: .

  11. Л not present.

  12. Л: .

  13. Ostrowski does not consider the possibility that the text could have been composed in this way. On just one occasion he remarks (2007, p. 279): “Müller seems to be saying that the scribe of РА followed one exemplar and then the other randomly, abandoning correct readings when he depends on the protograph of ИХ.” It is puzzling that he expresses the position so tentatively when it was formulated explicitly in Gippius (2002) and taken up from there by Müller.

  14. РА: ().

  15. www.ruscorpora.ru.

  16. On the authenticity of the name Kunui see Xrapačevskij (2013, p. 20).

  17. The passage was commented on briefly in Gippius (2002, pp. 88–89).

  18. 11,4 НК = Т: в Руси словньскии языкъ / ЛРАИХ словнескъ языкъ в Руси, 11,11 НК = Т: морава / Л: норова / РАИХ: нерома (the secondary reading in ЛТРА was obviously норова), 13,2 НК = Т: лутичи / ЛРАИХ улучи (уличи), 22,18 НК = Т: умре Рюрикъ / умершю Рюрикови, 23,10 НК = Т: глаголя сице / ЛРАИХ: глаголя, 23,11 НК = Т: от Ольга князя / ЛРАИХ: от Олга. Note that the last two variants occur within a single phrase, which makes it highly improbable that they are independent changes in НК and Т.

  19. 26, 1 НК = И: положены книги / ЛРА: преложены книги, 26,13: НК = И: книжнаго разума / ЛРА: книжнаго образа, 26,24: НК = И: рече има ц(с)рь / ЛРА: рече има, 26,26: НК = И: истолковати / ЛРА: протолковати, 27,16: НК = И: языки различными / Л: языки (Р: языкъ, А: -), 27,21: НК = И: от плодъ познати / ЛРА: от плода знати, 28, 5: НК = И: велми / ЛРА: зло.

  20. НК = ЛТ ≠ А = ИХ: 0,1: - / черноризца Феодосьева монастыря Печерьскаго, 0,3: поча (нача) / почалъ, 1,9: Колии (Колия) / Кулии, 2,2: текущи / текущия, 3,1: Афету / Афетови, 3,1: яшася полунощныя страны / (яся) полунощная страна, 3,7: наречеся / наречется, 3,10: Вретанию (Вротанию) / Вританию, 3, 13: всячьския / всякоя, 3,17: Днстръ (Т- Днпръ) / Днпръ, 4,2: яже / иже, 4,3: сдять / cдить, 4, 15: к полунощию / к полуденью; НК = РА = ИХ ≠ ЛТ: 0,1: - / се, 1,9: Елимаисъ / Алмаисъ, 2,5: противу сущи / противущи, 2,10: пакы / нки, 3,9: Андриакия / Анъдриокия, 3,11: Евию(съ) / Авию (Явию), 3,12: Закинфа / Вакунофа, 4,12: агляне / агняне (нг). Underlined are the secondary readings of НК.

  21. As Mixeev (2011, pp. 22–23) rightly notes, though they are usually associated with the Svod 1307 g., shared secondary readings of the form Л = Т can be explained differently. Since, according to Gippius (2002), the opening section of the PVL in РА goes back to a protograph of the Hypatian type, and НК goes back to the Svod Andreja Bogoljubskogo, there is no reason why secondary readings of the type Л = Т cannot be linked independently with the Svod 1185 g. Moreover, the editing of the Vladimir chronicle in the thirteenth century, the results of which are reflected identically in Л and Т, does not presuppose that the opening part of the Svod 1185 g. was copied.

  22. See the following examples in particular: 1,9 Т = НК = Х: комагини (omitted in Л, but certainly goes back to ЛТРА, supported by ХГА) / РА = И: колгини; 7,11 ЛХ: оковьскаго, оковского / РАИ: волковского, воковьскаго, воковьского; 28,5 ЛТ = Х: скорописца (supported by the Life of Methodius) / РАИ: борзописца; 135, 12b Л = Х = Н1: тщася / РА = И: тщиться; 142, 16–17 (see example (21); despite Ostrowski’s views (2005, 60–61), haplography in РАИ seems to be the most probable explanation).

References

  • Bobrov, A. G. (2001). Novgorodskie letopisi XV veka. Sankt-Peterburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bugoslavskij, S. A. (1941). ‘Povest’ vremennyx let’ (spiski, redakcii, pervonačal’nyj tekst). In N. K. Gudzij (Ed.), Starinnaja russkaja povest’. Stat’i i issledovanija (pp. 7–37). Moskva, Leningrad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bugoslavskij, S. A. (2006). Tekstologija Drevnej Rusi. Tom 1: Povest’ vremennyx let (sost. Ju. A. Artamonov). Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobrovol’skij, D. A. (2011). Ešče raz o sootnošenii Lavrent’evskoj, Radzivilovskoj i Ipat’evskoj letopisej. Drevnjaja Rus’. Voprosy medievistiki, 3(45), 42–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • ĖSSJa: Trubačev, O. N. (Ed.) (1974–). Ėtimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskix jazykov. Moskva.

  • Gippius, A. A. (1997). K istorii složenija Novgorodskoj pervoj letopisi. Novgorodskij istoričeskij sbornik, 6(16), 3–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gippius, A. A. (2002). O kritike teksta i novom perevode-rekonstrukcii ‘Povesti vremennyx let’. Russian Linguistics, 26(1), 63–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gippius, A. A. (2007). K probleme redakcij Povesti vremennyx let (Part 1). Slavjanovedenie, 5, 20–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gippius, A. A. (2008). K probleme redakcij Povesti vremennyx let (Part 2). Slavjanovedenie, 2, 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krivko, R. N. (2005). Teorija kritiki teksta i ėdicionnaja praktika: k vyxodu v svet novogo izdanija Povesti vremennyx let. Russian Linguistics, 29(2), 243–278. doi:10.1007/s11185-005-2035-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lunt, H. G. (1994). Lexical variation in the copies of the Rus’ Primary Chronicle. In M. S. Flier (Ed.), Ukrainian philology and linguistics [Special issue]. Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 18, 10–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mixeev, S. M. (2011). Kto pisal ‘Povest’ vremennyx let’? (Slavjano-germanskie issledovanija, 6). Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moldovan, A. M. (2002). Čem mylis’ novgorodcy. Lingvističeskoe istočnikovedenie i istorija russkogo jazyka 2001, 229–231.

  • Müller, L. (2001). Die Nestorchronik. Die altrussische Chronik, zugeschrieben dem Mönch des Kiever Höhlenklosters Nestor, in der Redaktion des Abtes Sil’vestr aus dem Jahre 1116, rekonstruiert nach den Handschriften Lavrent’evskaja, Radzivilovskaja, Akademičeskaja, Troickaja, Ipat’evskaja und Chlebnikovskaja und ins Deutsche übersetzt von Ludolf Müller (Forum slavicum, 56). München.

  • Müller, L. (2006). K kritike teksta, k tekstu i perevodu Povesti vremennyx let. Russian Linguistics, 30(3), 401–436. doi:10.1007/s11185-006-0709-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakadzava, A. (2006). Issledovanija novgorodskix i moskovskix letopisej XV veka. Tojama.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nazarenko, A. V. (2002). Novyj trud izvestnogo slavista: K vyxodu v svet nemeckogo perevoda Povesti vremennyx let L. Mjullera. Slavjanovedenie, 2, 128–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrowski, D. (1999). Principles of editing the Povest’ vremennyx let. Palaeoslavica, 7, 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrowski, D. (Ed.) (2003). The Povest’ vremennykh let: an interlinear collation and paradosis (Harvard Library of Early Ukrainian Literature. Texts, X). Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrowski, D. (2005). Scribal practices and copying probabilities in the transmission of the text of the Povest’ vremennykh let. Palaeoslavica, 13(2), 48–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrowski, D. (2006). Striving for perfection: transcription of the Laurentian copy of the Povest’ vremennykh let. Russian Linguistics, 30(3), 437–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrowski, D. (2007). Načal’nyj Svod theory and the Povest’ vremennyx let. Russian Linguistics, 31(3), 269–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priselkov, M. D. (1996). Istorija russkogo letopisanija XI–XV vv. (Studiorum slavicorum monumenta, 11). Sankt-Peterburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romanova, O. V. (1997). Ipat’evskaja letopis’ i Novgorodsko-Sofijskij svod. In Opyty po istočnikovedeniju. Drevnerusskaja knižnost’. Sbornik v čest’ V. K. Ziborova (pp. 59–66). Sankt-Peterburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • SDRJa: Avanesov, R. I. (red.) (1988–). Slovar’ drevnerusskogo jazyka (XI–XIV vv.). Moskva.

  • SJaS: Kurz, J. (Ed.) (1966–1997). Slovník jazyka staroslověnského. Vols. 1–4. Praha.

  • Sreznevskij, I. I. (1893). Materialy dlja slovarja drevne-russkago jazyka po pis’mennym pamjatnikam. Tom 1 (A–K). Sanktpeterburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Šaxmatov, A. A. (Ed.) (1916). Povest’ vremennyx let. Tom 1: Vvodnaja čast’. Tekst. Primečanija. Petrograd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Šaxmatov, A. A. (1940). Povest’ vremennyx let i ee istočniki. In A. S. Orlov (Ed.), Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury, IV (pp. 9–150). Moskva, Leningrad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timberlake, A. (2001). Redactions of the primary chronicle. Russkij jazyk v naučnom osveščenii, 1, 196–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toločko, A. P. (2005). Proisxoždenie xronologii Ipat’evskogo spiska Galicko-Volynskoj letopisi. Palaeoslavica, 13(1), 81–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toločko, A. P. (2006). O vremeni sozdanija Kievskogo svoda 1200 g. Ruthenica, 5, 73–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vilkul, T. (2003). Novgorodskaja pervaja letopis’ i Načal’nyj svod. Palaeoslavica, 11, 5–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vilkul, T. (2004). Tekstologija i Textkritik. Ideal’nyj proekt. Palaeoslavica, 12(1), 171–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vilkul, T. L. (2013). Polnyj perevod Xroniki Georgija Amartola v letopisnyx stat’jax X–XI vv. (Povest’ vremennyx let i Novgorodskaja pervaja letopis’ mladšego izvoda). Drevnjaja Rus’. Voprosy medievistiki, 3(47), 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xrapačevskij, R. P. (2013). Polovcy-kuny v Volgo-Ural’skom meždureč’e po dannym kitajskix istočnikov (Istoriko-genealogičeskij proekt ‘Sujunovy’. Serija ‘Materialy i issledovanija’, 2). Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia

    Alexey A. Gippius

Authors
  1. Alexey A. Gippius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexey A. Gippius.

Additional information

This study was carried out within the Program for Fundamental Research OIFN RAN ‘Language and Literature in the context of Cultural Dynamics’.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gippius, A.A. Reconstructing the original of the Povest’ vremennyx let: a contribution to the debate. Russ Linguist 38, 341–366 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-014-9137-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-014-9137-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation