Historical Writing of Early Rus (c. 1000–c. 1400) in a Comparative Perspective 9004335595, 9789004335592

Citation preview

Historical Writing of Early Rus (c. 1000–c. 1400) in a Comparative Perspective

East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450 General Editors Florin Curta and Dušan Zupka

Volume 71

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ecee

Historical Writing of Early Rus (c. 1000–c. 1400) in a Comparative Perspective By

Timofei V. Guimon

LEIDEN | BOSTON

This book was written in the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Cover illustration: The church of Annunciation in the Annunciation Monastery near Novgorod, founded in 1179. Back cover illustration: The Hypatian MS. of the Hypatian Chronicle, c. 1418, fol. 84v. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Gimon, T. V., author. Title: Historical writing of early Rus (c. 1000–c. 1400) in a comparative perspective / by Timofei V. Guimon. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2021] | Series: East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 1450–1450, 1872–8103 ; volume 71 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2021007405 (print) | LCCN 2021007406 (ebook) | ISBN 9789004426924 (cloth) | ISBN 9789004335592 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Historiography—Russia. | Historiography—Kievan Rus. | Russia—History—To 1533—Sources. | Kievan Rus—History—Sources. | Novgorodskai�a Feodal’nai�a Respublika—History—Sources. | Middle Ages—Historiography. | Historiography—Great Britain. | Great Britain—History—Medieval period, 1066–1485—Historiography. Classification: LCC DK70.A25 G56 2021 (print) | LCC DK70.A25 (ebook) | DDC 947/.02072—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021007405

LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021007406 Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 1872-8103 ISBN 978-90-04-42692-4 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-33559-2 (e-book) Copyright 2021 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

To my wife Ludmila and our sons Mikhail and Konstantin

⸪

Contents List of Figures, Tables and Diagrams ix Abbreviations xii Introduction 1 1 The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres 13 1.1 Writing in Early Rus: A Concise Overview 13 1.2 Letopisi (the Annals) 30 1.3 The History of the World: Translations of Foreign Chronicles and Chronographs 44 1.4 Attempts at Writing Non-Annalistic History of Rus 53 1.5 Minor Forms of Historical Writing 59 1.6 A Comparative Perspective: Historical Writing in Anglo-Saxon England and Old Rus 70 2 The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev 91 2.1 The Manuscript Witnesses and Redactions of Povest’ vremennykh let 93 2.2 Texts-Predecessors of Povest’ vremennykh let: An Introduction into Discussion 100 2.3 The Problem of the Oldest Tale (the Non-Annalistic ‘Nucleus’) 111 2.4 The Traces of Early Annals and the ‘Two Beginnings’ of letopisi Writing 119 2.5 Historical Notes in Iakov the Monk’s Memorial and Encomium: A ‘Royal Inscription’ of Vladimir? 128 2.6 The Emergence of Rus Historical Writing in a Comparative Perspective 144 2.7 Reporting the Pagan Past and the Conversion: Povest’ vremennykh let and Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica 157 3 Historical Writing in Novgorod 171 3.1 The Text-Relationships of Extant Novgorodian letopisi 174 3.2 Lists of Officials 194 3.3 The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Novgorod: the 11th Century 198 3.4 The Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod and Their Authors 213 3.5 How Did the Archiepiscopal Annalists Work? 219

viii

Contents

3.6 The Circle of Events Reported by the Archiepiscopal Annals 226 3.7 The Archiepiscopal Annals and the ‘Living Chronicles’ of Western Europe 233 3.8 The Synodal Manuscript: A Copy of the Archiepiscopal Annals Kept and Continued in St. George’s Monastery 243 3.9 Excerpts from the Archiepiscopal Annals Made for the Annunciation Monastery 253 3.10 Historical Writing in Novgorod: A General Overview 259 3.11 Oral Historical Tradition in Novgorod 263 4 The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus 277 4.1 Existing Theories and Their Discussion 280 4.2 Who Were Patrons, Supervisors, and Authors of the Annals? 290 4.3 What Kinds of Events Did the Annalists Report? 303 4.4 Who Could Be Mentioned in the Annals, and Why: Non-Rurikids in letopisi 314 4.5 How Were the Annals Maintained and Revised? Did They Circulate in Copies? 325 4.6 The Annals and Legal Texts 338 4.7 Princely ‘Messages’ in the Annals 341 4.8 The 1130s–40s as a Crucial Period in the Documental and Annalistic Writing 353 4.9 Political Evaluations in the Annals: Kiev Up to the 1130s and the Northeast 359 4.10 Ecclesiastical, Family, and Natural Events in the Annals 371 4.11 Summary of the Data Obtained and Comparative Reflections 382 Conclusion 394 Appendix 1: A Note on the Reckoning of Time in Early Rus 399 Appendix 2: A List of Rus Pre-1400 Manuscripts Containing Historical Writing 405 Appendix 3: The Author’s Russian-Language Published Works Corresponding to Parts of this Book 409 Bibliography 412 Index of Texts 453 Index of Manuscript Shelfmarks 458 Index of Geographical and Ethnic Names  459 Index of Persons 464

Figures, Tables and Diagrams

Figures

1 Birchbark document from Novgorod no. 246. A demand to return money. The 11th century 15 2 Graffito from the Church of the Savior on Nereditsa near Novgorod. The first syllables of the names of the seven days of the week. The late 13th or the first half of the 14th century 16 3 Mstislav’s Gospel, before 1117. A luxurious manuscript commissioned by Prince Mstislav, son of Vladimir, probably for the Annunciation Church in Gorodishche near Novgorod 21 4 Mstislav’s Charter, c. 1130. The earliest Rus single-sheet document on parchment traditionally kept with a later (13th-century) gilded silver seal of Prince Iaroslav, son of Vsevolod 27 5 The Hypatain MS. of the Hypatian Chronicle, c. 1418, fol. 84v. Annals for 897–915 32 6 The Laurentian Chronicle, 1377, fol. 1v. The beginning of the Povest vremennykh let 39 7 The Radzivill Chronicle, c. 1487, fol. 243v. Annal for 1201. The upper miniature depicts the travel of Prince Iaroslav from his father Vsevolod of Suzdal to his new throne in Pereyaslavl-upon-Dnieper. The left part of the lower image depicts the death of Prince Vladimir, son of Sviatoslav. The right part of the lower image depicts a moon eclipse 41 8 The principal urban centers of Old Rus 45 9 Graffito of St. Sophia Cathedral of Kiev no. 3 reporting a thunderstorm in 1052 60 10 Easter table for 532 years with annalistic notes (GIM., Syn. 325, fol. 192v, the mid-14th century) 69 11 The Synodal MS. of the First Novgorodian Chronicle (the first scribe, c. 1234), fol. 21r. Annals for 1140–1 175 12 The Synodal MS. of the First Novgorodian Chronicle (the second scribe, c. 1330), fol. 166v. Annal for 1330 (the end of the portion written by the second scribe) 176 13 The Commission MS. of the First Novgorodian Chronicle, the mid-15th century, fol. 30r. Annals for 854 and 920 177 14 The Academic MS. of the First Novgorodian Chronicle, the mid-15th century, fol. 74r. Annals for 1108–13 178 15 A stemma of the Novgorodian annals 184

x

Figures, Tables and Diagrams

16 The Synodal MS. of the First Novgorodian Chronicle (the first scribe, c. 1234), fol. 62r. Annals for 1199–1200 and palaeographical change in the 9th line from the top 190 17 St. Sophia Cathedral of Novgorod (founded in 1045) 214 18 St. George’s Monastery near Novgorod. The church of St. George founded in 1119 is in the background. In the foreground one sees the church of the Savior built in 1823–4 244 19 The Synodal MS. of the First Novgorodian Chronicle, fol. 167r. The first and the second additions, annals for 1130–3. The political alteration is in the 6th and the 7th lines from the bottom 250 20 The Synodal MS. of the First Novgorodian Chronicle, fol. 167v. The second and the third additions, annals for 1333 and 1137 251 21 Annalistic notes in GIM, Syn. 330, fol. 281v (the late 12th century) 254 22 The church of Annunciation in the Annunciation Monastery near Novgorod, founded in 1179 256 23 Distribution of ‘messages’ in the Kievan Chronicle 349



Tables

1 Rus pre-1400 written material: Statistics 14 2 The Chronology of PP and PVL 136 3 Vladimir’s military expeditions before the conversion in PP and PVL 139 4 Cases of haplography in Novgorodian annals 182 5 Kinds of events reported by contemporary sections of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 240 6 Kinds of events reported by the Anglo-Saxon and the Novgorodian annals 241 7 Kinds of events reported by the Chronicle of Ireland and the Annals of Novgorod 242 8 Notes on building in Syn. and N1Y s.a. 1333 246 9 Notes for 1337 and 1345 in Syn. and N1Y 248 10 The style of notes on building of churches in Laur. and the changes of bishops of Rostov 292 11 Timberlake’s segments of PVL and offices of abbots of the Cave Monastery 295 12 The usage of the March and the ultra-March styles in the Kievan Chronicle and the succession of abbots of the Cave Monastery 299 13 Kinds of events recorded in the principal early Rus’ annalistic texts 305 14 A comparison of the content of the annals of England, Ireland and Rus 313

Figures, Tables and Diagrams

xi

15 Contexts in which non-Rurikids are mentioned in the annals of the South and the Northeast 324 16 Rurik’s ‘message’ to Vsevolod in Hyp. and Laur. 347 17 Four episodes of the building of churches in the Novgorodian annals 375 18 Distribution of notes on family events 379



Diagrams

1 Stemma of the witnesses of PVL by Donald Ostrowski 96 2 Modified stemma of the witnesses of PVL by Aleksei Gippius 98 3 The distribution of the more verbose readings of Syn. in comparison to N1Y 186 4 The distribution of variant readings in dating formulas, where Syn. is more verbose in comparison to N1Y 187 5 Distribution of ‘non-political’ notes in Syn., 1115–1238 309 6 Distribution of ‘non-political’ notes in N1, 1240–1330 310 7 Distribution of ‘non-political’ notes in the Hyp., 1110–1200 311

Abbreviations Acad. the Academy (Akademicheskii) MS. of N1Y ASC  The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A collaborative edition, edited by David N. Dumville and Simon D. Keynes, vols 1–. Cambridge: Boydell & Brewer, 1983–: 3: MS A: A semi-diplomatic edition with introduction and indices, edited by Janet M. Bately. 1986; 5: MS. C: A semi-diplomatic edition with introduction and indices, edited by Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe. 2001; 7: MS. E: A semi-diplomatic edition with introduction and indices, edited by Susan Irvine. 2004; 8: MS F: A semi-diplomatic edition with intr. and indices, edited by Peter S. Baker. 2000. BAN Biblioteka Akademii nauk (the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint-Petersburg) BL the British Library (London) Com. the Commission (Komissionnyi) MS. of N1Y DRSM Drevniaia Rus’ v srednevekovom mire: Entsiklopediia, edited by Elena A. Mel’nikova and Vladimir Ia. Petrukhin. Moscow: Ladomir, 2014. GIM Gosudarstvennyi Istoricheskii muzei (the State Historical Museum, Moscow) GVNP Valk, Sigizmund N., ed. Gramoty Velikogo Novgoroda i Pskova. Moscow – Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1949. HE Venerable Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Historia ecclesiastica gentis anglorum) Hyp. the Hypatian Chronicle (Ipat’evskaia letopis’), and its Hypatian (Ipat’evskii) MS. Khlebn. the Khlebnikovskii MS of Hyp. Laur. the Laurentian Chronicle (Lavrent’evskaia letopis’) MA the Moscow Academic Chronicle (Moskovsko-Akademicheskaia letopis’) MGH Monumenta Germaniae historica MGH SS Monumenta Germaniae historica. Series scriptores. N1 the First Novgorodian Chronicle (Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis’) N1Y the Younger Version of the First Novgorodian Chronicle (Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis’ mladshego izvoda) N4 the Fourth Novgorodian Chronicle (Novgorodskaia chetvertaia letopis’) NGB Novgrodskie gramoty na bereste:

Abbreviations

xiii

[8]: Ianin [Yanin], Valentin L., and Andrei A. Zalizniak. Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste (Iz raskopok 1977–1983 gg.). Kommentarii i slovoukazatel’ k berestianym gramotam (iz raskopok 1951–1983 gg.). Moscow: Nauka, 1986. [10]: Ianin [Yanin], Valentin L., and Andrei A. Zalizniak. Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste (iz raskopok 1990–1996 gg.). Paleografiia berestianykh gramot i ikh vnestratigraficheskoe datirovanie. Moscow: Russkie slovari, 2000. 11: Ianin [Yanin], Valentin L., Andrei A. Zalizniak, and Aleksei A. Gippius. Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste (Iz raskopok 1997–2000 gg.), vol. 11. Moscow: Russkie slovari, 2004. 12: Ianin [Yanin], Valentin L., Andrei A. Zalizniak, and Aleksei A. Gippius. Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste (Iz raskopok 2001–2014 gg.), vol. 12. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2015. NK the Novgorodian Karamzin Chronicle (Novgorodskaia Karamzinskaia letopis’) NK1 the ‘first selection’ of NK NK2 the ‘second selection’ of NK NS-group the Novgorodian-Sophian group of chronicles (NK, S1, N4) PP Pamyiat’ i pokhvala kniaziu Vladimiru (Memory and encomium to Prince Vladimir) ascribed to Jacob the Monk PSRL Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei 1: Lavrent’evskaia letopis’, edited by Evfimii F. Karskii, parts 1–3. Leningrad: Arkheograficheskaia komissiia, 1926–28 (reprinted in 1 vol.: Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kultury, 1997); 2: Ipat’evskaia letopis’, edited by Aleksei A. Shakhmatov. Saint-Petersburg: Tip. M.A. Aleksandrova, 1908 (reprinted: Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kultury, 1998); 3: Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis’ starshego i mladshego izvodov. Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kultury, 2000 (reprint with supplements of a separate edition: Nasonov, Arsenii N., ed. Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis’ starshego i mladshego izvoda. Moscow – Leningrad: Izd-vo Akad. nauk SSSR, 1950); 4, part 1: Novgorodskaia chetvertaia letopis’, edited by Aleksei A. Shakhmatov, issues 1–3. Petrograd – Leningrad, 1915–29 (reprinted: Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kultury, 2000); 5 [1st ed.]: Pskovskie i Sofiiskie letopisi. Saint-Petersburg: Tip E. Pratsa, 1851. 5, parts 1–2: Pskovskie letopisi. Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kultury, 2000, 2003 (reprint of edition: Nasonov, Arsenii N., ed. Pskovskie letopisi, parts 1–2. Moscow – Leningrad: Izd-vo Akad. nauk SSSR, 1941–1955);

xiv

Abbreviations

6, part 1: Sofiiskaia pervaia letopis’ starshego izvoda, edited by Sergei N. Kisterev and Liudmila A. Timoshina. Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kultury, 2000. 6, part 2: Sofiiskaia vtoraia letopis’, edited by Sergei N. Kisterev and Liudmila A. Timoshina. Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kultury, 2000. 15: Letopisnyi sbornik, imenuemyi Tverskoiu letopis’iu, edited by A.F. Bychkov. Saint-Petersburg: Tip. L. Demisa, 1863 (reprinted: Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kultury, 2000, in one volume with the next item); 15, part 1: Rogozhskii letopisets, edited by Nikolai P. Likhachev. Petrograd, 1922 (reprinted: Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kultury, 2000, in one volume with the previous item); 18: Simeonovskaia letopis’, edited by Aleksandr E. Presniakov. Saint-Petersburg: Tip. M.A. Aleksandrova, 1913 (reprinted: Moscow: Znak, 2007); 20, 1st half: L’vovskaia letopis’, part 1, edited by S.A. Adrianov. Saint-Petersburg: Tip. M.A. Aleksandrova, 1910, 23: Ermolinskaia letopis’, edited by F.I. Pokrovskii. Saint-Petersburg: Tip. M.A. Aleksandrova, 1910 (reprinted: Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kultury, 2004); 26: Vologodsko-Permskaia letopis’, edited by Mikhail N. Tikhomirov. Moscow – Leningrad: Izd-vo Akad. nauk SSSR, 1959; 27: Nikanorovskaia letopis’. Sokrashchennye letopisnye svody kontsa XV veka, edited by Arsenii N. Nasonov. Moscow – Leningrad: Izd-vo Akad. nauk SSSR, 1962 (reprinted: Moscow: Iazyki slavianskikh kul’tur, 2007, in one volume with the previous item); 38: Radzivilovskaia letopis’, edited Boris A. Rybakov et al. Leningrad: Nauka, 1989; 41: Letopisets Pereiaslavlia Suzdal’skogo (Letopisets russkikh tsarei), edited by Viktor I. Buganov et al. Moscow: Arkheograficheskii tsentr, 1996; 42: Novgorodskaia Karamzinskaia letopis’, edited by Iakov S. Lur’e et al. Saint-Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2002. PVL Povest’ vremennykh let (the Primary Chronicle) Radz. the Radzivill Chronicle (Radzivillovskaia letopis’) RGADA Rossiiskii gorsudarstvennyi arkhiv drevnikh aktov (the Russian State Archive for Ancient Acts, Moscow) RNB Rossiiskaia natsional’naia biblioteka (the Russian National Library, Saint-Petersburg) RGB Rossiiskaia gosudarstvennaia biblioteka (the Russian State Library, Moscow)

Abbreviations

xv

Rog. the Rogozhskii Chronicle (Rogozhskii letopisets) S1 the First Sophian Chronicle (Sofiiskaia pervaia letopis’) SPbII RAN Sankt-Peterburgskii institut istorii Rossiiskoi Academii nauk (the Saint-Petersburg Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences) Syn. the Synodal MS. of the First Novgorodian Chroncile, or the Older Version of First Novgorodian Chroncile (Sinodal’nyi spisok Novgorodskoi pervoi letopisi, Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis’ starshego izvoda) Tv. the Tver Compilation (Tverskoi sbornik)

Introduction Historical writing1 emerged in Rus in the 11th century, soon after the conversion to Christianity (988) and alongside the general proliferation of writing and literacy towards the middle of that century. The history of writing (including historical writing) in Rus is conventionally divided into the periods of ‘parchment’ (before с. 1400) and ‘paper’ (after с. 1400), respectively.2 This book will deal with the ‘parchment’ period, when books were expensive and rare particularly history books. Leaving aside books dated c. 1400 and some minor texts (either in other books or on church walls), among some 900 surviving, pre-1400 Old Rus books, only three contain extended pieces of historical writing—two letopisi (the annals) and one copy of a Byzantine chronicle translation. Many more books once existed than have survived, but the ratio is probably valid. What was the significance of those rare texts for the people of Old Rus? Why and for which purposes were they written? Who were the authors, the patrons, and the possessors of those books? Were they distributed in copies or kept as one document? Who had access to them, and who read them? How were they created, what did the process of their updating, revising, or copying look like? Which events or persons were regarded as sufficiently important to be mentioned in those texts, and why? What kinds of historical texts existed, and what was the role of different historiographic genres? How did historical writing appear for the first time in Rus, and what did the earliest texts look like? Scholars have already asked some of those questions. The central genre of Rus historical writing, letopisi (the annals), has been being studied intensively from the 18th century. The methods of study, the questions asked, and the notion of the very process of annalistic writing gradually became more and more sophisticated.

1 There exist different definitions of historical writing, which can be understood in a narrow way (as writing of the texts presenting coherent sequence of events), or in a broader way (as any reflection of historical memory in writing). I would adopt the definition by John Baines: ‘history-writing is the use of the past through written means and the creation of written materials that look to the future so that they can be used as a society’s past’ [“Ancient Egypt,” in The Oxford History of Historical Writing, vol. 1, ed. Andrew Feldherr and Grant Hardy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 53]. In this book I will not treat the books of the Bible and any comments to them, poetic narrations dedicated to single events, hagiography, and necrologies. 2 In fact, of course, the turn from parchment to paper, a much cheaper material, was gradual. See on 1400 as a conventional boundary in subchapter 1.1.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004335592_002

2

Introduction

The earliest scholars, such as Vasilii Tatishchev3 and Gerhard Friedrich Мüller (Miller),4 were interested mainly in the authorship of particular texts and in dating the activity of particular authors. August Ludwig von Schlözer undertook a much more detailed study in order to, firstly, reconstruct the ‘purified Nestor’, the original text of the Rus Primary Chronicle, from corrupted copies which survive, and, secondly, to comment on this text.5 The ‘skeptical school’ (led by Mikhail Kachenovskii) of the 1820s–40s provoked a discussion in which the ‘defense’ of the antiquity and the authenticity of early layers of the annals was the crucial point.6 The start of the edition of the Complete Corpus of Rus Chronicles (Полное собрание русских летописей, PSRL) in 1843 stimulated an intensification of letopisi studies in the middle of the 19th century. For example, important surveys by Mikhail Sukhomlinov7 and Nikolai Kostomarov8 appeared at that time. Towards the mid-19th century the surviving texts started to be regarded not just as one author’s works or corrupted copies, but as compilations (своды, сборники) that had incorporated earlier materials.9 The most systematical realization of this new vision of letopisi was offered by Nikolai Bestuzhev-Riumin10 and some other scholars of the second half of the 19th century, who tended to dissect each of the surviving annalistic texts into fragments going back either to ‘brief notes’, or to ‘separate narrations’. 3 Vasily N. Tatishchev, Istoriia Rossiiskaia, in 8 vols. (Moscow – Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1962–8) [written in the 1720s–40s, first published in 1768–9]. 4 Gerard Fridrikh Miller [Gerhard Friedrich Müller], “O pervom letopisatele Rossiiskom prepodobnom Nestore i ego letopisi i o prodolzhateliakh onyia,” in idem, Sochineniia po istorii Rossii: Izbrannoe, ed. Aleksandr B. Kamenskii (Moscow: Nauka, 1996), 5–14 [first published in 1755]. 5 Avgust Ludvik Shletser [August Ludwig von Schlözer], Nestor: Russkie letopisi na drevleslavenskom iazyke, slichennye, perevedennye i ob’iasnennye A.L. Shletserom.., in 3 parts (Saint-Petersburg: Imp. tipografiia, 1809–19). See the wording ‘purified Nestor’: ibid., part 1, xviii–xix. 6 See: Varvara G. Vovina-Lebedeva, Shkoly issledovaniia russkikh letopisei: XIX–XX vv. (Saint-Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2011), 109–14 ff. 7 Mikhail I. Sukhomlinov, “O drevnei russkoi letopisi kak pamiatnike literaturnom,” Uchenye zapiski 2-go otdeleniia Imperatorskoi Akademii nauk 3 (1856): 1–230. 8 Nikolai I. Kostomarov, Lektsii po russkoi istorii, part 1: Istochniki russkoi istorii (SaintPetersburg, 1861). 9 It is generally pointed out that the first scholar to say that letopisi are compilations was Pavel Stroev in 1820: Pavel M. Stroev, “Predislovie,” Sofiiskii vremennik ili russkaia letopis’ s 862 po 1534 god, ed. Pavel M. Stroev, part 1 (Moscow: Tip. Semena Selivanovskogo, 1820), v–ix. 10 Konstantin N. Bestuzhev-Riumin, O sostave russkikh letopisei do kontsa XIV veka: 1) Povest’ vremennykh let; 2) Letopisi iuzhnorusskie (Saint-Petersburg, 1868).

Introduction

3

The works by Aleksei Shakhmatov11 were a somewhat pivotal point in letopisi studies. Shakhmatov was the first scholar to try to create a detailed stemma of annalistic texts using, first of all, the method of comparing the extant texts. This method had been well elaborated in Biblical and classical studies but was greatly modified for the study of letopisi.12 Although one can find the germs of many of Shakhmatov’s ideas in the works of his predecessors,13 it is only within Shakhmatov’s studies that a coherent history of letopisi writing in Rus appeared. Shakhmatov’s methods and ideas had both followers and opponents. Until today some of his ideas are seriously debated, and still there are scholars who regard themselves either as Shakhmatov’s followers, or his opponents. I belong, rather, to the former of those ‘parties’. Although many of Shakhmatov’s observations and conclusions seem unconvincing, or too arbitrary, and some have been convincingly refuted by later scholars, his approach in general, as well as many of his concrete conclusions still remain valid. I would agree with Alan Timberlake saying: ‘Shakhmatov’s hypotheses still merit attention because they are perhaps not so far from the truth’.14 Shakhmatov’s method of comparing texts, drawing stemmata, and looking for historical context of so reconstructed acts of revision of the annals, had many followers in the 20th century. The most prominent ones, whose contribution in the study of Rus annalistic writing was especially remarkable, were 11 Originally published in the 1890s–1910s, and some after the scholar’s death (in 1920). Many his principal works have been recently reprinted: Aleksei A. Shakhmatov, Istoriia russkogo letopisaniia, ed. Viktor K. Ziborov, Vladimir V. Iakovlev, vol. 1, book 1: Razyskaniia o drevneishikh russkikh letopisnykh svodakh (Saint-Petersburg: Nauka, 2002–2012); book 2: Rannee russkoe letopisanie (2003); vol. 2: Obozrenie letopisei i letopisnykh svodov XI–XIV vv. (2011). 12 On Shakmatov’s and his followers’ method see: Iakov S. Lur’e [Lurie], “O shakhmatovskoi metodike issledovaniia letopisnykh svodov.” Istochnikovedenie otechestvennoi istorii 1975 (1976): 87–107; Vovina-Lebedeva, Shkoly, 174–227 ff.; Vadim Iu. Aristov, “Shakhmatovskie issledovaniia letopisei v evropeiskom kontekste XIX—nachala XX v.,” in Akademik A.A. Shakhmatov: zhizn’, tvorchestvo, nauchnoe nasledie (k 150-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia), ed. O.N. Krylova and Marina N. Priemysheva (Saint-Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriia, 2015), 226–40. 13 See an attempt at deconstruction of Shakhmatov’s exceptional place in letopisi studies: Vadym Iu. Aristov, “‘Perevorot’ O.O. Shakhmatova v istoriohrafiï davn’orus’koho litopysannia,” Ukraïna v Tsentral’no-Skhidnii Ievropi 14 (2014): 207–29. Aristov rightly says that Shakhmatov did not like to discuss in detail the ideas of his predecessors (ibid., 211–4), and this contributed into the perception of Shakhmatov’s works as pioneering. However, Shakhmatov really was the first scholar to study and to compare word by word so many extant texts and to try to create a general stemma of them, as well as to attempt to reconstruct in detail the pre-PVL history of historical writing in Rus. 14 Alan Timberlake, “Redactions of the Primary Chronicle,” Russkii iazyk v nauchnom osveshchenii 1 (2001): 196.

4

Introduction

Mikhail Priselkov,15 Arsenii Nasonov,16 and Iakov Lurie.17 At the same time, many scholars criticized Shakhmatov’s methods and approaches from various positions, one of the earliest (and deepest) of Shakhmatov’s opponents being his contemporary Vasilii Istrin.18 It must be specially noted that a very important work of commenting the problematic chronology of Rus letopisi have been done in the 1900s–10s by Nikolai Stepanov, and in 1940s–50s by Nikolai Berezhkov.19 A new tendency in letopisi studies of the middle and the second half of the 20th century was an attention to their literary form, its diversity and evolution (works by Dmitrii Likhachev20 and Igor Eremin21 are of primary importance here). Later, new text-historical studies appeared, in which more attention started to be paid to the very process of annalists’ work, and to contemporary recording of events as a significant component of annalistic writing (Shakhamtov and his main followers preferred to speak of one-time enterprises such as the creation of ‘annalistic compilations’ with certain motives and political preferences), as well as to the physical form of non-extant texts and alterations which could have been made in non-extant manuscripts. Those new tendencies can be traced in the studies by Mark Aleshkovskii,22

15

His synthesizing book is: Mikhail D. Priselkov, Istoriia russkogo letopisaniia XI–XV vv., 2nd ed. (Saint-Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin, 1996) [first published in 1940]. 16 Many of his principal studies were re-issued in a book published already after his death: Arsenii N. Nasonov, Istoriia russkogo letopisaniia XI–nachala XVIII veka: Ocherki i issledovaniia (Moscow: Nauka, 1969). 17 His most important studies are: Iakov S. Lur’e, Obshcherusskie letopisi XIV–XV vv. (Leningrad: Nauka, 1976); idem, Dve istorii Rusi XV veka: Rannie i pozdnie, nezavisimye i ofitsial’nye letopisi ob obrazovanii Moskovskogo gosudarstva (Saint-Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 1994). 18 Vasilii M. Istrin, “Zamechaniia o nachale russkogo letopisaniia: Po povodu issledovanii A.A. Shakhmatova,” Izvestia Otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnisti Rossiiskoi Akademii nauk 26 (1921): 45–102; 27 (1924): 207–51. 19 See appendix 1. 20 Dmitrii S. Likhachev, Russkie letopisi i ikh kul’turno-istoricheskoe znachenie (Moscow and Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1947). 21 E.g.: Igor’ P. Eremin, “Kievskaia letopis’ kak pamiatnik literatury,” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom) 7 (1949): 67–97. 22 His works were published in the 1960s–70s. The most comprehensive is his dissertation (1967), published only recently: Mark Kh. Aleshkovskii, Povest’ vremennykh let: Iz istorii sozdaniia i redaktsionnoi pererabotki, ed. Fedor B. Uspenskii (Moscow: Ves’ mir, 2015). See also his article which is very important methodologically: Mark Kh. Aleshkovskii, “K tipologii tekstov ‘Povesti vremennykh let’,” Istochnikovedenie otechestvennoi istorii 1975 (1976): 133–67.

Introduction

5

Alan Timberlake,23 Aleksei Gippius,24 Savva Mikheev,25 and some other. The author of this book feels himself largely a representative of this approach. In recent decades, new methods have been advanced, such as the linguistic segmentation of the annals (Aleksei Gippius26), the analysis of narrative models (Tetiana Vilkul27), the analysis of biblical, apocryphal, and hagiographical quotations and allusions (Igor Danilevskii,28 Marianna Andreicheva,29 and others), or the analysis of folkloric elements and the reflection of oral tradition (Elena Melnikova,30 Aleksei Shchavelev31). This is no more than a brief overview of the historiography of Rus letopisi. The topic is so long-standing (if not classical), and so important, that serious studies have been dedicated to its historiography. Petr Golubovskii wrote an interesting overview of questions raised by different generations of 18th and 19th-century scholars in 1886.32 A detailed survey of the historiography of Rus letopisi up to c. 1900 was produced in the early 20th century by Aleksandr Presniakov, but published only recently.33 Viktor Buganov wrote a detailed 23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30

31 32 33

Alan Timberlake, “Who Wrote the Laurentian Chronicle (1177–1203),” Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 59 (2000): 237–66; idem, “Redactions,” 196–218; etc. Aleksei A. Gippius, “K istorii slozheniia teksta Novgorodskoi pervoi letopisi,” Novgorodskii istoricheskii sbornik 6 (16) (1997): 3–72; idem, “K kharakteristike novgorodskogo vladychnogo letopisaniia XII–XIV vv,” in Velikii Novgorod v istorii srednevekovoi Evropy: K 70-letiiu V.L. Ianina, ed. Aleksei A. Gippius et. al. (Moscow: Russkie slovari, 1999), 345–64; etc. Savva M. Mikheev, Kto pisal “Povest’ vremennykh let”? (Moscow: Indrik, 2011). Aleksei A. Gippius, “Novgorodskaia vladychnaia letopis’ XII–XIV vv. i ee avtory (Istoriia i struktura teksta v lingvisticheskom osveshchenii). I,” Lingvisticheskoe istochnikovedenie i istoriia russkogo iazyka, 2004–2005 (2006): 114–251; Tatiana L. Vilkul, Liudi i kniaz’ v drevnerusskikh letopisiakh serediny XI–XIII vv. (Moscow: Kvadriga, 2009), 113–225. Igor’ N. Danilevskii, Povest’ vremennykh let: Germenevticheskie osnovy izucheniia letopisnykh tekstov (Moscow: Aspekt-Press, 2004). Marianna Iu. Andreicheva, Obrazy inovertsev v Povesti vremennykh let (Saint-Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriia, 2019). Elena A. Mel’nikova, “Ustnaia traditsiia v Povesti vremennykh let: K voprosu o tipakh ustnykh predanii,” in Vostochnaia Evropa v istoricheskoi retrospektive: K 80-letiiu V.T. Pashuto, ed. Elena A. Mel’nikova (Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury), 1999, 153–65; eadem, “Istoricheskaia pamiat’ v ustnoi i pis’mennoi traditsiiakh (Povest’ vremennykh let i ‘Saga ob Inglingakh’),” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2001 (2003): 48–92; etc. Aleksei S. Shchavelev, Slavianskie legendy o pervykh kniaz’iakh: Sravnitel’no-istoricheskoe issledovanie modelei vlasti u slavian (Moscow: Severnyi palomnik, 2007). Petr V. Golubovskii, “Ocherk istorii postepennogo poiavleniia glavneishikh voprosov po razrabotke letopisei,” Universitetskie izvestiia 10 (Kiev, 1886): 201–12. Aleksandr E. Presniakov, “[Istoriia izucheniia russkikh letopisei v XVIII–nachale XX veka],” in idem, Russkoe letopisanie: Istoriografiia i istoriia, ed. Sergei V. Chirkov (Moscow: Novyi Khronograf, 2017), 22–195.

6

Introduction

overview of the study of letopisi between 1917 and the early 1970s.34 The most recent study of historiography of Rus letopisi is that by Varvara Vovina-Lebedeva, who has tried to follow the history of ideas, approaches, and scholarly ‘schools’ in letopisi studies of the late 18th–the 20th centuries.35 The historiography of the early Rus historical writing is not only that of letopisi. An important and very laborious work has been done by the scholars of Slavonic translations of Antique and Byzantine historical writings, as well as of Rus compilations based upon those translations known as chronographs or compendia. The principal works in this field are those by Vasilii Istrin,36 Oleg Tvorogov,37 Evgenii Vodolazkin,38 Tatiana Anisimova,39 and, last but not the least, Tetiana Vilkul.40 References to the main studies of other forms of Old Rus historical writing (such as the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, princely biographies, lists of rulers, and many other) will be given below, mainly in chapter 1. The achievements of those who have studied letopisi and other forms of historical writing are impressive. However, there are questions that have never been asked at all, or have been answered only in brief, without a systematic investigation. For example, nobody suggested a typology of Old Rus historical writing that would include not only ‘big’ genres (mainly letopisi and chronographs) but also numerous minor texts. Not fully sufficient are the attempts to find out which were the earliest forms of writing down events in Kievan Rus. Nobody has suggested a typology of activities of Rus annalists (although the material for such a typology produced by text-historical studies is enormous). The content of the annals and similar texts has never been studied systematically (I know only one attempt—not to count my own—to follow systematically the kinds of events reported by annalists,41 and some works dedicated 34 Viktor I. Buganov, Otechestvennaia istoriografiia russkogo letopisaniia: Obzor sovetskoi literatury (Moscow: Nauka, 1975). 35 Vovina-Lebedeva, Shkoly. 36 For references to some of his works see below, notes to subchapter 1.3. 37 His summarizing book is: Oleg V. Tvorogov, Drevnerusskie khronografy (Leningrad: Nauka, 1975). 38 Evgenii G. Vodolazkin, Vsemirnaia istoriia v literature Drevnei Rusi (na materiale khronograficheskogo i paleinogo povestvovaniia XI–XV vv., 2nd ed. (Saint-Petersburg: Pushkinskii dom, 2008). 39 Tatiana V. Anisimova, Khronika Georgiia Amartola v drevnerusskikh spiskakh XIV–XVII vv. (Moscow: Indrik, 2009). 40 Tatiana [Tetiana] L. Vilkul, Letopis’ i khronograf: Tekstologiia domongol’skogo kievskogo letopisaniia (Moscow: Kvadriga, 2019). See also references to many of her papers in subchapter 1.3. 41 Ol’ga R. Kvirkveliia, “Metodika analiza sistemy umolchaniia Novgorodskoi I letopisi,” in Matematika v izuchenii srednevekovykh povestvovatel’nykh istochnikov: Sb. st., ed. Boris M. Kloss (Moscow: Nauka, 1986), 83–97.

Introduction

7

to certain kinds events in the annals). The question of the social function(s) of annalistic writing was discussed many times, but mostly in a form of short reflections, without any detailed argument (except the theories suggested by Mikhail Priselkov and Igor Danilevskii42). And so on. This book is based, in many respects, on the achievements of previous scholars, however, it tends to raise and answer new questions concerning the typology of historical writing, its beginning and development, the work of medieval scribes, and the content and functions of the texts. I suggest a comparative look at those issues. The idea that Old Rus historical writing can be better understood in a comparative light is not fully new. Already August Ludwig von Schlözer mentioned that Rus letopisi with their ‘empty years’ look similar to the Anglo-Saxon annals.43 Comparative observations concerning Rus letopisi were made by Mikhail Sukhomlinov,44 Aleksei Markevich,45 Vladimir Ikonnikov,46 Mikhail Alpatov,47 Vladimir Toporov,48 Nikolai Nikulin.49 Most of those scholars placed Rus letopisi into the context of Byzantine and Western historical writing, although sometimes the circle of parallels was widened as to include Ancient Near East, Far East, and so on. Some studies in which historical writing of Old Rus is compared with that of other countries have appeared in recent years. Aleksei Gippius raised again (after a long break) the question of similarity of Rus letopisi and the Western annals.50 Elena Melnikova compared the reflection of oral dynastic tradition in the early historiography of Rus and Germanic societies.51 Aleksei Shchavelev dedicated his book to the reflection of oral tradition in the historical writing 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

51

See subchapter 4.1. Shletser, Nestor, part 1, 259. Sukhomlinov, “O drevnei russkoi letopisi,” 27–45, 216. Aleksei I. Markevich, O letopisiakh: Iz lektsii po istoriografii, vol. 1 (Odessa, 1883), 3–18. Vladimir S. Ikonnikov, Opyt russkoi istoriografii, vol. 1, part 1 (Kiev: Tip. Imp. un-ta sv. Vladimira, 1892), 286–325 et al. Mikhail A. Alpatov, Russkaia istoricheskaia mysl’ i Zapadnaia Evropa XII–XVII vv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1973), 102–6. Vladimir N. Toporov, “O kosmologicheskikh istochnikakh ranneistoricheskikh opisanii.” Trudy po znakovym sistemam 6 (1973): 106–50. Nikolai I. Nikulin, “K tipologii srednevekovoi istoricheskoi prozy,” in Tipologiia i vzaimosviazi srednevekovykh literatur Vostoka i Zapada, ed. Boris L. Riftin (Moscow: Nauka, 1974), 117–51. Aleksei A. Gippius, “Drevnerusskie letopisi v zerkale zapadnoevropeiskoi annalistiki,” in Slaviane i nemtsy: Srednie veka—rannee Novoe vremia: Sb. tez. 16 konf. pamiati V.D. Koroliuka, ed. Lev V. Zaborovskii (Moscow: IS RAN, 1997), 24–7; idem, “K kharakteristike,” 362. Elena A. Mel’nikova, “Proiskhozhdenie praviashchei dinastii v rannesrednevekovoi istoriografii. Legitimizatsiia inoetnichnoi znati,” in Elita i etnos srednevekov’ia, ed.

8

Introduction

of Rus, and the West and South Slavs.52 Several scholars have compared the Primary Chronicle’s narration of the ‘Call of the Varangians’ (that is, the origin of the Rurik dynasty) with similar stories elsewhere.53 Jitka Komendová in recent papers compares early historical writing of Bohemia and Rus.54 Jonathan Shepard followed some similar tendencies in historical writing of Anglo-Norman England and Rus of the late 11th and the early 12th centuries.55 Aleksei Vovin and Pavel Lukin made comparative observations on the historical writing of Italian communes such as Pisa and Venice, and the Rus city ‘republics’ of Novgorod and Pskov.56 An interesting attempt at comparison of the Rus Primary Chronicle (PVL) with the Secret History of the Mongols (Mongγol-un niγuča tobčiyan, c. 1240) was undertaken by Aleksei Tugutov.57 Comparative observations can be found in some other recent studies as well.58 The comparative approach is useful both because it helps to find out some general patterns and to therefore better understand archaic societies and their usages of writing, and because it produces numerous analogies with which to better interpret any local material. In the case of this book, I hope that my attempts at comparative analysis will be of help to both the scholars of Old

52 53 54

55 56

57 58

Adelaida A. Svanidze (Moscow: IVI RAN, 1995), 39–44; eadem, “Istoricheskaia pamiat’ v ustnoi i pis’mennoi traditsiiakh.” Shchavelev, Slavianskie legendy. See the latest work, with references: Petr S. Stefanovich, “‘Skazanie o prizvanii variagov’ ili Origo gentis russorum?,” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy, 2010 (2012): 562–74. Iitka Komendova, “Zhanr Galitsko-Volynskoi letopisi v tipologicheskoi perspektive,” in Pis’mennost’ Galitsko-Volynskogo kniazhestva: istoriko-filologicheskie issledovaniia, ed. Jitka Komendová (Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, 2016), 79–88; eadem, “‘Letopis’ monakha Sazavskogo’ i Kievskaia letopis’: Sravnenie metodov istoriopisaniia,” Slověne: International Journal of Slavic Studies 6, no. 1 (2017): 256–72, http://slovene.ru/2017_1 _Komendova.pdf; eadem, “Origo gentis v ‘Cheshskoi khronike’ Koz’my Prazhskogo i drevneishem russkom letopisanii,” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 29 (2017): 98–102. Jonathan Shepard, “History as propaganda, proto-foundation myth and ‘Tract for the times’ in the long eleventh century (c. 1000–c. 1130),” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2014 (2016): 332–55. Aleksei A. Vovin, “Sravnitel’nyi analiz istochnikov po rannim ital’ianskim kommunam i Pskovu XIV–XV vv.,” Peterburgskii istoricheskii zhurnal 1 (13) (2017): 187–91; Pavel V. Lukin, “Stareishina Gostomysl i pervyi dozh Paoluchcho Anafesto: Respublikanskie mify i ikh sud’by,” Drevniaia Rus’: Voprosy medievistiki 1 (75) (2019): 67–71. Aleksei I. Tugutov, “‘Monglyn nuuts tovchoo’ i russkie letopisi (k probleme sopostavitel’nogo analiza),” Mongolovedenie 3 (2004): 80–96. See also references in: Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], Istoriopisanie rannesrednevekovoj Anglii i Drevnej Rusi: Sravnitel’noe issledovanie (Moscow: Un-t Dmitriia Pozharskogo, 2012), 18–9, 88–91, 210.

Introduction

9

Rus and those for whom the historical writing of Rus may be of interest as a comparative material. This book, in accordance with my professional skills, will draw many parallels to Anglo-Saxon England—a country with a similar history of the proliferation of writing which was (mostly) imported from outside the country together with Christianity, but which, as in Rus, developed quickly and used vernacular. Many genres of historical writing in Old Rus have clear parallels in the Anglo-Saxon literature.59 However, the comparative perspective will not be limited to England, but it will also concern other early states of the Northern and Eastern periphery of medieval Europe, and in some cases even non-European societies. The latter will largely be based on the collective volume The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Ancient and Medieval Societies, which I have co-edited with Dmitry Beliaev.60 This volume comprises essays on early forms of historical records in early states of Asia, Europe, Africa, and America, and suggests some general observations on the early forms of historical writing and their typology. The present book consists of four chapters. The first chapter will be dedicated to an overview of the extant pieces of Old Rus pre-1400 historical writing (both, ‘major’ ones, such as letopisi and chronographs, and a variety of ‘minor’ texts), and to their typology. Then, the total of ‘major’ and ‘minor’ forms of historical writing will be systematically compared to the corresponding total in Anglo-Saxon England. The general typological similarity of the genres and their evolution, as well as some important differences, will be shown. Also, at the beginning, the first chapter will contain a concise overview of the history of writing in Rus—as to place the historical writing into a wider context. The second chapter will deal with the earliest, obscure stages of Old Rus historiography, mainly the 11th century. The analysis of these early stages has been a constant and intriguing problem for generations of scholars. The underlying assumption is that the earliest surviving texts (including the central one, early 12th-century Povest’ vremennykh let, or the Primary Chronicle) are not, in fact, the earliest attempts at historical writing. I will give an introduction into the discussion of the textual history of the Primary Chronicle, paying special attention to the issues concerning the probable textual predecessors of the Primary Chronicle, including the so-called Oldest Tale (a hypothetical text which, 59 See subchapter 1.6. 60 Dmitrii D. Beliaev and Timofey V. Gimon [Guimon], eds., Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy, 2013 god: Zarozhdenie istoriopisaniia v obschestvakh Drevnosti i Srednevekov’ia (Moscow: Un-t Dmitriia Pozharskogo, 2016).

10

Introduction

contrary to the Primary Chronicle, had no annalistic framework) and the early Kievan annals. I will also put forth a hypothesis that the earliest historical text in Rus was a short overview of Prince Vladimir’s deeds (a royal inscription of Vladimir) written c. 1000, and I will try to place it (as well as the Oldest Tale and the early annals) into a wide comparative context. Finally, I will return to the Primary Chronicle as we have it, and will compare its vision of the pagan past and the conversion to Christianity with that of the founder of Anglo-Saxon historiography, Venerable Bede. The third chapter will be dedicated to the historical writing of Novgorod, the major center of the Northwestern Rus, in the 11th–14th centuries. Novgorod is the home of the oldest surviving letopisi manuscript, as well as some minor texts. The history of historical writing here can be reconstructed with more certainty than in other cities of Rus. I will discuss the problem of the 11th-century beginnings of historical writing in Novgorod. Then, I will study the key text, the Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod, which were kept continuously from the early 12th up to well in the 15th century. The process of their keeping, as well as the content of those annals will be discussed. That non-extant (but securely reconstructable) ‘living chronicle’ will be compared with some medieval ‘living chronicles’ from the British Isles. Other forms of historical writing in Novgorod will be discussed then, including a copy of, and a set of excerpts from, the Archiepiscopal Annals made for certain Novgorodian monasteries. Finally, I will follow the variability of the depiction in the annals of four 11th-century events—as to demonstrate that oral tradition about those events existed in Novgorod and was in some respects more important than written reports. The fourth chapter will be entirely dedicated to the main historiographical genre of Old Rus, letopisi (the annals), as a social phenomenon. I will summarize the existing ideas and theories concerning the functions of letopsi, and then discuss the authorship and patronship of those texts, the circle of events recorded and of persons mentioned, the process of keeping and revision of those texts, the interrelations between the annals and some kinds of legal or quasi-legal documents. I will try to demonstrate that politics (the deeds and interrelations of the princes of the Rurik dynasty and, in Novgorod, other actors) was the central topic of the annals, but the position of the annalists was quite different in different cases. At the same time, I will discuss ‘nonpolitical’ events reported by the annalists (family, ecclesiastical, and natural occurrences), and their place and role in letopisi. An attempt to outline the purposes behind the writing of the annals at different times and in different centers will be the main task of the fourth chapter. The appendices to this book will include a concise introduction into the reckoning of time in Old Rus, a handlist of pre-1400 manuscripts containing

Introduction

11

pieces of historical writing, and a list of my Russian-language papers which correspond to the present book. This book is not a translation of any of my Russian-language publications, but in many respects it is based on research that was initially presented in Russian. On the other hand, some of my publications in Russian originated in the course of writing the present book. Some parts of my research (especially most of the fourth chapter) are presented for the first time here. I will give a full list of my published works that correspond to divisions of this book in appendix 3. In the main text of the book I will refer to my Russian-language publications only if some discussions are presented in more detail in them than in the present book. In matters of transliteration, I mostly follow the practices adopted by Simon Franklin in his important book on early Rus writing,61 that is, when speaking of ‘people active in an East Slav context’, or using Slavonic place-names, I prefer Slavonized forms rather than Grecicized or Anglicized (e.g. Ilarion rather than Hilarion, Andrei rather than Andrew, etc.). As Franklin, I use the ‘modified’ Library of Congress System (the one without diacritics) when transliterating Cyrillic, both in the main text (in most of the cases) and in bibliographical references. However, I do not follow this practice when citing well-known placenames (e.g., I write Yaroslavl, not Iaroslavl). As for place-names of what is now Ukraine, I mostly opt for Russian, not Ukrainian variants (e.g., Kiev, not Kyiv; Chernigov, not Chernihiv), because, firstly, they sound closer to Old Rus names of those places, and, secondly, such a usage seems more traditional for historical literature. Following Franklin, I use the word Rus (Slavonic: Русь), or Old Rus (Древняя Русь), as an English equivalent of: (1) the name of the country, (2) the name of its population (the Rus), and (3) an adjective (‘древнерусский’).62 English translations from Old Rus texts are mine, unless indicated otherwise. This study is done in the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Science, in which I have worked since 2001. I am also grateful to the State Academic University for Human Sciences (Moscow) in which I have taught since 2000, and to the Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Celtic of the University of Cambridge (UK) which hosted my scholarly visits several times.

61 See: Simon D. Franklin, Writing, Society and Culture in Early Rus, c. 950–1300 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), xi–xii. 62 Such a usage is more historically and politically correct than Old Russia(n): firstly, the word Rus was really used in the epoque in question; secondly, Old Rus was somewhat a common ancestor of three present-day nations: Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine.

12

Introduction

At different stages of my research I profited from valuable advice and help of my supervisor Lubov Stoliarova as well as Vadym Aristov, Iurii Artamonov, Viada Arutiunova-Fidanian, Dmitrii Beliaev, Marina Bobkova, Aleksandr Bobrov, Aleksandr Chubarian, Florin Curta, Igor Danilevskii, Dmitrii Dobrovolskii, Maksim Drobyshev, Maria Drobysheva, Konstantin Erusalimskii, Simon Franklin, Aleksei Gippius, Galina Glazyrina, Mari Isoaho, Tatiana Jackson, Tatiana Kalinina, Sergei Kashtanov, Simon Keynes, Elena Koniavskaia, Irina Konovalova, Andrei Kuzmin, Andrei Kuznetsov, Maria Lavrenchenko, Mikhail Lipkin, Elena Litovskikh, Anna Litvina, Aleksandr Logunov, Andrei Markevich, Vera Matuzova, Elena Melnikova, Stanislav Mereminskii, Savva Mikheev, Zoia Metlitskaia, Aleksandr Nazarenko, Ivan Nikolskii, Sergei Nikolskii, Heather O’Donoghue, Mikhail Pechnikov, Maria Petrova, Vladimir Petrukhin, Aleksandr Podossinov, Milena Rozhdestevnskaia, Tatiana Rozhdestevnskaia, Alexander Rumble, Marina Rumiantseva, Rebecca Rushforth, Aleksandr Sevalnev, Aleksei Shchavelev, Aleksei Sirenov, Denis Sukhino-Khomenko, Oleksiy Tolochko, Mark Ulianov, Andrei Usachev, Fedor Uspenskii, Aleksei Venediktov, Tetiana Vilkul, Marina Vinokurova, and many others. All mistakes and lapses are of course mine. I am especially indebted to my parents, Valentin (d. 2013) and Galina Guimon, my mother’s sister Olga Bukhina, my grandparents Boris Bukhin (d. 2014) and Maia Bukhina, Vadim Guimon (d. 1986) and Maria Chernova (d. 2004), my mother-in-law Tatiana Orlova, my brothers Ilia and Dmitry, and my sister Sonia. My warmest words are addressed to my wife Ludmila Orlova-Guimon and our sons Mikhail and Konstantin, to whom I dedicate this book.

chapter 1

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres 1.1

Writing in Early Rus: A Concise Overview

It makes sense to start with an overview of the surviving early Rus written material from c. 900–1400.1 This material consists of: – some 900 books on parchment;2 – no less than 76 single-sheet documents on parchment or (in the 14th century) on paper;3 – some 1,120 birchbark documents;4 – several wax tablets;5 – two documents on lead plates;6 – hundreds, if not thousands, of graffiti on church walls;7 1 The best introduction into the written culture of early Rus is, probably: Franklin, Writing. 2 See: Liubov’ V. Stoliarova, Drevnerusskie nadpisi XI–XIV vekov na pergamennykh kodeksakh (Moscow: Nauka, 1998), 53–55; eadem., Iz istorii knizhnoi kul’tury russkogo srednevekovogo goroda (XI–XVII vv.) (Moscow: Ros. gos. gumanit. un-t, 1999), 37, 156–157, note 106. 3 Kashtanov, Sergei M., and Liubov’ V. Stoliarova. “Ob izdanii originalov drevnerusskikh aktov XII–XIV vv. v ramkakh russkoi serii ‘Monumenta palaeographica medii aevi’.” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 28 (2016), 119–24. 4 1,121 documents on birchbark have been found by the end of 2019 in Novgorod, and some 110 in other Rus cities. However, some 60 of those texts date from the 15th century, and some 30 are in fact parts of documents known under other numbers, so there are about 1,130 pre1400 texts. It must be noted that almost always the dating (archaeological, palaeographic, linguistic) is approximate, with an accuracy of several decades. The corpus edition of the documents from Novgorod is the series Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste (NGB, the last, 12th published volume contains documents found up to 2015). Andrei Zalizniak’s book on the Old Novgorodian dialect [Drevnenovgorodskii dialekt. 2-e izd., pererab. s uchetom materiala nakhodok 1995–2003 gg. (Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2004)] can be regarded as another corpus of most of the documents with translations, commentary, and apparatus. See also the online database: www.gramoty.ru (3.08.2019). As an introduction into the field see: Jos Schaeken, Voices on Birchbark: Everyday Communication in Medieval Russia (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2018). 5 Elena A. Rybina, “Tsery iz raskopok v Novgorode.” Novgorod i Novgorodskaia zemlia: Istoriia i arkheologiia 8 (1994): 1 29–33. On the most well known one, the Novgorodian Psalter, see below. 6 Discovered in Novgorod and dating from c. 1100 and from the 12th century, see: Zalizniak, Drevnenovgorodskii dialekt, 261, 456. 7 See an overview and principal bibliography: Franklin, Writing, 71–4 et al. Graffiti continue to be discovered, read, and re-interpreted every year.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004335592_003

14

chapter 1

table 1 Rus pre-1400 written material: Statistics

11th century and c. 1100 12th century and c. 1200 13th century and c. 1300 14th century and c. 1400

Books on parchment

Single-sheet documents on parchment and paper

Birchbark documents

c. 34 c. 95 c. 133 c. 645

–  2 26 48

 64 541 188 329

– a few monumental inscriptions on stone, and numerous inscriptions on portable objects, including coins and seals.8 This material is distributed unevenly in time and space. As for the space, the city of Novgorod in the Northwest of Rus contains more of the written material that has survived than anywhere else. The majority of birchbark documents, many of the earliest books and single-sheet documents on parchment, hundreds of lead seals and graffiti are Novgorodian.9 As for the time, in table 1 I tabulate the figures (although approximate, of course) for the books and the single-sheet documents on parchment, paper, and birchbark (it is problematic to obtain even approximate figures for graffiti and other inscriptions).10 For the texts on parchment and paper, which have survived in archives and libraries, mostly monastic, the pattern is expectable. As for the writing on birchbark (all examples of which are found archaeologically in wet layers), the pattern is more surprise: we see a 12th-century peak, as well as a 13th-century decline. On the one hand, a 12th-century administrative center with lots of documents has been excavated in the Liudin End of Novgorod, which stopped functioning after an inner conflict in Novgorod in the early 13th century. On the other hand, some decline of writing can be observed at that time in other locations, and this can be due to the economic crisis and famines of the early 13th century, as well as to the Mongolian invasion of 1237–40 (although Novgorod itself was not ravaged).11 8 See: Al’bina A. Medyntseva, Gramotnost’ v Drevnei Rusi: Po pamiatnikam epigrafiki X– pervoi poloviny XIII veka. Moscow: Nauka, 2000; Franklin, Writing, 47–82. 9 See also the beginning of chapter 3. 10 For the origin of the figures see above, notes 2–4. 11 See: Schaeken, Voices on Birchbark, 28–30.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

figure 1

15

Birchbark document from Novgorod no. 246. A demand to return money. 11th century. http://gramoty.ru/birchbark/document/show/novgorod/246/

Anyway, there were two main materials for writing in Rus in the 11th–14th centuries: parchment and birchbark. Parchment was a high-quality but expensive material. Birchbark was an inconvenient but cheap one. This predestined their specialization: parchment was used for liturgical books, literature, and highrange legal documents. Birchbark was used for letters, everyday notes, tags, school exercises, etc. However, there was no strict boundary between the two. For example, although originals of early letters are extant on birchbark only, letters on parchment, no doubt, existed. The 12th century birchbark document no. 831 is in fact a draft of a letter, as at the end it is written: ‘And you, Stepan, having rewritten [this] to a membrane, send …’ (‘А ты, Степане, пьрьпесаво на харотитию, посъли жь …’).12 Also, there are a number of extended epistles of ecclesiastics and one of Prince Vladimir Monomakh extant in book transcripts, which are unlikely to have originally been written on birchbark.13 Legal documents (such as wills) could be written in the 14th century on different materials (parchment, paper, birchbark), although it is not impossible that some birchbark texts of this sort are no more than drafts.14 Such materials as wax tablets and lead plates could, perhaps, rival birchbark, but the finds are too few for us to speak of their extensive usage in Rus.15 Finally, a lot was written on church walls and on various portable objects such as vessels, spindle whorls, seals, coins, etc. Those inscriptions contain mostly very specific kinds of texts such as prayers, statements like X wrote, owner’s 12 NGB, 11, 49–50 (no. 831). 13 On letter-writing in Rus see e.g.: Simon D. Franklin, “Literacy and Documentation in Early Medieval Russia,” Speculum: A Journal of Medieval Studies 5, no. 1 (1985): 6–15. 14 Anton A. Turlygin, “Novgorodskie akty na bereste kak osobaia gruppa aktovykh dokumentov,” Istochnikovedcheskie issledovaniia 5 (2012): 105–25; Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “Razvitie delovoi pis’mennosti v Novgorode v XI–XIV vv.,” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 28 (2016): 76. Cf.: Franklin, “Literacy and Documentation,” 15. 15 See above, notes 5–6.

16

figure 2

chapter 1

Graffito no. 23 from the Church of the Savior on Nereditsa near Novgorod. The first syllables of the names of the seven days of the week. Late 13th or first half of the 14th century photo by the author

inscriptions (on portable objects), etc. Nevertheless, the corpus of Old Rus graffiti includes such texts as a record of purchase of land, two records of court decisions, quasi-annalistic notes on important events, jokes, and so on (see Figures 2, 9).16 Paper started to be imported to Rus in the 14th century. However, there is no book on paper known, for sure, to have been written in Rus before 1400. Some 14th-century single-sheet documents on paper, however, have survived.17 One 16 See: Franklin, Writing, 71–4; Tatjana V. Rozhdestvenskaja, “Written Culture of Medieval Novgorod in the Light of Epigraphy,” in Epigraphic Literacy and Christian Identity: Modes of Written Discourse in the Newly Christian European North, ed. Kristel Zilmer and Judith Jesch (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012), 251–72. On the court decisions see: Aleksei A. Gippius, “Galitskie akty XIII v. iz tserkvi sv. Panteleimona,” in Pis’mennost’ Galitsko-Volynskogo kniazhestva: istoriko-filologicheskie issledovaniia, ed. Jitka Komendová (Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, 2016), 49–64. On quasi-annalistic notes see sub­ chapter 1.5. 17 Liubov’ V. Stoliarova and Sergei M. Kashtanov, Kniga v Drevnei Rusi (XI–XVI vv.) (Moscow: Un-t Dmitriia Pozharskogo, 2010), 91–103 ff.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

17

must mention the Moscow find of the year 1843: a copper jug containing 21 single-sheet documents on parchment and paper datable to the third quarter of the 14th century. This find shows that both materials were, by that time, in use in everyday business writing, at least in Moscow.18 The spread of paper finally led to the decline of the usage of both parchment (too costly) and birchbark (too inconvenient). In the 15th century both still were in use, but paper had already prevailed. A short note should be made concerning the language(s) of texts written in Rus between c. 1000 and c. 1400. Leaving aside a number of graffiti and seal inscriptions made in Greek,19 as well as pieces of writing by non-Slavs such as Scandinavian runic inscriptions20 or a few birchbark documents in nonSlavonic languages,21 all writing in Rus was in Slavonic. However, from this point the discussion becomes complicated. The Old Slavonic, or Old Church Slavonic, or Old Bulgarian language is the literary language standardized by St. Cyril (Constantine) and Methodius when translating church books from Greek into the language of the Slavs in the 860s and later. In Russian linguistic tradition the term ‘Old Slavonic’ is normally used when speaking of the language of those first translations and of the earliest extant Slavonic manuscripts (up to c. 1100). The same language, however, continued to be used in the church services of Slavia Orthodoxa (mostly in Bulgaria, Serbia, and Rus) for centuries, and is still used by the Russian Orthodox Church. When speaking of this language after c. 1100, it is traditionally called ‘Church Slavonic’. Old (Church) Slavonic, being originally the language of Cyril and Methodius’s translations, contains features of South Slavonic dialects (those of the vicinity of Solun, Thessaloniki, the home city of the two great translators), as well as of West Slavonic dialects (those of the state of Great Moravia, for which the translations were made), but by no means of the dialects of East Slavs—the bulk of the population of Kievan Rus. Therefore, although Church Slavonic was, no

18 See: Vladimir A. Kuchkin, “Kremlevskaia nakhodka 1843 g.,” Vestnik istorii, literatury i iskusstva 7 (2010): 299–312. 19 See: Simon D. Franklin, “Greek in Kievan Rus’,” in idem, Byzantium—Rus—Russia: Studies in the translation of Christian culture (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002), 69–81; Aleksandra A. Evdokimova, “Korpus grecheskikh graffiti Sofii Kievskoi na freskakh pervogo etazha,” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2005 (2008): 465–518. 20 See below, note 50. 21 Documents from Novgorod no. 753 (Middle Low German, the 11th century), no. 552 (Greek, the 12th century), no. 292 (Karelian, the 13th century), no. 488 (Latin, the 14th century), and from Smolensk no. 11 (Scandinavian runic).

18

chapter 1

doubt, understandable for people of Rus, its difference from the local speech was evident to everybody. The language spoken in Rus is traditionally called Old Rus (also: Old Russian, ‘древнерусский’). The question is where to find it. The texts closest to the real speech of Rus are birchbark documents and inscriptions. They demonstrate serious differences between local dialects of Old Rus language. The best studied is the Old Novgorodian dialect as it is represented by more than a thousand Novgorodian birchbark documents,22 our knowledge of other dialects being more fragmentary. Also, there is a term ‘Standard Old Rus’ which designates the language of some early lay texts, such as the laws known as Russkaia Pravda. Presumably, the Standard Old Rus language was based upon the dialect of Kiev and its vicinity, but no birchbark documents have yet been unearthed in that region, and data from inscriptions are scarce.23 A long-standing scholarly discussion concerns the boundary between the Old Rus and the Church Slavonic languages. Everyone agrees that purely religious texts all are in Church Slavonic proper, and that the laws are in Old Rus; but what of texts such as letopisi (the annals), the Instruction (Pouchenie) of Prince Vladimir Monomakh, and others?24 Most of scholars now would agree that those texts are basically Church Slavonic, but with East Slavonic (Old Rus) elements and features. Two theories are the most influential now. The first is the theory of diglossia suggested by Boris Uspenskii: Church Slavonic and Old Rus were strictly distinguished, and each had its own sphere of usage.25 The second is the theory of the two registers of Church Slavonic by Viktor Zhivov, who suggested that there were distinguish variations (‘registers’) of Church Slavonic used in Rus. ‘Standard Church Slavonic’ was used for purely religious texts which were, even if composed afresh in Rus, created by the method of imitation of earlier examples. ‘Hybrid Church Slavonic’ was used for such texts as, for example, the annals. When composing those texts scribes tended to use a number of markers of Church Slavonic which differentiated it from the everyday speech (phonetic variants, certain grammatical forms, etc.) but, in other respects, wrote as it was natural to them as speakers of the Old Rus language. Also, if a certain genre had already been established, new authors

22 See the description of this dialect: Zalizniak, Drevnenovgorodskii dialekt. 23 Ibid., 5. 24 See an overview of this discussion: Boris A. Uspenskii, Istoriia russkogo literaturnogo iazyka (XI–XVII vv.), 2nd ed., corr. and suppl. Moscow: Aspekt Press, 2002, 75–85; Viktor M. Zhivov, Istoriia iazyka russkoi pis’mennosti, vol. 1 (Moscow: Un-t Dmitriia Pozharskogo, 2017), 50–69. 25 Uspenskii, Istoriia, 23–266.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

19

tended to imitate the already existing texts.26 In any case, in many texts written in Rus one finds a complicated interaction of the features of Church Slavonic, Standard Old Rus, and local dialects.27 In such a situation individual training and preferences of a scribe played an important role.28 Almost all texts in Rus are written in the Cyrillic alphabet. However, the other (and probably elder) Slavonic alphabet, Glagolitic, was not unknown in Rus. The Glagolitic script is used in some graffiti29 and scribal colophons;30 Glagolitic letters or even phrases can be met in some manuscripts otherwise written in Cyrillic.31 A study of Novgorodian graffiti led Savva Mikheev to a conclusion that in 11th-century Novgorod Glagolitic alphabet was specially taught.32 In the 11th–13th centuries the only style of Cyrillic script used in Rus was ustav (устав), i.e. Uncial. The Cyrillic ustav was a derivative of the Greek Uncial of the 9th–10th centuries.33 The Old Rus ustav had variations depending on the purpose of the text and on the technique of writing. The script of texts written on parchment with ink and pen differed from the script of graffiti and birchbark documents, almost all of which were incised with a stylus, a knife, or a nail. And the script of luxurious manuscripts differed from that of cheaper ones, or of auxiliary notes and scribal colophons in luxurious books.34 In the 14th century poluustav (полуустав, half-Uncial), a more fluent script, started to 26 Zhivov, Istoriia, vol. 1. 27 See, for example, a study of such an interaction: Aleksei A. Gippius, “‘Russkaia pravda’ i ‘Voproshanie Kirika’ v Novgorodskoi kormchei 1282 g.: K kharakteristike iazykovoĭ situatsii drevnego Novgoroda,” Slavianovedenie 1 (1996): 48–62. See also on annalists tending to ‘translate’ oral narrative into bookish language: Alan Timberlake, “The Grammar of Oral Narrative in the Povest’ vremennykh let,” in American Contributions to the 14th International Congress of Slavists, Ohrid, September 2008, ed. by Christina Y. Bethin, vol. 1: Linguistics (Bloomington (In.): Slavica, 2008), 211–26. 28 For example, Aleksei Gippius showed that the language of different authors of the Novgorodian annals differs in their usage of both, Church Slavonic and local dialectal elements (see subchapter 3.4). 29 Savva M. Mikheev, “22 drevnerusskikh glagolicheskikh nadpisei-graffiti XI–XII vv. iz Novgoroda,” Slovo: Časopis Staroslavenskoga instituta u Zagrebu 62 (2012): 63–99. 30 See: Stoliarova, Drevnerusskie nadpisi, 56–73. 31 Tatiana Rozhdestvenskaia lists six such books of the 11th–13th centuries (“Epigraficheskie pamiatniki na Rusi v epokhu stanovleniia gosudarstvennosti,” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2010 (2012): 509, note 59). 32 Mikheev, “22 drevnerusskikh glagolicheskikh nadpisei-graffiti,” 95. 33 See a detailed study of the interaction of various types of Byzantine Uncial and Slavonic ustav in early period: Elena V. Ukhanova, “Vizantiiskii untsial i slavianskii ustav: Problemy istochnikov i evoliutsii.” Monfokon: Issledovaniia po paleografii, kodikologii i diplomatike 1 (2007): 19–88. 34 See ustav hands in Figures 1–4, 6, 9, 11–12, 16, 19–21.

20

chapter 1

rival ustav, but its heyday was the 15th century35—the time when cursive script (skoropis’, скоропись) also started to develop.36 So, the period before 1400 was dominated by ustav, and this implies that the sphere of written practices was still limited—otherwise a more fluent script would probably have developed earlier. An example of Novgorodian 13th-century scribe Timofei, who used the same ustav for both, liturgical books and official documents,37 illustrates this well. The conversion of Rus to Christianity by St. Prince Vladimir in 988 was the most important event for the spread of writing. The new religion needed books for its services. No doubt, liturgical books in Old Slavonic were imported, but Vladimir and Iaroslav the Wise organized schools for locals as well.38 The earliest surviving liturgical book certainly produced in Rus is the Ostromir Gospel written, according to its colophons, in 1056–7.39 But there are traces of church books that were written even earlier. The earliest such trace is the Novgorodian Psalter (c. 1000), a triptych of wax tablets with the text of psalms found during excavations in Novgorod. The psalms were likely copied as a pious labour by a well-trained scribe of Rus origin (not a Bulgarian or the like), as it is clear from the orthography.40 Some 15th-century manuscripts contain copies of a colophon by a Novgorodian ‘priest Upyr Likhoi’ (‘попъ Упирь Лихыи,’ i.e. Bad Ghoul, a pagan name-averter41) written in 1047.42 So, the production of church books was already developing in the first decades after the conversion. The overwhelming majority of extant Rus pre-1400 books are liturgical ones. A difficult question is concerned with the possible existence of written practices in Rus before the conversion in 988. Aside from lots of fantastic or dubious speculations,43 there is very little evidence for pre-988 writing. As Aleksei Gippius points out, only four inscribed objects form the base of our knowledge of 10th-century writing in Rus. The early 10th-century inscription 35 See poluustav hands in Figures 5, 7, 13–14. 36 See an unsurpassed introduction into Rus palaeography: Lev V. Cherepnin, Russkaia paleografiia (Moscow: Gos. izd-vo polit. literatury, 1956). 37 See below, subchapter 3.4. 38 PSRL, 1, 118–9 (s.a. 988, Kiev), 153 (s.a. 1037, Kiev); 42, 63 (s.a. 1030, Novgorod). 39 Liubov’ V. Stoliarova, Svod zapisei pistsov, khudozhnikov i perepletchikov drevnerusskikh pergamennykh kodeksov XI–XIV vekov (Moscow: Nauka, 2000), 13–18, no. 5–6. 40 Valentin L. Ianin [Yanin] and Andrei A. Zalizniak, “Novgorodskii kodeks pervoi chetverti XI v.—drevneishaia kniga Rusi,” Voprosy iazykoznaniia 5 (2001): 3–25. 41 Pagan, or, rather, traditional, names were in use in Christian Rus for a long time. For example, most of Rus princes of the 11th–13th centuries commonly are mentioned in sources under their traditional names, such as Sviatoslav or Vsevolod, and not the baptismal ones. 42 Stoliarova, Svod, 10–3. 43 See an overview: Medyntseva, Gramotnost’, 234–7 ff.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

figure 3

21

Mstislav’s Gospel, before 1117. A luxurious manuscript commissioned by Prince Mstislav, son of Vladimir, probably for the Annunciation Church in Gorodishche near Novgorod reproduced from: DRSM, 525

on an amphora from Gnezdovo (near Smolensk), probably naming the owner (‘Горуниа’, ‘Gorunia’, i.e. ‘belonging to Gorun’), in fact could have been incised not only in Rus, but in Bulgaria as well. The inscription on lead seal presumably attributed to Prince Sviatoslav (d. 972), St. Vladimir’s father, is read imperfectly and may be in fact Greek. Two wooden inscribed cylinders (which served

22

chapter 1

as locks) are sometimes dated to the 10th century, but rather were produced later, after the conversion.44 The 10th-century peace treaties with Byzantium, later included into the Kievan Primary Chronicle (PVL) s.a. 907, 912, 945, and 971, are no doubt genuine documents, but their Slavonic text presented in the annals is, most probably, a much later translation from Greek, going back to a Byzantine cartulary.45 Whether those documents originally had been written also in Slavonic, or not, they clearly are a product of Byzantine written culture, not of Rus one, although in some sense they show 10th-century Kievan rulers dealing with the written word. The treaty of 945 mentions that envoys and merchants from Rus had to present seals and charters in Byzantium,46 and this again implies that writing was used in relations between the Rus and Byzantium. A Christian community existed in Rus before the conversion of Vladimir,47 and it must have used service books, but we have no traces of them.48 Some Islamic authors mention the ‘Rus’ writing49 but those mentions are obscure and can sometimes refer to Scandinavian runic literacy. There are, indeed, some Scandinavian runic inscriptions found in the territory of Rus.50 44 Alexej Gippius, “Birchbark Literacy and the Rise of Written Communication in Early Rus’,” in Epigraphic Literacy and Christian Identity: Modes of Written Discourse in the Newly Christian European North, ed. Kristel Zilmer and Judith Jesch (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012), 226–30. On some other artifacts that may relate to the early spread of writing in Rus see: Medyntseva, Gramotnost’, 238–52. 45 See the texts: PSRL, 1, 31–2 (s.a. 907, this ‘treaty’ is usually suspected to be in fact a part of the treaty of 912), 32–7 (s.a. 912), 46–53 (s.a. 945), 72–3 (s.a. 971). See: Iana Malingudi [Jana Malingoudi], “Russko-vizantiiskie sviazi v X veke s tochki zreniia diplomatiki,” Vizantiiskii vremennik 56 (1995): 68–91; eadem, “Russko-vizantiiskie dogovory v svete diplomatiki,” ibid. 57 (1997): 4–57; Sergei M. Kashtanov, Iz istorii russkogo srednevekovogo istochnika: Akty X–XVI vv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1996), 4–57. 46 PSRL, 1, 48. 47 Byzantine sources announce the first conversion of Rus as early as after 860, see: Pavel V. Kuzenkov, “Pokhod 860 g. na Konstantinopol’ i pervoe kreshchenie Rusi v srednevekovykh pis’mennykh istochnikakh,” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2000 (2003): 3–172. PVL mentions Christians among the Rus when reporting Igor’s treaty with Byzantium (PSRL, 1, 54, s.a. 945). It also reports the baptism of Princess Olga, Vladimir’s grandmother (ibid., 60–4, s.a. 955), and the martyrdom of two baptized Varangians in Kiev (ibid., 82–3, s.a. 983). 48 See on this topic: Zhivov, Istoriia, vol. 1, 80–7. 49 Listed in: Medyntseva, Gramotnost’, 231. 50 The dating of those artifacts is often problematic but certainly some of them pre-date 988. See: Elena A. Mel’nikova, Skandinavskie runicheskie nadpisi: Novye nakhodki i interpretatsii: Teksty, perevod, kommentarii (Moscow: Vostochnaia literatura, 2001), 102–206; eadem, The Eastern World of the Vikings: Six essays about Scandinavia and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages (Göteborg: Göteborgs Universitet, 1996), 73–89; eadem, “The Cultural Assimilation of the Varangians in Eastern Europe from the Point of View of Language and

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

23

Finally, a 10th-century letter in Hebrew, written by the members of the Jewish community of Kiev, has been found among the documents of the Genizah of Cairo.51 For the period after the conversion we have much more evidence on the spread of writing and written practices. Besides the writing of purely religious books (of which the Novgorodian Psalter on wax of c. 1000 is a representative), between c. 988 and c. 1050 appear: – coins with inscriptions (we know the coinage of Vladimir I, Sviatopolk I ‘the Accursed’, and early Iaroslav the Wise; then the coinage in Rus stoped until the late 14th century, this interval traditionally being called ‘the coinless period’);52 – metal seals (bullae) of which the earliest ones (if not to count the abovementioned seal of Sviatoslav) date from around 1000;53 – the earliest written laws (the first part of the Shorter Version of Russkaia Pravda contains the laws of Iaroslav the Wise [d. 1054] and is tentatively dated by scholars to the 1010s although is extant only in 15th-century transcripts;54 it is probable that the so-called Vladimir’s Statute had a nucleus indeed issued by Vladimir at the end of the 10th century55); – the earliest birchbark documents dating from the 1030s;56 – the earliest graffiti (their dating depends on the dating of the present building of St. Sophia Cathedral of Kiev; PVL’s date is 1037, but different alternative dates have been suggested57—in any case the practice of writing graffiti started before 1050);

51 52

53 54 55 56 57

Literacy,” in: Runica—Germanica—Mediaevalia, ed. Wilhelm Heizmann und Astrid van Nahl (Berlin – New York: Walter De Gruyter, 2003), 456–8. See: Norman Golb and Omeljan Pritsak, Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century (Ithaca (N.Y.) – London: Cornell University Press, 1982), 1–71. 11th-century coinage of Tmutarakan (in the Taman Peninsula, next to Byzantine lands in the Crimea, being at the time a remote Rus principality) is the only exclusion. See on early Rus coinage: Petr G. Gaidukov and Vitalii A. Kalinin, “Drevneishie russkie monety,” in Rus’ v IX–X vekakh: Arkheologicheskaia panorama, ed. Nikolai A. Makarov (Moscow – Vologda: Drevnosti Severa, 2012), 403–36; Fedir Androshchuk, Images of Power: Byzantium and Nordic Coinage, c. 995–1035 (Kyiv: Laurus – Paris: ACHCByz, 2016), 57–88. Valentin L. Ianin [Yanin] and Petr G. Gaidukov, Aktovye pechati Drevnei Rusi X–XV vv., vol. 3 (Moscow: Intrada, 1998), 13–9. See in subchapter 3.11. See subchapter 2.5, note 259. See below. See: Savva M. Mikheev, “Kogda byl postroen Sofiiskii sobor v Kieve?,” in Imenoslov. Istoriia iazyka. Istoriia kul’tury, ed. Fedor B. Uspenskii (Moscow: Indrik, 2012), 231–43.

24

chapter 1

– the memorial stone cross of Voimeritsy (probably dating to the first half of the 11th century);58 – inscriptions on other objects.59 It is probable that the first attempts at historical writing were also made between 988 and c. 1050—this will be discussed in detail in chapter 2. There has been a longstanding discussion as to whether the spread of writing in Rus during the 11th century was a result of the conversion to Christianity, or instead shaped by the needs of the developing administration and economy, going back to the pre-Christian period;60 the latter view being best advocated by Albina Medyntseva.61 Simon Franklin suggested a theory of ‘the twin catalysts for the spread of writing in Rus’: the ‘institution-based’ ecclesiastical writing brought to Rus with Christianity, and the ‘activity-based’ writing used for practical purposes which appeared earlier (probably before the conversion) but was not intensively used until the mid-11th century.62 According to Aleksei Gippius, the conversion was indeed the primary and the main catalyst for the spread of writing. The traces of writing before the conversion are too scarce to be discussed with certainty. However, immediately after the conversion the new technology started to be used for non-religious purposes, as Vladimir’s coinage shows. In the second quarter of the 11th century, when the first generation of literate people taught in schools founded by Vladimir and Iaroslav became active, birchbark started to be used for routine purposes such as communication at a distance (letters) and everyday accounting. Gippius says that ‘secular practical literacy in Rus thus presents itself as a spontaneous by-product of the spread of Christian education’.63 Anyway, gradually writing skills spread wider among the urban population. The analysis of the orthography of birchbark documents led Andrei Zalizniak to a conclusion that from the first half of the 12th century writing skills started to be taught not only in ecclesiastical schools, but simply by literate elder men.64

58 See: Savva M. Mikheev, “Nadpis’ na kamennom kreste iz Voimerits na reke Mste— pamiatnik nachal’noi istorii drevnerusskoi pis’mennosti,” Voprosy epigrafiki 6 (2012): 7–30. 59 Medyntseva, Gramotnost’, 262–3. 60 See an overview: Ibid., 252–5. 61 Ibid. P. 202, 208, 215, 248–249, 251–255, 271. 62 Franklin, Writing, 276 et al. 63 Gippius, “Birchbark Literacy,” 225–38, quoted p. 237. 64 Andrei A. Zalizniak, “Drevnerusskaia grafika so smesheniem ъ–о i ь–е,” in idem, Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie. S prilozheniem izbrannykh rabot po sovremennomu russkomu iazyku i obshchemu iazykoznaniiu (Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2002), 607–10.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

25

Simon Franklin points to the mid-11th century as an important moment in the proliferation of writing in Rus.65 Indeed, about this time birchbark documents became numerous, and the walls of the two newly constructed cathedrals of St. Sophia (those of Kiev and Novgorod) started to be covered with countless graffiti. Novgorodian mid-11th-century graffiti mention certain Petr and Prokhor, both labeled as diak (диякъ) of Ostromir, that is, presumably, cleric (deacon) functioning as a secretary of Ostromir, the posadnik of Novgorod, also known as the commissioner of the Ostromir Gospel.66 Seals become numerous from the time of the sons of Iaroslav the Wise (d. 1054).67 The earliest scribal colophons are those of Priest Upyr Likhoi (1047), and of Deacon Grigorii in the Ostromir Gospel (1056–7).68 Finally, the second half of the 11th century is the time of the emergence of original Rus literature: of letopisi (the annals), hagiography, hymnography, homiletics, and so on.69 The main (but quite probably not the only) center of this literary development was the Kievan Cave Monastery, also founded towards the middle of the 11th century. Although Gippius insists that the mid-11th-century boundary is not so strict as it seems to Franklin,70 the second half of the 11th century is certainly a new stage in the spread of written practices both among the ecclesiastics and the laity. As for the later development of literature, one should mention some especially outstanding texts such as the Instruction (Pouchenie, Поучение) of Prince Vladimir Monomakh accompanied by his ‘auto-biography’, his letter to Prince Oleg, and his prayer (all dated around 1100);71 the Song of Igor’s Campaign (Slovo o polku Igorere, Слово о полку Игореве, from the late 12th century—the well-known masterpiece of Old Rus heroic literature, many times suspected to be a forgery, but probably, nevertheless, genuine);72 the Word (Slovo, Слово) and the Praying (Molenie, Моление) of Daniil Zatochnik (the Immured, the 65 Franklin, Writing, 121–6. 66 Aleksei A. Gippius and Savva M. Mikheev, “O podgotovke Svoda nadpisei-graffiti Novgorodskogo Sofiiskogo sobora,” in Pis’mennost’, literatura, fol’klor slavianskikh narodov. Istoriia slavistiki: XV mezhdunar. s’ezd slavistov, Minsk, 20–27 avgusta 2013 g.: Dokl. ros. delegatsii, ed. by Aleksandr M. Moldovan (Moscow: Drevlekhranilishche, 2013), 162. 67 Ianin and Gaidukov, Aktovye pechati, vol. 3, 13. 68 See above, notes 39, 42. 69 See, e.g.: Franklin, Writing, 123. 70 Gippius, “Birchbark Literacy,” 71 Extant in Laur.: PSRL, 1, 240–56. See also in subchapter 1.5. 72 See, probably, the best works in support of both points of view: Aleksandr A. Zimin, Slovo o polku Igoreve (Saint-Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2006); Andrei A. Zalizniak, ‘Slovo o polku Igoreve’: Vzgliad lingvista, 3rd ed., suppl. (Moscow: Rukopisnye pamiatniki Drevnei Rusi, 2008).

26

chapter 1

12th or the 13th century).73 Prince Vladimir Monomakh and Daniil Zatochnik were outstanding writers belonging to the laity. However, obviously, the bulk of original Old Rus literature (including the annals, the lives of saints and such hagiographical compendia as the Paterikon of the Kievan Cave Monastery, etc.) were written by clerics. It is impossible to speak of Old Rus literature and not to mention Slavonic translations of Greek texts, which played a very important role. St. Cyril and Methodius had already made some of these translations in the 9th century, while others were made in Bulgaria (also from the late 9th century on), but no doubt texts continued to be translated in Rus. Sometimes scholars still dispute if a certain translation was made in Bulgaria or Rus. Some translated texts belonging to the domain of historical writing will be discussed below, in subchapter 1.3. Due to birchbark documents (Figure 1), although not only to them, it is possible to outline the history of lay written practices, or, rather, of pragmatic writing in Rus. The evidence concerns Novgorod much more than other centers, but some fragmentary evidence from elsewhere also exists, and it does not contradict the Novgorodian patterns. The birchbark documents74 of the 11th century and c. 1100 comprise the following kinds of texts: – private letters on business affairs (no. 245–246, 527, 605, 613, 909, 912, 915, etc.); – administrative letters (no. 247, 607/562, 907, 590 [the latter is, perhaps, a military relation]); – lists of sums of money, probably debts or, maybe, tributes (no. 90 [?], 526, 789, 905, 958, St. Russa 13); – short business records (no. 586, 908, 910); – memoranda concerning church services (no. 906, 913, 914); – letters of love (no. 566, 752); – alphabet (no. 591). The 1130s–40s is when the earliest princely diplomas and statutes granted to religious houses are attested: the Mstislav’s Charter to St. George’s Monastery near Novgorod (c. 1130) extant in a single-sheet parchment original (Figure 4), and several documents from Novgorod and Smolensk known in later transcripts.

73 See: Lidiia V. Sokolova, “Daniil Zatochnik,” in DRSM, 222–3. 74 I quote below only numbers of birchbark documents. On corpus editions see above, note 4.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

figure 4

27

Mstislav’s Charter, c. 1130. Grant of princes Mstislav and Vsevolod to St. George’s Monastery near Novgorod. The earliest Rus single-sheet document on parchment traditionaly kept with a later (13th-century) gilded silver seal of Prince Iaroslav, son of Vsevolod reproduced from: DRSM, 524

28

chapter 1

Also, from the 1140s the annals start to mention written treaties concluded by princes.75 Over the course of the 12th century the types of documents written on birchbark expand. Those start to comprise: letters containing the requirement to pay something to the envoy (no. 879, 1006, St. Russa 15, etc.), including one probably from a prince (no. 739, datable to 1137–38);76 collective or individual petitions to authorities (no. 603, 821, 844, 850, 870, 872, 885, 900); the correspondence of tribute collectors (no. № 226, 550, 640, 724, 788, 812, Ст.Р. 12); a consignment note to a parcel of food (no. 842, compare no. 1005–1006); letters concerning matchmaking (no. 731, 748, 955); a register of natural duties or supplies (no. 863, compare no 721/647/683, 1063, St. Russa 20); a report of a collector of duties (no. 663); estimates of expenses (no. 601, 799, 866, 882, 1011, 1057, etc.); inventories of property or goods (no. 429, 438, 609 [?]); lists of names for liturgical commemoration or orders of icons (no. 559–561, 602); tags (no. 632, 741, 1035, etc.); and many others. Private legal documents (such as wills or records of purchase) appear relatively late. The earliest extant examples show a gradual transition from oral practices to written ones. The 12th-century graffito no. 25 from St. Sophia of Kiev records a purchase of land by a princess (probably a widow). The record includes a short description of the ritual and a long list of testimonies, thus demonstrating that both rituals and testimonies were more important for the participants of the transaction than the written record.77 The birchbark document from Novgorod no. 818 is probably a will, but an embryonic one: the document simply lists debts, then mentions 4 grivnas kept in a secret vessel (‘в тулѣ’), and then says: ‘And all this I give to [my] brother’ (‘А то въхо даю брату’).78 A birchbark document from Staraia Russa no. 43 (c. 1200), again written by a woman, is a receipt of money, but it mentions ritual act and oral procedure: she ‘gave hand’ (‘въдала руку’) and ‘said as follows’ (‘рекла тако’).79 The 12th-century birchbark letter no. 2 from Zvenigorod, near Galich (South-Western Rus) probably mentions a written will, but maybe a list of debtors, a kind of document attested from the 11th century.80 Only the parchment 75 See on this period in documentary writing in Rus in subchapter 4.8. 76 NGB, [10], 37. 77 Sergei A. Vysotskii, Drevnerusskie nadpisi Sofii Kievskoi XI–XIV vekov, part 1 (Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1966), 60–71, no. 25. 78 NGB, 11, 40 (the publishers call the document: ‘a draft of a will’). See on this document: Franklin, Writing, 184. 79 NGB, 12, 173–5. 80 In Simon Franklin’s translation: ‘… [Thus] Goven stated before his death, and the priest wrote it down …’ (Franklin, Writing, 184).

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

29

charter of Varlaam of Khutyn (1192 × 1210)81 is more or less a legal document in pure sense—but Varlaam donated his property to a monastery, of which he himself became the first abbot—so this is an example of institutional, rather than of private, use of writing. In the 13th century we see private legal documents in a pure sense: the will of a certain Kliment from Novgorod (before 1270),82 and an agreement between Teshata and Iakim from Pskov (1266 × 1291).83 Some birchbark documents of the second half of the 13th century probably are receipts confirming transfers of certain money or goods (no. 141, 197, 198). The earliest records of court decisions also date from the 13th century. Those consist of two graffiti from Galich,84 and a parchment charter from Smolensk (1284).85 The formulaic of the two Galich texts are similar, while the document from Smolensk is absolutely different. This implies that the tradition of writing down court decisions emerged parallel in various principalities and had no single route. It also must be noted that the beneficiaries of the recorded court decisions were probably (in Galich) or certainly (in Smolensk) foreigners— and this could be the main motive for creating a written document.86 In the 13th century the practice of keeping inventories of various duties increases (see birchbark documents no. 218, 220, 348, 409 [?], 614, 718, 761, as well as the so-called Prince Iaroslav’s statute on pavement [Ustav knyzya Iaroslava o mostekh, Устав князя Ярослава о мостех], the bulk of which was composed in Novgorod in the 1260s87). Birchbark documents no. 219 and 390 are the earliest examples of accounting documents originally written on more than one sheet of birchbark. From the 1260s the earliest treaties between Novgorod and the princes (belonging to the Northeastern branch of the Rurikids) have survived.88 Several such treaties, as well as examples of diplomatic correspondence concerning 81 See: Andrei A. Zalizniak and Valentin L. Ianin [Yanin], “Vkladnaia gramota Varlaama Khutynskogo,” Russian Linguistics 16, no. 2–3 (1992): 185–202. 82 GVNP, no. 105. 83 GVNP, no. 331. 84 Gippius, “Galitskie akty,” 49–64. 85 Aleksandr S. Ivanov and Anatolii M. Kuznetsov, Smolensko-rizhskie akty, XIII v.–pervaia polovina XIV v.: Dokumenty kompleksa Moscowitica—Ruthenica ob otnosheniiakh Smolenska i Rigi. Daugavpils: Latvijas Valsts vēstures arhīvs, 2009, 624–34, no. 5. 86 See: Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “Drevnerusskie sudebnye dokumenty XIII–XIV vv.” Pis’mo i povsednevnost’ 3 (2016): 25–8, 43–4. 87 Shchapov, Iaroslav N., ed., Drevnerusskie kniazheskie ustavy XI–XV vv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1976), 149–52; Valentin L. Ianin, Novgorodskie akty XII–XV vv.: Khronologicheskii kommentarii (Moscow: Nauka, 1991), 146–7, no. 69. 88 GVNP, no. 1–3

30

chapter 1

their conclusion, survive from the late 13th and the 14th centuries.89 Also, two princely writs90 (c. 1300, 1329) concerning the Novgorodian Land are extant in later transcripts.91 Documents of the 14th century (on parchment, paper, birchbark, as well as extant in later cartularies) are much more numerous. If to speak of legal acts only, one can count some 240 documents from various regions of Rus (including Novgorod and Pskov, the Northeast, as well as Western and South-Western regions gradually absorbed by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania).92 The tradition of writing on birchbark continued to flourish, and it must be noted that among the 14th-century birchbark documents there are six wills (no. 28, 42, 138, 369, 580, 519/520), a record of purchase (no. 318), and three other private agreements (no. 45, 136, 366). Even if some of those are in fact drafts,93 they show a wider, in comparison to the previous period, spread of written recording transactions. The 15th-century, with its proliferation of paper, the development of book culture in big land-owning monasteries, and, of course, the growth of the Muscovite State with its emerging bureaucracy, differs much from the earlier period, which is the focus of this book. Let us turn now to an overview of the forms of historical writing in Rus before 1400. Historical writing occupies a surprisingly small part of the surviving pre-1400 written material (only three manuscripts, if not to count various minor forms),94 but, nevertheless, it was quite diverse. A great deal of what is known of early Rus historical writing, is known as a result of the analysis of texts extant only in 15th-century or even later manuscripts, and thus sometimes it is highly hypothetical. However, generations of scholars have been working to reconstruct the early stages of writing letopisi, chronographs, and other texts, and many of the results of this work are, no doubt, reliable. 1.2

Letopisi (the Annals)

The central place in Old Rus historical writing belongs to the genre of letopisi. The Russian word letopis’ (летопись; pl. letopisi, летописи; Ukrainian: 89 90

Ibid., no. 4–18. This English term seems appropriate for princely prescriptive letters. In Russian tradition those are called ukaznye gramoty (указные грамоты), i.e. ‘decree charters’. 91 GVNP, no. 83, 85; Kashtanov, Iz istorii, 80. 92 The calculation is mine, and is preliminary. This figure includes documents of the 14th century and datable to c. 1400. 93 See above, note 14. 94 See appendix 2.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

31

літопис, litopys; Bielorussian: летапіс, letapis) literally means ‘year-writing(s)’ and is the traditional designation of a certain genre. In early Rus sources, however, slightly different words are used: letopisanie (лѣтописание) for which an English translation probably would be the same, ‘year-writing’. In modern Russian letopis’ means a text, and letopisanie means either the process of writing of such texts, or the total of them. In Old Rus sources, however, the latter word means a text belonging to that genre as well. A variant of the same is letopisets (лѣтописець), which means ‘year-writer’, i.e. annalist, but also may be a designation of a text itself. Those terms are calques of Greek χρονογραφία (‘writing of time’) and χρονογράφος (‘writer of time’ or ‘record of time’).95 Another Slavonic word that was sometimes used to denote the same genre was vremennik (временникъ, i.e. something dedicated to time), a translation of Greek χρονικόν.96 One can quote the so-called introduction to the Younger Version of the First Novgorodian Chronicle (N1Y), a text that probably goes back to the late 11th century:97 Vremennik, which is called the letopisanie of the Rus princes and Land … Временникъ, еже есть нарицается лѣтописание князеи и земля Руския …98 Let us use in this book the word letopisi (in plural) as a designation of the genre. This word is often translated into English as ‘chronicle(s)’. This tradition is especially sustainable when translating the names of particular texts. For example, Lavrentievskaia letopis’ (Лаврентьевская летопись) is normally cited as the Laurentian Chronicle,—and there is no need to give up this tradition. However, when we speak of the genre of letopisi a better translation would be ‘annals’ or, maybe, ‘annalistic chronicles’. In Anglophone scholarly tradition the terms ‘annals’ and ‘chronicle’ are not strictly divided, but the former is used more to designate continuous traditions of making records, and the latter typically designates more coherent and extended works.99 Some scholars suggest 95 Slovar’ drevnerusskogo iazyka (XI–XIV vv.), ed. Ruben I. Avanesov, vol. 4 (Moscow: Russkii iazyk, 1991), 462. 96 Ibid., vol. 1 (1988), 492. 97 But extant in manuscripts of the mid-fifteenth century and later, see subchapter 2.2. 98 PSRL, 3, 103. 99 See attempts to spell out the difference: Sarah Foot, “Finding the meaning of form: narrative in annals and chronicles,” in Writing Medieval History, ed. by Nancy F. Partner (Oxford: Bloomsbury Academic, 2005), 89; Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 83–5; Richard W. Burgess and Michael Kulikowski, Mosaics of Time: The Latin Chronicle Traditions from the First Century BC to the Sixth Century AD, vol. 1: A Historical Introduction to the Chronicle Genre from its Origins to the High Middle Ages (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), 12–3 (Foot, Burgess, and

32

figure 5

chapter 1

The Hypatain MS. of the Hypatian Chronicle, c. 1418, fol. 84v. Annals for years 6405–6423 from the Creation of the World (i.e. AD 897–915) reproduced from: Povest’ vremennykh let po Ipatskomu spisku. Saint-Petersburg: Arkheograficheskaia komissiia, 1871

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

33

not to speak of ‘annals’ as a separate genre at all.100 A good analogy for Rus letopisi would be the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which is often referred as ‘the Old English annals’ and which in fact was a continuous tradition of writing down events in annalistic form, varying in style from coherent narrations to brief atomic notes.101 In this book, I will mostly use the Russian word letopisi, as well as the English term ‘annals’. What do letopisi look like? Those texts consist, almost entirely, of annual entries (one also can use the English term ‘annal’, in singular). Such an entry (annal) normally starts with a year-number, e.g.: ‘В лѣто 6712’ (‘In the year 6712’, i.e. 1204).102 Some of the entries are barren (the so-called ‘empty years’), with no text after the annal-number or with a wording meaning that nothing significant took place in that year: В лѣто 6537. Мирно бысть.103 (It was peaceful). В лѣто 6537. Мирно лѣто.104 (A peaceful year). В лѣто 6654. В се лѣто бысть тишина велика.105 (In this year there was a big calmness). В лѣто 6762. Добро бяше христьяномъ.106 (It was good to Christians). В лѣто 6768. Бысть тишина все лѣто.107 (There was calmness all the year).

100

101 102 103 104 105 106 107

Kulikowski give definitions to which they themselves prefer not to follow, that is, not to tell annals from chronicles and call both chronicles). In practice, some scholars use those two terms as interchangeable, and some consider them as designations of different genres (e.g.: Hayden White, “The Value of Narrativity in the Representation of Reality,” in idem, The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation (Baltimore – London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1987), 5–16), especially in non-Anglophone historiography (e.g.: Michael McCormick, Les annales du Haut Moyen Age (Turnhout: Brepols, 1975), 10–3). David N. Dumville, “What is a Chronicle?,” in The Medieval Chronicle II: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Medieval Chronicle, Driebergen/Utrecht 16–21 July 1999, ed. Erik Kooper (Amsterdam – New York: Rodopi, 2002), 1–27; Foot, “Finding,” 89–91; Burgess and Kulikowski, Mosaics, vol. 1, 12–9, 59–60, 288–96; Stanislav G. Mereminskii, “Sushchestvoval li v Srednie veka zhanr annalov? K voprosu o tipologii srednevekovykh istoricheskikh tekstov,” in Sostoianie perekhodnosti i smysly istorii, ed. by Marina S. Bobkova (Saint-Petersburg: Evraziia, 2019), 115–38. Mereminskii admits a usage of the word ‘annals’ as terminus technicus to designate ‘any annual entries (for example, in wordings like “chronicle in the form of annals”)’ (ibid., 138). See subchapter 1.6. See appendix 1 for the Old Rus usage of the years from the Creation of the World. PSRL, 1, 149; see the same s.a. 6743 (ibid., 460). PSRL, 2, 137. Ibid., 143. PSRL, 3, 80, 307. Ibid., 83, 311.

34

chapter 1

In most of the cases, however, there is text that describes the events of the year. If more than one event is described, the entry (annal) is usually divided into separate items, each (except the first one) starting with wordings like ‘В то же лѣто’ (‘In that same year’), ‘Тои же зимы’ (‘In that same winter’), ‘Тои же весны’ (‘In that same spring’), ‘Тои же осени’ (‘In that same autumn’), ‘Того же мѣсяця’ (‘In that same month’), ‘Тогда же’ (‘And then’), etc. The items so divided can be of any length: from two or three words (e.g.: ‘Преставися митрополитъ Никита’, ‘Metropolitan Nikita passed away’108) up to several pages. Igor Eremin suggested a typology of items of annalistic texts, and introduced such terms as annual note (погодная запись), or simply note (известие), narration (or account, рассказ), and tale (повесть, that is, a narration with elements of hagiography, usually dedicated to somebody’s death or murder).109 Oleg Tvorogov preferred to speak only of two kinds of items: short notes and extended narrations,110 and Sergei Morozov suggested to return to the three-part typology.111 To my mind, although the boundaries between notes and narrations, not to say about narrations and tales, are by no means strict, this terminology is a convenient instrument, and I will use those terms where appropriate. In any case, all those items, regardless their volume and style, can be treated as reporting each a single, atomic event. Formula like ‘In that same year’, thus, separate one event from another. This is, of course, an oversimplifying scheme. It is not difficult to find in letopisi an annual entry where events not connected to each other are reported one after another without such formula. On the contrary formula like ‘In that same year’, are sometimes used inside long coherent narrations. I have tried to count the percentage of those two types of non-regular usage of the annalistic formula, analyzing ten samples (each including ten subsequent annual entries) from several early Rus letopisi. The result was as follows: almost in 20% of cases the division of an annal into items was not an unequivocal procedure: it was possible to regard a certain fragment of text either as one or as two or more items.112 However, in the other 80% of cases (in my samples) the division 108 Ibid., 2, 290 (s.a. 1125). 109 Eremin, “Kievskaia letopis’,” 67–90. 110 Oleg V. Tvorogov, “Siuzhetnoe povestvovanie v letopisiakh XI–XIII vv.,” in Istoki russkoi belletristiki, ed. Iakov S. Lurie (Leningrad: Nauka, 1970), 65–7. 111 Sergei A. Morozov, “Letopisevedenie—kompleksnaia spetsial’naia istoriko-filologicheskaia distsiplina,” in Mir istochnikovedeniia (sb. v chest’ S.O. Shmidta), ed. A.D. Zaitsev et al. (Moscow – Penza: RGGU, 1994), 33. 112 Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “K voprosu o strukture teksta russkikh letopisei: Naskol’ko diskretna pogodnaia stat’ia?,” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 16 (2004): 30–4.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

35

was not a problem: the formula like ‘In that same year’ opened new items dedicated to new events. It seems, thus, that the annalists regarded their texts as atomic, reporting separate events of consecutive years, though in practice the structure of letopisi often was not so regular.113 It is also characteristic to letopisi to sometimes include texts from other genres—not just descriptions of events. First of all, there are fragments close to hagiography, tales in Eremin’s terminology,114 and also so-called necrologues (general assessments of deceased—usually panegyrics but sometimes negative or neutral descriptions accompanying notes on deaths).115 Letopisi also include such juridical texts as the 10th-century treaties of Kievan princes with Byzantium,116 and Russkaia Pravda (laws of Iaroslav the Wise, his sons, etc.),117 as well as Pouchenie (the Instruction to sons) by Vladimir Monomakh,118 the Lives of Aleksandr Nevskii, Dovmont of Pskov, and Dmitrii Donskoi,119 lists of rulers (princes, church hierarchs, city magistrates),120 etc. In all cases such nonannalistic inclusions are placed within particular annual entries and, usually, are introduced by the annalist (it is said, for example, how the treaties with Byzantium were concluded, or how Iaroslav the Wise promulgated Russkaia Pravda, etc.). Usually not all the text of a letopis’ consists of annual entries. At the beginning there must be a sort of introduction: a portion of text without annalistic structure. The earliest extant letopisi contain two types of such introductions. Firstly, there is the non-annalistic part of the Primary Chronicle (PVL, see below), which narrates the settlement of peoples after the Flood, and then gives a lot of geographical, ethnographical, and historical information based on oral tradition, biblical and Byzantine sources.121 Secondly, there is the preface of the Younger Version of the First Novgorodian Chronicle (N1Y) which probably 113 Compare the practice of editing the Irish annals established by Martin Freeman in 1944: each item of an annal is printed as a separate paragraph and is numbered for reference, see: Dauit Broun and Julian Harrison, ed., The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey: A Stratigraphic Edition, vol. 1: Introduction and Facsimile Edition (Woodbridge: Scottish History Society, 2007), 36–7. The Irish annals, contrary to the Rus or Anglo-Saxon ones, lack wordings like ‘In that same year’; at the same time they are basically more laconic, so being easier regarded as lists of events which can be numbered. 114 See above, note 109. 115 Eremin, “Kievskaiia letopis’,” 82–3. 116 PVL s.a. 907, 912, 945, 972. See above, note 45. 117 N1Y s.a. 1016. See subchapters 3.11 and 4.6. 118 Laur. s.a. 1096. See subchapter 1.5. 119 See subchapter 1.4. 120 See subchapter 3.2. 121 PSRL, 1, 1–17.

36

chapter 1

goes back to the late 11th-century Kievan Initial Compilation, the predecessor of PVL. This preface is more rhetorical: it outlines the beginnings of Rus and Kiev, and then says that the following text will speak of old good princes, who are good examples in present troublesome times.122 A letopis’ has a beginning, but it has no end. Each text easily can be continued with new annual entries. In many cases surviving texts share an early section and then diverge. Letopisi were not only open for updating, they often were revised, abbreviated, conflated, glossed, etc. Again, this is evident from the comparison of surviving texts, which often share a lot of material but greatly differ as well. That is why in many contexts it is safer to speak not of particular annalistic texts, but of annalistic writing as an activity, or a process, a tradition, in which many people were involved and texts were constantly modified. Some scribes updated annals year by year, some copied and revised texts, some created compilations based on two or more annalistic sources, some made glosses or erasures, and so on.123 Any extant letopis’ is not the work of a single author but rather a result of the activities of many persons over the course of several centuries.124 For example, the Laurentian Chronicle, a manuscript created in 1377 by three scribes, covers events from 852 to 1305. This text reflects the work not only of those three scribes (who probably were no more than copyists) but also of many annalists who composed, updated, and revised annals from the 11th to the early 14th century. As a rule, we do not know the names of those people. In most of the cases they neither reported their names nor demarcated the portions of text they had composed. The latter partly can be done by methods of textual history and linguistics.125 As for the names, only four or five of them are present in pre-1400 annals. Vasilii (of unknown status but close to a prince and acting as his envoy) mentions himself in PVL’s annal for 1097 (known as the Tale of the Blinding of Vasilko).126 Abbot Silvestr (Сильвестр) of the Kievan Vydubychi Monastery in 1116 copied (revised? composed?) PVL.127 Monk Lavrentii (Лаврентий) was one of the three scribes who copied the Laurentian Chronicle in 1377.128 Sexton 122 PSRL, 3, 103–4. Some of the scholars date this preface to the 13th or even the 15th century. More convincing is Aleksei Shakhmatov’s view recently advocated by Aleksei Gippius that this is the preface of the Initial Compilation of c. 1093. See subchapter 2.2. 123 See an overview of such practices in subchapter 4.5. 124 Compare the overview of the kinds of activity of Rus annalists: Timberlake, “Redactions,” 196–7, 213. 125 See subchapters 3.4 and 4.2. 126 PSRL, 1, 265–6. 127 In three of the five witnesses of PVL one finds his colophon (PSRL, 1, 286). It is quoted in subchapter 2.1. 128 He also wrote a colophon (PSRL, 1, 487–8), see subchapter 4.2.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

37

(ponomar’, пономарь) Timofei (Тимофей) mentioned himself in a prayer s.a. 1230 in the First Novgorodian Chronicle. He was probably a secretary of the archbishop of Novgorod and in that capacity was entrusted to update the annals.129 The fifth name is the most well known: Monk Nestor of the Kievan Cave Monastery, in modern times remembered as St. Nestor, or Nestor the Chronicler (Нестор-летописец). His name is present in only one 16th-century annalistic manuscript (Khlebn., see below) and in an earlier hagiographic text, the Paterikon of the Kievan Cave Monastery.130 It is probable (though not certain) that this tradition is trustworthy, and that Nestor really was a Kievan annalist in the late 11th or the early 12th century.131 The names of some other annalists are not reported in letopisi directly but can be deduced (with various degrees of certainty) from other data. For example, it is quite certain that in 12th-century Novgorod a certain priest named German Voiata (Герман Воята) was an annalist.132 Thousands of letopisi manuscripts are kept in archives. However, most of them are relatively late, belonging to the 16th, 17th, or even the 18th and 19th centuries. Some twenty-five letopisi manuscripts date from the 15th century and c. 1500, and only two pre-date the year 1400. Those two are the only ones written on parchment; all 15th-century and later manuscripts are on paper. Until the early 19th century there existed a third manuscript on parchment, the early 15th-century Trinity Chronicle, but it perished in the Moscow fire of 1812. It makes sense to briefly describe here the two parchment and some of the principal paper manuscripts.133 129 PSRL, 3, 70. See subchapter 3.4. 130 See a detailed survey of the way of the idea of ‘Nestor the Chronicler’ from the Paterikon through the Kievan 17th-century intellectual milieu into the Russian scholarly historiography from the 18th century on: Oleksiy P. Tolochko, “On ‘Nestor the Chronicler’,” Harvard Ukrainan Studies 29, no. 1–4 (2007): 31–59. Tolochko’s own view on Nestor’s being a chronicler is skeptical. However, the earliest reference to ‘Nestor who wrote the chronicle’ (‘Нестеръ, иже тъи написа лѣтописец’) is in the Paterikon of the Kievan Cave Monastery which is extant in an early 15th-century copy but originated in the early 13th century (see in subchapter 1.4). It well may reflect a trustworthy tradition which existed in monastery (see, for example: Aleshkovskii, Povest’ vremennykh let, 200–1). In any case, there are two works of hagiography written by Monk Nestor, the lives of St. Feodosii of the Cave Monastery and of St. Princes Boris and Gleb. 131 See also subchapter 2.1. 132 See subchapter 3.4. 133 A short note should be made on the traditional names of extant texts. As a rule the names like the Hypatian Chronicle (Ипатьевская летопись) or the First Novgorodian Chronicle (Новгородская первая летопись) designate groups of manuscripts with approximately the same text (but never identical, sometimes with different terminal or even initial sections). Those names in many cases are misleading. For example, the earliest manuscript

38

chapter 1

The Synodal MS. of the First Novgorodian Chronicle (Синодальный список Новгородской I летописи; Syn., also known as the Elder Version of the First Novgorodian Chronicle; GIM, Syn. 786; see Figures 11–12, 16, 19–20), is the earliest extant Rus letopis’. It lost its first 16 quires and starts abruptly s.a. 1016. Most of the manuscript (annals for 1016–1234) was written by one 13th-century scribe, probably soon after 1234. C. 1330 another scribe added the text for 1234– 1330. After that, four scribes made short additions on the events of 1330–52. The book was written in Novgorod and reflects the Novgorodian annalistic tradition.134 The Laurentian Chronicle (Лаврентьевская летопись, Laur.; RNB. F.п.IV.2; Figure 6),135 was created in 1377 by three scribes one of which wrote a colophon where he named himself as Monk Lavrentii (Laurence), and his patrons as Prince Dmitrii of Suzdal and Nizhny Novgorod, and Bishop Dionisii (of the same two cities).136 It is generally assumed that the book was written in Nizhny Novgorod. The text covers 852–1305. It includes the material from Kiev, Pereyaslavl-upon-Dnieper, Rostov, Vladimir (?), Tver, and, maybe, some other centers of Northeastern Rus. The text obtained its final form c. 1305, either in Tver, or at the court of the metropolitan in Vladimir.137

134

135

136 137

of the Hypatian Chronicle was indeed found in the Hypatian Monastery in Kostroma, but the content as well as the origin of that letopis’ has no relation to those monastery and city. A particular manuscript in Russian scholarly tradition is called ‘список’ (literally: transcript, or copy, or manuscript—I will use the abbreviation MS.), e.g. the Khlebnikov MS. (список) of the Hypatian Chronicle. If a chronicle is represented only by one manuscript, it can be called both, e.g. the Laurentian Chronicle is the same as the Laurentian MS. In some cases the scholarly tradition divides manuscripts of a certain chronicle into subgroups: versions or recensions (изводы), e.g. the Elder and the Younger versions of the First Novgorodian Chronicle (on the latter term see: Alan Timberlake, “Older and Younger Recensions of the First Novgorod Chronicle,” Oxford Slavonic Papers NS 33 (2000): 2, note 5). All this creates much complexity, but nevertheless is easier to be used than to be reformed (as any proper names). See a facsimile: Mikhail N. Tikhomirov, ed., Novgorodskaia kharateinaia letopis’ (Moscow: Nauka, 1964), and a diplomatic edition: Arsenii N. Nasonov, ed., Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis’ starshego i mladshego izvoda (Moscow – Leningrad: Izd-vo Akad. nauk SSSR, 1950), 15–100, reprinted in: PSRL, 3. See also subchapters 3.1 and 3.8. See a printed colour facsimile: Lavrent’evskaia letopis: Faksimil’noe izdanie, photographs by V.S. Terebenin (Saint-Petersburg: Rostok, 2017); an online facsimile: http://expositions .nlr.ru/LaurentianCodex/_Project/page_Show (6.08.2018), and the standard diplomatic edition: PSRL, 1. The colophon is quoted in subchapter 4.2. See an overview of the discussion: Ekkehard Klug, Das Furstentum Tver (1247–1485) (Berlin: Harrassowitz, 1985), 16–9; or Russian translation: Ekkekhard Kliug, Kniazhestvo Tverskoe (1247–1485 gg.) (Tver’: RIF LTD, 1994), 21–4.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

39

figure 6 The Laurentian Chronicle, 1377, fol. 1v. The beginning of Povest vremennykh let reproduced from: PSRL, 1

The Trinity Chronicle (Троицкая летопись) perished in Moscow fire of 1812, but the text can be reconstructed with a high level of certainty based on an edition that was being prepared in the early 19th century, quotations by the Russian historian Nikolai Karamzin, the late 15th-century Symeon Chronicle (being a derivative of the Trinity Chronicle), and some other sources.138 138 See a reconstruction of text: Mikhail D. Priselkov, Troitskaia letopis’: Rekonstruktsiia teksta, 2nd ed. (Saint-Petersburg: Nauka, 2002 [first published in 1950]). See also:

40

chapter 1

The Hypatian Chronicle (Ипатьевская летопись, Hyp.) is extant in several manuscripts with almost identical text, of which the two principal ones are the Hypatian MS. of c. 1418139 (Hyp.; BAN. 16.4.4; this is the earliest extant letopis’ on paper; see Figure 5) and the Khlebnikov MS. of the late 1550s or the early 1560s (Khlebn.; RNB, F.IV.230). Other later manuscripts are closely akin to Khlebn. All those manuscripts include annals from 852 to 1292. The text up to 1200 reflects the annalistic tradition of Kiev (and, in turn, is traditionally divided into two parts: PVL, up to the 1110s, and the Kievan Chronicle, the rest of the annals for the 12th century). The third part, the text for the 13th century, is known as the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle of South-Western Rus.140 The third part originally had a non-annalistic structure: year-numbers were introduced only in the Hypatian MS. (they are absent in Khlebn. and other manuscripts) and obviously are secondary and artificial. So, the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle does not belong to letopisi in pure sense, although it is a text that is akin to them in many respects.141 The Radzivill Chronicle (Радзивиловская летопись, Radz.; BAN, 34.5.30; c. 1487; Figure 7), written c. 1487,142 is the earliest illuminated Rus letopisi manuscript.143 Its 618 miniatures are a unique visual introduction into the life of Old Rus.144 It is probable that they partly reproduce the illumination of non-extant exemplar, that has been argued to date to the pre-Mongolian period.145 The text of Radz. covers years 852–1206 and is close to that of Laur.,

139 140

141 142 143 144 145

Liudmila L. Murav’eva, Moskovskoe letopisanie vtoroi poloviny XIV–nachala XV veka, Moscow: Nauka, 1991. The dates of paper manuscripts are usually based on the analysis of watermarks. See the standard diplomatic edition of Hyp. with variants from Khlebn.: PSRL, 2. Recently a new linguistic edition of the Kievan Chronicle appeared (again based on Hyp. with variants from Khlebn.: Irina S. Iur’eva, ed., Kievskaia letopis’ (Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2017)), as well as a diplomatic edition of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle (see below, note 230). Only the first part of Hyp. (PVL) has been edited in facsimile: Povest’ vremennykh let po Ipatskomu spisku (Saint-Petersburg: Arkheograficheskaia komissiia, 1871). A facsimile of Khlebn. see: Omeljan Pritsak, ed. The Old Rus’ Kievan and Galician-Volynian Chronicles: The Ostroz’skyj (Xlebnikov) and Cetvertins’kyj (Pogodin) Codices. Harvard Library of Early Ukrainian Literature. Texts, 8). Cambridge (Mass.): Ukrainian Research Institute of Harvard University, 1990. See subchapter 1.4. Boris M. Kloss, “Predislovie k izdaniju 1997 g.,” in PSRL, 1, I. See a facsimile: Margarita V. Kukushkina and Gelian M. Prokhorov, ed., Radzivilovskaia letopis’, vol. 1–2 (Saint-Petersburg: Glagol – Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1994), and a diplomatic edition: PSRL, 38. See a classical study: Artemii. V. Artsikhovskii, Drevnerusskie miniatiury kak istoricheskii istochnik, 2nd ed. (Tomsk – Moscow: Vodolei Publishers, 2004) [first published in 1944]. See: Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 2, 51; Artsikhovskii, Drevnerusskie miniatiury, 40–6.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

figure 7 The Radzivill Chronicle, c. 1487, fol. 243v. Annal for 1201. The upper miniature depicts the travel of Prince Iaroslav from his father Vsevolod of Suzdal to his new throne in Pereyaslavl-upon-Dnieper. The left part of the lower image depicts the death of Prince Vladimir, son of Sviatoslav. The right part of the lower image depicts a moon eclipse reproduced from: Kukushkina, Prokhorov, ed., Radzivilovskaia letopis’, vol. 1, fol. 243v

41

42

chapter 1

although not absolutely identical. Two other extant texts belong to the same family. The Moscow Academy Chronicle (Московско-Академическая летопись, MA; RGB, 173.I.236, late 15th century) is a mechanical combination of three sections, the first of which (annals up to 1206) is very close to Radz. but without illumination. After that MA contains a text identical to that of the First Sophian Chronicle (see below) for 1205–38. The entries for 1239–1419 contain abbreviated annals of Rostov.146 The Chronicle of Pereyaslavl-of-Suzdal (Летописец Переяславля-Суздальского, LPS; RGADA, 181, 279/658, ff. 481– 540, the 1460s147) contains annals close to those of Radz. and MA for 1138–1205, and an original annalistic fragment for 1206–14.148 The Younger Version of the First Novgorodian Chronicle (Новгородская I летопись младшего извода, N1Y) is a group of manuscripts containing Novgorodian annals close to Syn. but not identical to it and extended up to the middle of the 15th century. Two principal manuscripts of N1Y are that of the Archaeographical Commission (Com.; SPbII RAN, 11, 240; see Figure 13) and that of the Academy of Sciences (Acad.; BAN, 17.8.36; see Figure 14). Both date from the mid-15th century.149 There are also some 18th- and 19th-century transcripts, all going back to Acad. The chronicles of the Novgorodian-Sophian group (NS-group) include the Novgorodian Karamzin Chronicle (NK), the First Sophian Chronicle (S1), and the Fourth Novgorodian Chronicle (N4).150 They represent various stages of compilative annalistic work of the first half of the 15th century in Novgorod, Moscow and, maybe, the Trinity Monastery of St. Sergii. The common feature of those texts is a kind of balance of Novgorodian and non-Novgorodian (mostly Northeastern Rus) material. The exact interrelationships between those three chronicles are far from obvious, and scholars have suggested several theories on the matter. It is important that NK (extant in one manuscript of c. 1500, RNB, F.IV.603) consists of two parts (‘selections’: NK1 and NK2), which are somewhat complimentary and both contain annals from the earliest times up to the early 15th century. Scholars suggested different explanations for such 146 The text up to 1206 is printed in variants to PSRL, 1 and 38. The rest of the text is printed: PSRL, 1, 489–540. See also online facsimile: http://old.stsl.ru/manuscripts/medium.php? col=5&manuscript=236&pagefile=236–0001 (6.08.2018). 147 Another manuscript (BAN, 45.11.16, ff. 211v–225v, the 1460s) contains only the beginning of LPS. 148 The text is printed: PSRL, 41. The connection of the work with the town Pereyaslavl-Zalessky (Pereyaslavl-of-Suzdal) was shown by the first editor of LPS: Mikhail A. Obolenskii, ed., Letopisets Pereiaslavlia-Suzdal’skogo, sostavlennyi v nachale XIII veka (mezhdu 1214 i 1219 godov) (Мoscow: Sinodal’naia tipografiia, 1851), I–III, VII–VIII. 149 Edited in: PSRL, 3, 103–427 (Com. with variants from Acad.). 150 PSRL, 42 (NK); 6, part 1 (S1); 4, part 1 (N4).

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

43

a strange structure, but most of them agree that NK1 represents the earliest stratum of the NS-chronicles.151 Although all the NS-chronicles were compiled after 1400, they contain a set of unique notes on 11th-century events, most of which are present already in NK1. This material cannot be ignored in any discussion of early Rus annalistic writing.152 I also must say a few words here on the Tver Compilation (Тверской сборник, Tv.).153 It is a rather late work (extant in three 17th-century manuscripts), but it is significant for the study of early annalistic writing in Novgorod and in Tver. Tv. consists of two parts, probably originally independent. The first part, annals up to 1255, is a Rostov compilation made in 1534. One of its sources was a copy of Novgorodian annals, which occupies an important place in their stemma.154 After the annal for 1255 we read again annals from 1248, and up to 1499. This part is important for the study of early annalistic writing of Tver. Finally, it must be mentioned that late 13th- and 14th-century annalistic material from the cities of Pskov, Tver, and (for the 14th century) Moscow is reflected by later local compilations.155 Some late texts such as the Nikonian Chronicle (the 1520s), the Ustiug Chronicle (the early 16th century), and some others, as well as the Russian History by Vasilii Tatishchev (written in the 1720–40s), also contain unique information on early history of Rus, and some scholars suggest that it goes back to non-extant early annals. However, the skeptical view on most of this material prevails and seems reasonable in most of the cases.156

151 See the principal studies: Lur’e, Obshcherusskie letopisi, 67–121; Gelian M. Prokhorov, “Letopisnye podborki rukopisi GPB, F.IV.603 i problema svodnogo obshcherusskogo letopisaniia,” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom) 32 (1977): 165–98; Aleksandr G. Bobrov, Novgorodskie letopisi XV veka (Saint-Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin, 2001), 93–217; Mikhail A. Shibaev, “Novgorodsko-sofiiskii svod i protoskriptorii Evfimiia II,” Novgorodskii istoricheskii sbornik 5 (25) (2015): 127–34. 152 See subchapter 3.3. 153 PSRL, 15. 154 See subchapter 3.1. 155 The First, Second, and Third Pskov Chronicles (all reflecting the compilative work of the 15th and 16th centuries) have been edited by Arsenii Nasonov (reprinted in: PSRL, 5, parts 1–2). The annals of Tver can be approached through Tv. (already mentioned), the Rogozhskii Chronicle (Rog., PSRL, 15, part 1), and a fragment for 1314–44 extant in a 17th century manuscript [Arsenii N. Nasonov, “O tverskom letopisnom materiale v rukopisiakh XVII veka,” Arkheograficheskiĭ ezhegodnik za 1957 god (1958): 30–40. The 14thcentury annals of Moscow used to be reflected by the Trinity Chronicle (perished in 1812, see above, note 138), and now can be approached via numerous 15th-century and later compilations. 156 See references: Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 104–5.

44

chapter 1

The ‘common stock’ of most of the early Rus annals is known as Povest’ vremennykh let (Повесть временных лет, PVL, most often translated as ‘The Tale of Bygone Years’, a better translation probably being ‘The Tale of Times and Years’157). This text also is known as the Primary Chronicle (Начальная летопись). In fact, PVL is the common text of five manuscripts (Laur., Radz., MA, Hyp., and Khlebn.) up to the 1110s,158 after which the texts diverge. PVL has a non-annalistic introduction (already mentioned) continued by annals starting from the year 852. Its text for the 9th and 10th centuries is based on oral tradition and Byzantine sources. From the 11th (or, possibly, the late 10th) century the compiler made use of historical records made in Rus. PVL, composed in Kiev in the 1110s, almost definitely was not the first extended narrative on Rus history, but, to the contrary, was based on earlier attempts in historical writing.159 Historical records were made in the 11th century not only in Kiev, but also in Novgorod.160 For the 12th century, the time of political fragmentation of Rus, we have annalistic material from Kiev, Novgorod, and Northeastern Rus (Rostov and/or Vladimir). It is also possible to identify fragments of 12thcentury annals of Chernigov and Pereyaslavl-upon-Dnieper. As for the 13th and 14th centuries, we know annalistic material from Novgorod, Rostov, Vladimir, Tver, Pskov, probably from Nizhny Novgorod,161 and Moscow. The interrelations of the extant texts show that the annalistic traditions of different cities after the 1110s and before the early 15th century were largely independent one from another, although the borrowing of material from one tradition to another was not a rare phenomenon.162 1.3

The History of the World: Translations of Foreign Chronicles and Chronographs

Slavonic translations of some classical and Byzantine historical works were known and transcribed in Rus, serving as important sources for Old Rus historical writing. 157 See note 2 in chapter 2. 158 The exact moment when PVL stops and its continuations start is unclear, but is somewhere between 1110 and 1118, maybe at the edge of 1115–6. 159 See chapter 2. 160 See subchapter 3.3. 161 Besides Laur., records concerned with Nizhny Novgorod start in some compilations from the mid-14th century (Nasonov, Istoriia, 170–6). 162 See chapter 3 on letopisi of Novgorod, and chapter 4 on letopisi as a phenomenon.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

Ladoga

Pskov

Novgorod Rusa Torzhok

Rostov Pereyaslavl-Zalessky Nizhny Novgorod Tver Suzdal Vladimir Moscow Murom

Polotsk Minsk Berestie

Smolensk

Riazan

Pinsk Turov

Vladimir-of-Volhynia Galich

Beloozero

Kiev

Novgorod-Seversky Chernigov Pereyaslavl-upon-Dnieper

Tmutarakan

figure 8

The principal urban centers of Old Rus

45

46

chapter 1

Perhaps, the most significant text was the Chronicle of George Hamartolos (i.e. the Sinner), also known as George the Monk.163 The work originally covered the history of the world up to 842/3, but was continued by Pseudo-Symeon Logothetes up to 948. More than thirty Greek manuscripts of the Chronicle are known.164 The Chronicle together with its continuation was translated into Church Slavonic either in 10th-century Bulgaria, or in Kiev in the time of Iaroslav the Wise (1016–54). The latter version is based on lexicographical data and seems more solid; however, it is possible that a Bulgarian translation was edited in Rus, or that Bulgarian scribes took part in the work undertaken in Kiev.165 Anyway, the compiler of PVL in the 1110s already used and quoted this translation. The Chronicle of George Hamartolos is the only translated historical work that survives in a pre-1400 Rus manuscript. This is the Trinity (or the Tver) manuscript on parchment, which is, at the same time, the only illuminated pre1400 manuscript of a historiographic work. The book was written in the city of Tver in the late 13th or the early 14th century.166 Fragments of the Chronicle are extant in a miscellany of c. 1400.167 Small fragments are included into the Uspenskii Miscellany of c. 1200 as well as 13th-century and later manuscripts of Prologue, the calendar compendium of saints’ lives.168 Eighteen full copies and many fragments date from the 15th–17th centuries.169 It has been argued that the Chronicle of George Hamartolos was regarded in Rus as something almost sacred, as a text close to the books of the Bible or patristic writings. For this reason scribes made few changes, even stylistic, 163 The editions of the Slavonic translation are: Vasily M. Istrin, Knigi vremennyia i obraznyia Georgiia Mnikha: Tekst, issledovanie i slovar’, in 3 vols. (Petrograd – Leningrad: ORIaS Ros. akad. nauk, 1920–30); Vera A. Matveenko and Liudmila I. Shchegoleva, Knigi vremennye i obraznye Georgiia Monakha, in 2 vols. (Moscow: Nauka, 2006). 164 See: Anisimova, Khronika, 15–9. 165 See overviews of this discussion: Elena K. Piotrovskaia, Vizantiiskie khroniki IX veka i ikh otrazhenie v pamiatnikakh slaviano-russkoi pis’mennosti (« Letopisets vskore » konstantinopol’skogo patriarkha Nikifora) (Saint-Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 1998), 15–23; Matveenko and Shchegoleva, Knigi vremennye, vol. 1, part 1, 26–30; Vodolazkin, Vsemirnaia istoriia, 29–30; Anisimova, Khronika, 20–8. 166 RGB, 173.I.100 (I haven’t worked with the book de visu). See online facsimile: ⟨http://www .stsl.ru/manuscripts/medium.php?col=5&manuscript=100⟩ (6.08.2018). On this book see: Anisimova, Khronika, 41–70, 214–7. 167 GIM, Chud. 21 (I haven’t work with the manuscript de visu), see: Anisimova, Khronika, 70–83, 316. 168 See: Tatiana V. Anisimova, “O fragmentakh khroniki Georgiia Amartola v Uspenskom sbornike rubezha XII–XIII vv. i v uchitel’noi chasti Prologa,” in Khrizograf: Sb. st. k iubileiu G.Z. Bykovoi, ed. Elina N. Dobrynina (Moscow: SkanRus, 2003), 44–56. 169 See: Anisimova, Khronika, 14, 83–196, 414–416.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

47

when copying the Chronicle.170 Princes, metropolitans, and bishops were probable commissioners of the earliest Chronicle’s manuscripts (at least the Trinity manuscript certainly was commissioned by the princely family of Tver as we learn from its miniature on fol. 17v).171 Another important source for early Rus historiography was the Chronicle of John Malalas, a 6th-century Greek work. In comparison with the Chronicle of Hamartolos with its interest to biblical history and theological questions, Malalas’ Chronicle was more aimed at entertainment and contained stories based on antique and Iranian pagan myths, apocrypha, and oral legends. Similarly, in comparison with Slavonic Hamartolos, with its literal translation and boring language, Malalas was translated in a more artistic way.172 The Slavonic translation of Malalas’ Chronicle is not extant in any complete copy, but only in fragments included into chronographs (see below) or miscellanies, as well as in quotations.173 No doubt, however, complete manuscripts of Slavonic Malalas once existed.174 According to Vasilii Istrin, the translation was undertaken in Bulgaria before the early 12th century (when it was used by the compiler of PVL),175 maybe in the 10th century.176 The Chronicle of George Syncellus (d. 810), which covers the history of the world up to 284 AD and is especially concerned with the questions of

170 Vodolazkin, Vsemirnaia istoriia, 30; Anisimova, Khronika, 10, 87. In Chudovskii manuscript the Chronicle is twice called ‘Kingdoms’ (see: Anisimova, Khronika, 77, 81, 83, 87). 171 Anisimova, Khronika, 87. 172 Vasilii M. Istrin, Khronika Ioanna Malaly v slavianskom perevode, reprinted with supplements by Margarita I. Chernysheva (Moscow: John Wiley and sons, 1994 [first published in 1897–1912]), 40, 402–62; Margarita I. Chernysheva, “K kharakteristike slavianskogo perevoda ‘Khroniki Ioanna Malaly’ (Rol’ inoiazychnykh vyrazhenii),” Vizantiiskii vremennik 44 (1983): 221–6. However, contradicting assessments of the translation exist, see: Simon D. Franklin, “Malalas in Slavonic,” in Idem, Byzantium—Rus—Russia: Studies in the translation of Christian culture (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002), 282–3. 173 Most of the fragments have been edited in: Istrin, Khronika. On the Slavonic translation of Malalas and problems of its study see: Franklin, “Malalas,” 276–90. 174 Tvorogov, Drevnerusskie khronografy, 13; Franklin, “Malalas,” 277. 175 Istrin, Knigi vremennyia, vol. 2 (1922), 409–10. 176 Oleg V. Tvorogov, “Khronika Ioanna Malaly,” in Slovar’ knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnei Rusi, ed. Dmitrii S. Likhachev, vol. 1 (Leningrad: Nauka, 1987), 472; Franklin, “Malalas,” 282. One can add that the miscellany Zlatostrui (a 12th century manuscript) contains one fragment of Malalas’ Chronicle in a different translation: Dmitrii I. Abramovich, “Otryvok iz khroniki Ioanna Malaly v Zlatostrue XII veka,” in Sbornik statei v chest’ akad. A.I. Sobolevskogo, izdannyi k 70 letiiu so dnia ego rozhdeniia Akademieiu nauk po pochinu ego uchenikov (Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR, 1928), 19–24; Istrin, Khronika, 399–401 (edited by Margarita Chernysheva).

48

chapter 1

chronology,177 also was translated into Church Slavonic, together with a fragment of its continuation by Theophanes the Confessor. The translation is known in five 15th–16th-century copies as well as in fragments.178 Tetiana Vilkul recently showed that Slavonic Syncellus was one of the main sources of the Brief Trinity Chronograph extant in a manuscript dated to c. 1400.179 It has been supposed that the Chronicle was translated either in 11th-century Rus,180 or in the South Slavonic area.181 The absence of any witnesses of the translation earlier than c. 1400 makes the problem especially difficult.182 Vasilii Istrin’s idea that the structure of the Chronicle’s text (partly organized according to the Olympiads, with ‘blank’ ones) influenced the form of Rus letopisi (with their ‘empty years’),183 and thus the translation had to exist as early as in the 11th century, is no more than a possibility. The History of the Jewish War by Joseph Flavius (written in 75–9 AD)184 was translated into Slavonic in Rus185 during the 11th or the 12th century.186 The full translation is extant in 15th–18th century copies. Anatolii Alekseev’s

177 See: Pavel V. Kuzenkov, Khristianskie khronologicheskie sistemy: Istoriia letoschisleniia v sviatootecheskoi i vostochnokhristianskoi traditsii III–XV vekov (Moscow: Rus. izd. tsentr, 2015), 362–4 ff. 178 Oleg V. Tvorogov, “Khronika Georgiia Sinkella,” in Slovar’ knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnei Rusi, ed. Dmitrii S. Likhachev, vol. 1 (Leningrad: Nauka, 1987), 470–1; Piotrovskaia, Vizantiiskie khroniki, 11–2; N.V. Brazhnikova, “Iz nabliudenii nad spiskami slavianskogo perevoda Khroniki Georgiia Sinkella,” Lingvisticheskoe istochnikovedenie i istoriia russkogo iazyka 2000 (2000): 106–18; Tatiana L. Vilkul, “Kratkii Troitskii khronograf kontsa XIV– nachala XV vv.,” Ruthenica 6 (2007): 366–7, note 5. On the usage of the Chronicle in Rus in the second half of the 15th and the early 16th centuries see: Ol’ga L. Novikova, “‘Khronika Georgiia Sinkella’ v proizvedeniiakh russkikh avtorov vtoroi poloviny XV–nachala XVI veka,” Vestnik Al’ians-Arkheo 20 (2017): 39–51. 179 See below, note 216. 180 Vasilii M. Istrin, Ocherk istorii drevnerusskoi literatury domoskovskogo perioda (XI–XIII vv.), 2nd ed. (Moscow: Academia, 2003 [first published in 1922]), 118–9; Istrin, Knigi vremennyia, vol. 2, 410. This view was tentatively supported by Oleg Tvorogov (Drevnerusskie khronografy, 3, 9). 181 Brazhnikova, “Iz nabliudenii,” 106–108. 182 See also: Piotrovskaia, Vizantiiskie khroniki, 12. 183 Istrin, Ocherk, 183; Istrin, “Zamechaniia,” 26: 88. 184 See editions (according to different manuscripts) and studies: Nikita A. Meshcherskii, Istoriia Iudeiskoi voiny Iosifa Flaviia v drevnerusskom perevode (Moscow – Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1958); Anna A. Pichkhadze, Irina I. Makeeva, Galina S. Barankova, A.A. Utkin, eds., ‘Istoriia Iudeiskoi voiny’ Iosifa Flaviia: Drevnerusskii perevod, in 2 vols. (Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2004). 185 Pichkhadze et al., eds., ‘Istoriia Iudeiskoi voiny’, 26–39. 186 Meshcherskii, Istoriia, 106–21.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

49

opinion that the History was translated in the 13th century187 contradicts the quotations from it present in the Kievan Chronicle (c. 1200),188 and possibly even in the Historical Paremia to St. Boris and Gleb189 and Abbot Daniil’s Pilgrimage (Khozhdenie),190 both texts dating from the early 12th century,191 as well as to linguistic data.192 Not later than in the 1260s the History’s translation was included into a chronograph (see below). It is possible that it was used not only due to the literary merits of the work and its translation (which is not word-by-word but includes some interpolations),193 but also because it was appreciated as a text narrating briefly the sacred history.194 Pseudo-Callisthenes’s Alexandria195 (the Romance of Alexander, its Slavonic version being also known as Chronographic Alexandria196) was translated from Greek no later than in the mid-13th century, though it is known only in post1400 manuscripts, and included into several Rus chronographs. Originally it is a Hellenistic romance already in existance by the 3rd century AD, with a number 187 Anatolii A. Alekseev, “Interpoliatsii slavianskoi versii ‘Iudeiskoi voiny’ Iosifa Flaviia,” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom) 59 (2008): 110–2. 188 Meshcherskii, Istoriia, 105; Vіlkul, Letopis’, 279–82. 189 N.N. Nevzorova, “Parimii Borisu i Glebu: opyt prochteniia,” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom) 56 (2004): 451. 190 Meshcherskii, Istoriia, 105–6. 191 On early 12th-, not 11th-century date of the Historical Paremia see: Aleksei A. Gippius, “‘Letopisnye’ paremiinye chteniia o Borise i Glebe: istoriia teksta i istoricheskii kontekst,” in Fakty i znaki: Issledovaniia po semiotike kul’tury, edited by Boris A. Uspenskii and Fedor B. Uspenskii, vol. 2 (Moscow: Iazyki slavianskikh kul’tur, 2010), 42–71. 192 Pichkhadze et al., eds., ‘Istoriia Iudeiskoi voiny’, 9, 19–26. 193 Oleg V. Tvorogov, “‘Istoriia Iudeiskoi voiny’ Iosifa Flaviia,” in Slovar’ knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnei Rusi, ed. Dmitrii S. Likhachev, vol. 1 (Leningrad: Nauka, 1987), 214; Pichkhadze et al., eds., ‘Istoriia Iudeiskoi voiny’, 13–9; Alekseev, “Interpoliatsii,” 63–114. 194 Viktor M. Zhivov, “Osobennosti retseptsii vizantiiskoi kul’tury v Drevnei Rusi,” in Iz istorii russkoi kul’tury, ed. Vladimir Ia. Petrukhin, vol. 1: Drevniaia Rus’ (Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury, 2000), 602–3. 195 See an edition of four versions of the Slavonic translation and a study: Vasilii M. Istrin, Aleksandriia russkikh khronografov. Issledovanie i tekst (Moscow, 1893). The text according to the Trinity Chronograph see: Tatiana L. Vilkul, “Aleksandriia Khronograficheskaia v Troitskom khronografe,” Palaeoslavica 16, no. 1 (2008): 103–47; 17, no. 1 (2009): 165–210. See on this text and its versions: Oleg V. Tvorogov, “Aleksandriia Khronograficheskaia,” in Slovar’ knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnei Rusi, edited by Dmitrii S. Likhachev, vol. 1 (Leningrad: Nauka, 1987), 35–7; Vilkul, “Aleksandriia,” 16, no. 1: 105–16. 196 Not to be confused with Serbian Alexadria, a Slavonic translation of another version of pseudo-Callisthenes’s romance, also known in Rus but only after 1400, see edition: Mark N. Botvinnik, Iakov S. Lur’e [Lurie], and Oleg V. Tvorogov, eds., Aleksandriia: Roman ob Aleksandre Makedonskom po russkoi rukopisi XV veka (Moscow – Leningrad: Nauka, 1965).

50

chapter 1

of legendary and unreliable details about Alexander the Great. Borrowings from Alexandria are found in the Kievan Chronicle (c. 1198).197 It has also been argued that stories from Alexandria are reflected in the reliefs of the Dormition and the St. Dimitrii churches of Vladimir (both built in the second half of the 12th century).198 Finally, it is probable that, alongside with translations from Greek, Rus scribes used one translation from Hebrew, the book of Josippon, a 10th-century Jewish compilation on world history. The Slavonic translation did not survive, but Nikita Meshcherskii has identified some quotations from it in PVL s.a 1110. Linguistically it seems, according to Meshcherskii, that the work was translated in Rus, directly from Hebrew.199 It is also possible that Josippon was used in the ‘ethnoraphic’ introduction to PVL,200 and in the Historical Paremia to St. Boris and Gleb.201 The Slavonic translations of most of the aforementioned works are known either from separate texts or, more often, via fragments included into the socalled chronogpraphs, or compendia. The Russian term (a Greek loan) chronograph (хронограф) traditionally refers to a certain type of Old Rus texts: compilations on world history based mostly on the books of the Bible, the apocrypha, the translations of Greek historical works, and other sources. Those texts could either contain extended fragments or even whole texts of their sources, or be constructed, as a mosaic, of many small excerpts—in any case a chronograph is a compilation of ready materials, almost without originally composed fragments.202 Chronographs, in spite of their traditional name, have no annalistic structure, although some of them are interested in dates and chronology.203 The word chronograph is not a self-designation of such texts, just a sustainable scholarly tradition.204 Simon Franklin has suggested to 197 Vilkul, Letopis’, 268–78. 198 Tvorogov, “Aleksandriia Khronograficheskaia,” 36. 199 Nikita A. Meshcherskii, “K voprosu ob istochnikakh ‘Povesti vremennykh let’,” in idem, Izbrannye stat’i (Saint-Petersburg: SPbGU, 1995), 46–57. See polemics with crititisms of Meshcherskii’s hypothesis: Vladimir Ia. Petrukhin, Nachalo etnokul’turnoi istorii Rusi IX– XI vekov (Smolensk – Moscow: Rusich – Gnozis, 1995), 25–6. 200 Petrukhin, Nachalo, 25–40. 201 Nevzorova, “Parimii,” 451. 202 See on the principles of the construction of chronographs: Vodolazkin, Vsemirnaia istoriia, 71–8. Recent studies by Tetiana Vilkul contributed much to our understanding of the technique of writing those texts (see references to Vilkul’s works below). 203 See: Vodolazkin, Vsemirnaia istoriia, 78–97, 163–236, 377–88. 204 See: Tvorogov, Drevnerusskie khronografy, 8 ff. Ironically, the term letopis’, the designation of another genre, is a Slavonic calque of exactly the same Greek word (see in subchapter 1.2). See also below, note 236.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

51

call such texts in English ‘historical compendia’, as the word ‘chronograph’ in English has an absolutely other meaning.205 I will use here both those terms. Chronographs, or compendia, survive mostly in post-1400 manuscripts. Even more, texts available to us in most of the cases are 15th-century (or even later) compilations. Almost all earlier chronographs are no more than scholarly reconstructions. Nobody, however, doubts that the genre of chronographs appeared in Rus much earlier than in the 15th century. All scholarship of earlier chronograph writing is connected to two ‘families’ of texts. The first one is the so-called family of the Chronograph po velikomu izlozheniju (Chronograph According to the Great Narration), the common source of several extant chronographs. According to a mainstream point of view (the works by Vasilii Istrin, Aleksei Shakhmatov, Oleg Trovogov, Evgenii Vodolazkin, Tatiana Anisimova), the compilation was created in Kiev in the 11th century, and in the 1090s it was already being used by the compiler of the Initial Compilation, the closest text-predecessor of PVL.206 According to Tvorogov, the Chronograph was an outline of world history, mainly concentrated on biblical and ecclesiastical history. Each Roman and Byzantine emperor was mentioned in it—however many only in one line.207 Anisimova identified a text found in a late 17th-century miscellany as a late copy of the Chronograph. This text ends with the Byzantine emperors Eudokia and Romanos IV, and thus was compiled in 1068 × 1071.208 On the other hand, Tetiana Vilkul dates the Chronograph to a much later time, and insists that there was no such text among the sources of the earliest Rus letopisi.209 In any case, a representative of that ‘family’ known as the Trinity Chronograph (extant in 15th-century manuscripts) likely already existed by 1400.210 According to Tvorogov, another representative of this ‘family’, the Archetype Version of the Letopisets Ellinsky i Rimsky (The Hellenic and Roman Chronicle) was also composed before 1400.211 205 Simon D. Franklin, “Some Apocryphical Sources of Kievan Russian Historiography,” in Idem, Byzantium—Rus—Russia: Studies in the translation of Christian culture (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002), 1–2; idem, “Malalas,” 278. In fact, besides the meaning ‘watch’, this word is sometimes used to designate another genre of historical writing: collections of lists of rulers (Burgess and Kulikowski, Mosaics, vol. 1, 61). Such usage, as far as I know, was never applied to collections of this sort in Rus (see subchapter 1.5), and I will avoid it. 206 See: Tvorogov, Drevnerusskie khronografy, 20–24, 46–73; Vodolazkin, Vsemirnaia istoriia, 31–32. 207 Tvorogov, Drevnerusskie khronografy, 21. 208 Anisimova, Khronika, 259–65, 317–9, 390–6. The text is printed: ibid., 330–89. 209 Vilkul, Letopis’, 49–231. 210 Tvorogov, Drevnerusskie khronography, 24, 26, 74–97, 262–74; Vilkul, “Aleksandriia,” 16: 110. See also on this text: Vilkul, Letopis’, 91–9. 211 Tvorogov, Drevnerusskie khronografy, 24, 111–27.

52

chapter 1

The second ‘family’ is that of the Jewish Chronograph212 (so designated by Istrin because it pays a great deal of attention to the history of the Jews and to anti-Jewish polemics) and the Sophian Chronograph.213 As Vilkul shows, they go back to a common text-predecessor. As the first of them dates from before 1262, the text-predecessor of the two must be even older, although the date is unknown. Vilkul calls it the Initial Chronograph, implying that this could be the earliest example of the genre in Rus.214 The two ‘families’ are not textually connected with one another. However, they certainly represent the same genre: that of chronographs. They are partially based upon the same set of sources, but the basic source for the Chronograph According to the Great Narration was the Chronicle of George Hamartolos, and the basic source for the Initial Chronograph was the Chronicle of John Malalas. In the Jewish Chronograph (compiled in the 13th century by 1262, probably in the Galician-Volhynian Land) that text was reworked and supplemented with materials from the Bible, the History of the Jewish War by Joseph Flavius, and other sources; so that the volume of the text almost tripled.215 Finally, one text of this genre, not belonging to any of the two abovementioned ‘families’, is a manuscript dated to be from around 1400: the Brief Trinity Chronograph (not to confuse with the Trinity Chronograph) based on the Chronicle of George Syncellus and some other sources. According to Vilkul, this is ‘a rather unsophisticated compilation made by one person’ and probably extant in original.216 Almost no information on local, Rus history was included into pre-1400 chronographs.217 A rare exclusion is the Trinity Chronograph at the end of which there are two notes probably based upon PVL: on Oleg’s raid on Constantinople and the baptism of Rus.218 212 Itself the reconstructed common exemplar of three extant texts: the Archive Chronograph, the Vilno Chronograph, and the Warsaw Chronograph (manuscripts of the 15th and the early 16th centuries). 213 See on those two texts: Vilkul, Letopis’, 87–94. 214 Tatiana [Tetiana] L. Vilkul, “Iudeiskii i Sofiiskii khronografy v istorii drevnerusskoi khronografii,” Palaeoslavica 17, no. 2 (2009): 65–86. 215 Ibid., 84–5. 216 See text and study: Vilkul, “Kratkii Troitskii khronograf,” quoted p. 370–1. See a facsimile of the manuscript: ⟨http://www.stsl.ru/manuscripts/book.php?manuscript=1&col=1&Su bmit=%CE%F2%EA%F0%FB%F2%FC⟩ (8.08.2018). 217 Tvorogov, Drevnerusskie khronografy, 57–8. On Vasilii Istrin’s idea that the earliest chronographs included material on Rus history and so gradually became letopisi see in subchapter 2.2. 218 Tatiana [Tetiana] L. Vilkul, “Pripiski Troitskogo khronografa,” Drevniaia Rus’: Voprosy medievistiki 3 (61) (2015): 23–4.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

1.4

53

Attempts at Writing Non-Annalistic History of Rus

The annals (letopisi) were the mainstream form of historical writing for most of the regions of Old Rus until as late as the 16th century. However, there are several pre-1400 texts that can be qualified as alternative forms of writing Rus history. First of all, it is very probable that the birth of the genre of letopisi in the second half of the 11th century was preceded by the creation of a coherent nonannalistic narration of the earliest history of Rus and the Rurik dynasty. This hypothetical text will be called in this book the Oldest Tale. It will be discussed below, in subchapter 2.3. Another early text concerned with historical matters is the Sermon on Law and Grace (Slovo o zakone i blagodati, Слово о законе и благодати) by Ilarion.219 Ilarion was the first Kievan metropolitan of Rus origin (consecrated in 1051 but soon dismissed220). The date of the work’s writing (and preaching, as it is a sermon) is uncertain. It was likely some time before Ilarion was consecrated as metropolitan, and certainly during the reign of Iaroslav the Wise: dates from the 1020s to the year 1050 have been suggested.221 This is, of course, not a piece of historical writing in a pure sense. It is a sermon ending with a panegyric to St. Vladimir and Iaroslav the Wise, and a prayer. However, this is a piece of theology and historiosophy: it is dedicated to the place of the newly baptized realm of Rus in the history of the world. In it ‘Law’ is related to the Old Testament and the Jews, and ‘Grace’ is associated with Christianity. The 219 See the text: Aleksandr M. Moldovan, ed. “Slovo o zakone i blagodati” Ilariona (Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1984); Konstantin K. Akent’ev, “‘Slovo o zakone i blagodati’ Ilariona Kievskogo. Drevneishaia versiia po spisku GIM Sin. 591,” in Istoki i posledstviia: Vizantiiskoe nasledie na Rusi: Sb. st. k 70-letiiu chl.-korr. RAN I.P. Medvedeva, ed. Konstantin K. Akent’ev (Saint-Petersburg: Vizantinorossika, 2005), 116–51. The Sermon is known in 32 manuscripts of the 15th–17th centuries, and in one 13th-century fragment (Moldovan, ed., “Slovo o zakone i blagodati”, 24, no. 35). 220 If Gippius’s reading of the Kievan graffito no. 3541 is correct, St. Sophia was re-consecrated by Metropolitan Efrem on the 4th of November, year 6560: Aleksei A. Gippius, “K prochteniiu nadpisi № 3541 Sofii Kievskoi,” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 28 (2016): 79–81. This can be the 4th November of 1051 (if the September or the ultra-March style was used), or, rather, of 1052 (if the March style was used; see Appendix 1). Ilarion, therefore, must have been dismissed before that date. 221 See overviews: Aleksandr V. Nazarenko, “O vremeni napisaniia ‘Slova o zakone i blagodati’ Ilariona,” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 17, part 1 (2005): 121–3 (the author dates the sermon to 1045–6); Sergei Iu. Temchin, “‘Slovo o zakone i blagodati’ kievskogo mitropolita Ilariona i PROΘEΩΡΙΑ Nikolaia Andidskogo,” ibid. 21 (2009): 318–23 (the author suggests 1050 as the date).

54

chapter 1

conversion of Rus, according to Ilarion, is a fulfillment of many biblical prophecies and ‘a climatic moment not just in Rus’ian history but in salvation history as a whole’.222 At the same time Ilarion stresses that Rus was a kind of realm that had already been glorious during pagan times.223 Texts dedicated to the history of the Kievan Cave Monastery. S.a. 1051, immediately after the note on Ilarion’s consecration, PVL contains the Tale Why the Cave Monastery Is So Called (‘что ради прозвася Печерьскыи манастырь’224), which is an example of a non-annalistic insert, as it narrates events that could not have taken place within one year: the foundation and the earliest history of the monastery (in which Ilarion played an important role). S.a. 1074 PVL reports the death of Feodosii I, the third abbot of the Cave Monastery, and then describes in detail the monastery’s history after Feodosii—again a non-annalistic insert into the annalistic framework of PVL.225 This second narration on the Cave Monastery can be regarded as a continuation of the first one, although we do not know whether they were primarily written as a separate piece(s) of historiography, or they were composed when editing the annals. In the early 13th century the work known as the Paterikon of the Kievan Cave Monastery (Киево-Печерский патерик) was composed: a miscellany including narrative, historical, or rather, hagiographical fragments, and the correspondence of Bishop Simon and the monk Polikarp. One of the narrative fragments is the same text that is placed in PVL s.a. 1074. PVL’s account s.a. 1051 was added to the Paterikon on a later stage of its revision. The earliest extant manuscript of the Paterikon was written in 1406; in total there are some 200 manuscripts representing a variety of versions of the work.226 The Tale of the Blinding of Vasilko of Terebovl. This is another non-annalistic fragment from PVL. It starts as an ordinary annalistic entry (for 1097) reporting a terrible crime: the blinding of Prince Vasilko of Terebovl by two other princes. However, it continues to narrate the events of the following years, up to 1100 (and mentions at the end one event from 1112), without annalistic division.227 The Tale is followed by ordinary annals for the same years, which 222 See an analysis of Ilarion’s historiosophy in the context of other Christian writings: Richard Price, “Tradition and Innovation in Metropolitan Ilarion,” Ruthenica 10 (2011): 57–68 (quotation from p. 60). Inter alia Price parallels Ilarion’s ideas to those of St. Patrick of Ireland (ibid., 63–4, 66). 223 See also subchapter 2.7. 224 PSRL, 1, 155. The text is on col. 155–60. 225 Ibid., 183–98. 226 See: Dmitrii I. Abramovich, Issledovanie o Kievo-Pecherskom paterike kak istorikoliteraturnom pamiatnike (Saint-Petersburg: ORIaS Imp. Akad. nauk, 1902); idem, Kyievo-Pechers’kyi pateryk (Kiev, 1931) [the standard edition]. 227 PSRL, 1, 256–73.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

55

are not textually akin to the Tale but partly report the same events. According to a traditional view, the Tale had been composed as a separate work (by a certain Vasilii who mentions himself in the text), and later was included into PVL.228 However, Aleksei Gippius convincingly argues, that the Tale has at least two textual layers, the earliest of which reports the events of 1097 only. If so, the Tale originally was an annalistic entry (although quite an extended one), and at a later stage in the revision of the annals, in the 1110s, it developed into a narration covering several years.229 This is not yet non-annalistic historiography—but rather a tendency towards it. As it has already been said, in the 13th century, in Galician-Volhynian Land in the South-West of Rus, the deeds of local princes were narrated in a nonannalistic form. The Galician-Volhynian Chronicle,230 that is to say, the text of Hyp. for 1200–92, was originally non-annalistic, as it still is in Klebn. and other manuscripts. The annal-numbers that are inserted into the text in the oldest extant manuscript (Hyp.) are secondary and inaccurate.231 The original text, as Khlebn. demonstrates, was full of phrases like ‘A time having passed after this’ (‘По сем же времени минувши’), ‘In those years, a time having passed’ (‘В та же лѣта времени минувши’),232 or even ‘In that same year, or earlier, or later’ (‘Въ то же лѣто, или преже, или потомъ’).233 Many of those in Hyp. were replaced with annal-numbers. The original text contained only four dates from the Creation of the World.234 Events are reported in the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle not always in strictly chronological order: it is typical for this text to

228 See, for example: Vladimir A. Kuchkin, “Povest’ ob osleplenii Vasil’ka Terebovl’skogo,” in DRSM, 625. 229 Aleksei A. Gippius, “K probleme redaktsii Povesti vremennykh let. II,” Slavianovediene 2 (2008): 6–12. 230 See a new critical edition: Dariusz Dąbrowski and Adrian Jusupović (in collaboration with Irina Juriewa [Iurieva], Aleksandr Majorow [Maiorov], and Tetiana Wiłkuł [Vilkul]), ed., Kronika Halicko-Wołyńska (Kronica Romanowiczów) (Pomniki dziejowe Polski. Ser. II = Monumenta Poloniae historia. N.S.; T. 16) (Kraków – Warszawa: In-t historii im. T. Manteuffla, 2017). The most cited standard edition is: PSRL, 2, 715–938. 231 See on the methods of the scribe who introduced this division: Ol’ga V. Romanova, “O khronologii Galitsko-Volynskoi letopisi XIII v. po Ipat’evskomu spisku,” in Proshloe Novgoroda i Novgorodskoĭ zemli: Mat-ly nauch. konf., 11–13 noiabria 1997 goda, ed. Vasilii F. Andreev (Novgorod: Izd-vo NovGU, 1997), 66–70; eadem, “Ipat’evskaia letopis’ i Novgorodsko-Sofiiskii svod,” Opyty po istochnikovedeniiu: Drevnerusskaia knizhnost [1] (1997): 59–61; Aleksei [Oleksiy] P. Tolochko, “Proiskhozhdenie khronologii Ipat’evskogo spiska Galitsko-Volynskoi letopisi,” Palaeoslavica 13, no. 1 (2005): 90–108. 232 Those examples are from PSRL, 2, 731–2. 233 Ibid., 828. 234 See: Tolochko, “Proiskhozhdenie,” 87 ff.

56

chapter 1

jump to later or earlier events.235 In the middle of the text there is a passage in which the author declares exactly this: It is needed in the chronograph236 to write down all that was and who was, sometimes to write ahead, sometimes to return back, a wise reader will comprehend. And we did not write here the number[s] of years, we will write them at the end, according to the synods of Antiochia, and the numbers of Greek Olympiads, and the Roman bissextiles, as Eusebius Pamphili and other chronographers wrote from Adam to Christ, we will write all years, having counted them in hindsight.237 Хронографу же нужа есть писати все и вся бывшая, овогда же писати в передняя, овогда же воступати в задняя, чьтыи мудрыи разумееть. Число же лѣтомъ здѣ не писахомъ, в задняя впишемь, по антивохыискымъ съборомъ,238 алумъпиядамъ грьцкыми же численицами, римьскы же висикостомь, якоже Евъсевии и Памьфилъво и239 иннии хронографи списаша от Адама до Хрѣстоса, вся же лѣта спишемь, рощетъше во задьнья.240 Those words, probably an insert by an editor,241 are a paraphrase of the Slavonic translation of Malalas’s Chronicle,242 which was among the sources used by the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle. It is quite possible that this text (or a significant part of it) originated in the same circle as the Jewish Chronograph, also largely based upon Malalas.243 It is not clear whether the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle was entirely created in one sitting, or if it rather consists of several sections that continue one another (most of scholars distinguish at least two sections: the Galician, 235 See: Nikolai F. Kotliar, “Galitsko-Volynskii svod: letopis’ ili sobranie povestei?,” Srednevekovaia Rus’ 6 (2006): 127–37. 236 A possible translation would be: A chronographer (that is, the writer, not the text) needs … (Tolochko, “Proiskhozhdenie,” 84). The meaning of the word chronograph is not absolutely clear here, but it seems that the author counterposes it to letopisets (text or writer): the latter uses annalistic framework, and the former is free from it. As it has been already noticed (note 204), ironically, the latter term is the Slavonic calque of the former. 237 A plan which was not realized (see: Tolochko, “Proiskhozhdenie,” 82–3). 238 In Khlebn.: събором. 239 И—from Khlebn. 240 PSRL, 2, 820. See on this passage: Tolochko, “Proiskhozhdenie,” 81–4. 241 Tolochko, “Proiskhozhdenie,” 81. 242 Ibid., 83–4. 243 VIlkul, “Iudeiskii i Sofiiskii khronography,” 83. See also in the previous subchapter.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

57

up to the early 1260s, and the Volhynian ones, some suggest more fractional segmentations).244 Maybe it is not incidental that such a non-typical form of historical-writing appeared in that part of Rus in closest contact with Poland, Hungary, and even Byzantium. But it is important that this text was understood as akin to letopisi: it was included into the compilation known as Hyp., or, maybe, from the very beginning it was regarded as a continuation of the annalistic Kievan Chronicle.245 Probably in the same 13th century, in the Northeast of Rus, the Life of Aleksandr Nevskii was composed. Aleksandr Nevskii (born c. 1221, d. 1263) was a great prince of Vladimir and a prince of Novgorod, well known for his two early victories (in 1240 over the Swedish on River Neva, and in 1242 over the Livonian Order on the ice of Lake Peipus), and later by his ability to arrange relationships with the Tatars. The Life includes narratives on those two battles, on Aleksandr’s relationships with the Tatars and the West, and a panegyric to him. The text can be characterized as something of a mixture of the style of letopisi (especially of annalistic narrations on battles) and hagiography; it have even been supposed that the extant Life was based upon a non-extant, purely military ‘tale’ of Aleksandr.246 Mari Isoaho defines the genre of the Life as princely eulogy.247 It contains many references to figures of biblical and 244 See: Daniela S. Hristova, “Major Textual Boundary of Linguistic Usage in the GalicianVolhynian Chronicle,” Russian History 33, no. 2–3–4 (2006), 313–31 (the author argues that the boundary lays between the annals [of Hyp.] for 1260 and 1261). See also the latest study: Tatiana [Tetiana] L. Vilkul, “Khronograficheskie zaimstvovaniia kak tekstologicheskii marker v Galitsko-Volynskoi letopisi,” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2016 (2018): 274–89, in which the author does not exclude that the Galician and the Volhynian parts of the Chronicle were written as parts of one enterprise. 245 Vadim Iu. Aristov, “Svod, sbornik ili khronika? (O kharaktere drevnerusskikh letopisnykh pamiatnikov),” Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana 1 (2013): 113–4; Adrian Iusupovich [Jusupowić], “Velikokniazheskii kievskii svod 1238 g. v Galitsko-Volynskoi khronike,” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 30 (2018): 363–7. 246 This idea was expressed by Serge Zenkovsky, and elaborated by Donald Ostrowski, who provides a reconstruction of the archetype of the Life in which fragments supposed to belong the secondary, ‘hagiographic’ layer of the text are italicized; the Slavonic text is followed by an Enlgish translation of the primary, ‘military’ (non-italicized) layer, see: Donald Ostrowski, “Dressing a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Towards Understanding the Composition of the Life of Alexander Nevskii,” Russian History 40 (2013): 1–27. See also: idem, “Redating the Life of Alexander Nevskii,” in Festschrift for Robert O. Crummey, ed. by Chester S.L. Dunning, Russel E. Martin, and Daniel Rowland (Bloomington (In.): Slavica Publishers, 2008), 4–8, 16–7. 247 Mari Isoaho, The Image of Aleksandr Nevskiy in Medieval Russia: Warrior and Saint (London – Boston: Brill, 2006), 123.

58

chapter 1

earlier Rus history.248 A similarity with the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, which can be regarded as something of a series of princely biographies, has also been noticed.249 The Life is known in many versions. It was included into letopisi: Laur. s.a. 1263 (which is the earliest and the only pre-1400 witness of the text), N1Y (divided into four fragments that were placed into different annals), the Novgorodian-Sophian, and the Pskovian chronicles.250 The date and place of the composition of the Life are unknown, but probably it was written in the last decades of the 13th century in Vladimir.251 Later, some other texts of the same type were written in Rus. The Tale of Dovmont was certainly influenced by the Life of Aleksandr Nevskii. Dovmont (Daumantas, baptized as Timofei) was a prince of Pskov of Lithuanian origin, who ruled in 1266–99. Presumably this text was written in the second quarter of the 14th century. The Tale is known in many post-1400 copies, mostly inside letopisi and chronographs.252 The Word on the Life and the Death of Great Prince Dmitry Ivanovich, a biography of Dmitrii Donskoi of Moscow (d. 1389), was written around 1400 probably by the well-known hagiographer of

248 See on this text: ibid., 16–147, 170–93. 249 Dmitrii S. Likhachev, “Galitskaia literaturnaia traditsiia v zhitii Aleksandra Nevskogo,” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom) 5 (1947): 36–56; Donald Ostrowski, “The Galician-Volynian Chronicle, the Life of Alexander Nevskij and the Thirteenth-Century Military Tale,” Palaeoslavica 15, no. 2 (2007): 307–24. 250 See: Iurii K. Begunov, Pamiatnik russkoi literatury XIII veka ‘Slovo o pogibeli Russkoi zemli’ (Moscow – Leningrad: Nauka, 1965), 12–66 (and at p. 158–80 see an edition of the earliest version of the Life based upon several manuscripts); Valentina I. Okhotnikova, “Povest’ o zhitii Aleksandra Nevskogo,” in Slovar’ knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnei Rusi, ed. Dmitrii S. Likhachev, vol. 1 (Leningrad: Nauka, 1987), 354–63. 251 1263–5 [Vladimir A. Kuchkin, “Mongolo-tatarskoe igo v osveshchenii drevnerusskikh knizhnikov (XIII—pervaia chetvert’ XIV v.),” in Russkaia kul’tura v usloviiakh inozemnykh nashestvii i voin, X– nachalo XX v.: Sb. nauch. tr., ed. A.N. Kopylov (Moscow: In-t istorii SSSR AN SSSR, 1990), 36–9], 1282–3 (Begunov, Pamiatnik, 56–61), and 1293 (Isoaho, The Image, 146) have been suggested. See also an overview of the problem: Ostrowski, “Redating,” 1–8 ff. Ostrowski’s dating of the Life to 1352 (or 1330) × 1377 (ibid., 8–16) is not convincing as it is based upon a doubtful assumption that the date of an extant manusript is at the same time the date of the text it contains (terminus post quem is the date of Syn. containing Novgorodian annals used in the Life—the annals were in fact kept during the 13th century, see chapter 3; terminus ante quem is the date of Laur. which contains the earliest witness of the Life’s text). Ostrowski, nevertherless, dates the key source of the Life, a hypothetic ‘Tale of Alexander’ (see above, note 246), to the late 13th century (ibid., 17). 252 See edition and study: Valentina I. Okhotnikova, Povest’ o Dovmonte: Issledovanie i teksty (Leningrad: Nauka, 1985). See also: Isoaho, The Image, 194–210.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

59

the Trinity Monastery of St. Sergii, Monk Epifanii the Wise. This text is inserted into some 15th-century annalistic compilations.253 In summation, several attempts at writing non-annalistic history are attested in different parts of Rus from the 11th to the 14th century, but it is interesting that almost all of those attempts were accumulated by the annals. The two narrations on the Kievan Cave Monastery, and the Tale of the Blinding Vasilko are included into PVL’s annals for 1051, 1074, and 1097 (and the Tale of Vasilko likely began as an ordinary annal which later developed into a narration covering several years). The Galician-Volhynian Chronicle is known as a part of Hyp., and quite probably, was designed as a continuation of the Kievan Chronicle; the scribe of Hyp. made one more step by introducing annalistic division in it. The Lives of Aleksandr Nevskii, Dovmont of Pskov, and Dmitrii Donskoi were included into the annals, and sometimes were even divided between different annual entries (as it was the case with the Life of Aleksandr Nevskii in N1Y). So, however non-annalistic all those texts were, they were still deeply connected with letopisi and found their way to us as parts of them. 1.5

Minor Forms of Historical Writing

‘Historical’ graffiti of Rus churches. Some medieval church buildings, such as St. Sophia cathedrals of Kiev and Novgorod, have preserved for us hundreds of Old Rus graffiti, usually being short inscriptions incised on plastered walls with some sharp instrument (stylos? knife? nail?). A vast majority of graffiti are either prayers (‘O Lord, help your slave X’, ‘Господи помози рабу своему X’), or so-called ‘autographs’ (‘X have written’, ‘X псалъ’), or memorial inscritptions (‘God’s slave X passed away in the month of Y, on the Z’s day’, ‘Преставися раб божий X мѣсяця Y въ Z день’—normally indicating the day of the death, for future commemoration, but not the year).254 Some graffiti can be classified as ‘historical’, or ‘annalistic’ (летописные), as they report certain events of general significance. Most of the examples of ‘historical’ graffiti survive in St. Sophia Cathedral of Kiev. One finds here inscriptions reporting a thunderstorm (1052, no. 3; see 253 Gelian M. Prokhorov and Marina A. Salmina, “‘Slovo o zhit’i i prestavlenii velikago kniazia Dmitriia Ivanovicha, tsaria Ruskago’,” in Slovar’ knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnei Rusi, ed. Dmitrii S. Likhachev, vol. 2, part 2 (Leningrad: Nauka, 1989), 403–5; Nadezhda F. Droblenkova and Gelian M. Prokhorov, “Epifanii Premudryi,” ibid., part 1 (1988), 216–7. See also: Bobrov, Novgorodskie letopisi, 159, note 253 (Bobrov links the composition of this work with the annalistic compilation of c. 1418). 254 See also above, note 16.

60

chapter 1

figure 9

Graffito of St. Sopia Cathedral of Kiev no. 3 reporting a thunderstorm in 1052 reproduced from: Vysotskii, Drevnerusskie nadpisi, fig, III.1

Figure 9), an arrival of a metropolitan to Kiev (1122, no. 112), a consecration of a church hierarch (date and name remaining unknown, no. 7), and a number of others.255 According to a preliminary reading, graffito no. 3541 reports the consecration (re-consecration?) of the cathedral itself in 1052.256 Some of those inscriptions start from a year-date, as entries in the annals: In the year 6562 [1054], on the 20th of February, the dormition of our caesar,257 it was in the week of Saint Martyr Theodore.258 Въ лето 6562, месяца фѣвраря, 20 усъпение цесаря нашего, въ бысть недѣлю святого мученика Феодора.259 255 See: Mariia M. Drobysheva, “Letopisnye nadpisi-graffiti kievskogo Sofiiskogo sobora,” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2013 (2016): 706–24. 256 Gippius, “K prochteniiu,” 79–81. 257 Slavonic ‘цесарь’ (tsesar’), meaning ‘superior ruler’, ‘emperor’, goes back to Latin Caesar. Later Russian form of this word is ‘царь’ (tsar), the official title of the rulers of Muscovy from 1547. In early Rus this term most commonly referred to Byzantine emperors, and later to rulers of the Golden Horde. Sporadically Rus princes are so titled in the texts. 258 The first week of Lent. 259 No. 8, according to Sergei Vysotskii. I quote the improved reading by Vysotskii. Some other readings have been suggested, see them, as well as an overview of the discussion: Drobysheva, “Letopisnye nadpisi-graffiti,” 708–12.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

61

This is the famous graffito reporting the death of Iaroslav the Wise. Many ‘historical’ graffiti, however, do not cite the year from the Creation of the World, e.g.: In the month of December, on the 4th, Sviatopolk, Vladimir, and Oleg concluded peace on [River] Zhelian’. Месяця декембря въ 4-е сътвориша миръ на Желяни Святопълк, Володимиръ и Ольгъ.260 This peace agreement is not mentioned in the annals, but the princes in question acted in the late 11th and the early 12th centuries.261 It is interesting that near this graffito there is another one written by a similar hand (but the text ends abruptly due to the destruction of plaster): Prince Svyatopolk came … Приде князь Святопълкъ …262 Those two inscriptions could potentially become a set of notes, quasi-annals.263 A clearer (though not completely readable) example of a set of annalistic notes on a church wall has recently been found in the main church of St. George’s Monastery near Novgorod. Here, in the course of excavations, many pieces of plaster with wall-paintings have been found, some bearing fragments of graffiti. Scholars managed to fold many of them like a puzzle, and so many Old Rus insriptions became readable. One of them is a series of records concerning Novgorodian events of the 1160s, with year-dates from the Creation of the World. All the notes are made in one hand, although not strictly below one another (as far as one can judge, a note on an event of 1161 was written on the wall above a note on an event of 1160).264 I quote Aleksei Gippius’s translation

260 Vysotskii, Drevnerusskie nadpisi, 25, no. 5. 261 See an overview: Drobysheva, “Letopisnye nadpisi-graffiti,” 714–6. 262 Vysotskii, Drevnerusskie nadpisi, 35, no. 6. 263 Aleksei S. Shchavelev, “Graffiti o s’ezde kniazei na reke Zheliani: vopros datirovki,” in Lomonosov-2001. Istoriia: Tr. nauch. konf. studentov i aspirantov: Sb. tez. (Moscow: Put’, 2001), 3–5. 264 Aleksei A. Gippius and Vladimir V. Sedov, “Nakhodki v Georgievskom sobore Iur’eva monastyria: novye freski i novye nadpisi,” Trudy Otdeleniia istoriko-filologicheskikh nauk 2015 (2016): 205–7.

62

chapter 1

of his reconstruction of the text (but I italicize what is not actually read but is reconstructed by implication265): In the year 6668 [1160]. On the Feast of the Ascension, during the reign of Prince Mstislav Rostislavich, Iurii’s grandson, when Arkadii was bishop, the Church of the Holy Trinity was struck by lightning and burned down. In the year 6669 [1161]. Prince Mstislav left Novgorod. And the people of Novgorod sent to Rostislav in Smolensk for Sviatoslav, asking him [to come to rule]. And he came to Novgorod on 28 September, on the Feast of St. Viacheslav. ⟨…⟩ in St. Virgin[’s church] ⟨…⟩ on Holy week. In the year 6671 [1163]. God’s servant Gavriil passed away on 11 May, Trinity Saturday, and he was buried at St. ⟨…⟩’s Church by the royal doors.266 Въ лѣто 6668 съгорѣ святая Троичя весьнѣ, на память Възнесения, месяца маия въ 25, при князи Мьстиславѣ Ростиславици, Гюргевѣ вънуцѣ, въ епискупьство Аркадиево. … к Ростиславу … ь по Святослава … ся ему … … сепьтября на память святого мученика Вячеслава. … святѣи Богородици въ …ъ цистоѣ недѣлѣ. Въ лѣто 6671 преставися рабъ Божии Гаврило месяца мая въ 11, в суботу пантикостьную, и положиша и въ церкви святого.….. я у цес …267 In the same church of St. George, a series of graffiti reporting deaths of highrank persons of the late 12th and the early 13th centuries have been reconstructed from fragments of plaster. They report the deaths of two sons of Prince Iaroslav (1198), Archbishop Martirii (1199), former posadnik Mitrofan (Mikhalko) (1206), Archimandrite Savva (1226), Archbishop Antonii (1232).268 265 And I also transliterate names in a way adopted in this book. I also translate the fragment before the note for 1163, which Gippius did not include into his translation. 266 Aleksej A. Gippius, “ ‘Contextualized Writings’ in Old Novgorod: Birchbark Documents and Graffiti-Inscriptions in Comparative Overview,” in Vergesellschaftete Schriften: Beiträge zum internationalen Workshop der Arbeitsgruppe 11 am SFB 933, ed. by Ulrike Ehmig (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2019), 193. 267 Gippius and Sedov, “Nakhodki,” 205–6. I do not reproduce here square and round brackets pointing at different levels of conjecture. 268 Ibid., 200–4.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

63

Each of those graffiti can be treated as memorial, but as a whole they form a sort of set of annals: records of deaths of highest Novgorodian officials, made (maybe systematically and certainly by permission of the abbot269) on the walls of monastic church. However, only the latest of those inscriptions on deaths contains a year-date. In 2017 the excavations in the Annunciation church in Gorodishche near Novgorod270 brought another discovery. The longest Old Rus graffito known so far has been assembled from more than 200 fragments of plaster. It appeared to be a record of the death of Vsevolod, son of Mstislav, in February, 1138: In the year 6645 [1137/8], in the month of February, on the 13th, pious ⟨…⟩ Prince Vsevolod, Gavrilo in the holy baptism, slave of Christ, ⟨…⟩ son of Mstislav, passed away. It happend that he was in Pskov then,271 and there he passed away. And this was kept in secret for 7 days. And his brother Sviatopolk was there. And his retinue made much weeping and lament for him. And he was buried in [the church of] St. Trinity, which he had erected himself. And his retinue, having buried him, scattered, like cattle without a shepherd.272 And their heart was sad with sorrow about their prince. And, Lord, give rest to the sole of your defunct slave Gavriil, faithful prince! Въ лѣто 6645, мѣсяца февраря въ 13, прѣставися благовѣрьныи ⟨…⟩ князь Вьсеволодъ, в въ святѣмь крьщении Гаврило, рабъ Христовъ, ⟨…⟩ сынъ Мьстиславль. И годилося бяше ему быти Пльсковѣ тъгда, ту же и прѣставися. И таиша 7 дьнии. А братъ его Святопълкъ ту же бяше. И много рыдания и плаца сътвориша надъ нимь дружина своя. И погребоша и въ Святѣи Троице, юже бяше самъ създалъ. Дружина же его, погребъше и, и ра[зыдошася (?)] камо къжьдо, акы нута пастуха не имуща. И уныло бяше сьрдьце ихъ тугою по своемь князи. И покои, Господи, душу раба своего, усъпъшаго Гаврила, князя правовѣрьна!

269 Ibid., 208. 270 Gorodishche (literally: old stronghold) was the fortified residence of the princes of Novgorod who, from at least the 12th century lived outside the city. 271 Vsevolod in fact had been expelled by the Novgorodians, but the graffito made in Gorodishche, his former residence, does not mention this. 272 Matthew 9: 36.

64

chapter 1

This is not an ordinary memorial graffito, but a piece of literature which resembles some of the accounts of deaths in letopisi.273 Some later examples of ‘historical’ graffiti have been found in other churches as well. A rather exotic example is the 14th-century inscription on one of the gilded copper plates that used to cover (until 1890) the main cupola of the Dormition Cathedral in Vladimir. The graffito reads: In the year 6848 [1340], in the month of July, on the 13th, on the feast of Saint Apostle Aquila, there was a thunder, and the earth quaked. В лѣто 6848, месяця июля въ 13, на память святого апостола Акулы, громъ бысть и земля потрясеся. It looks as if the inscription was made by a roofer impressed by the thunderstorm.274 ‘Annalistic’ inscriptions in books. Colophons and other inscriptions are typical within Old Rus manuscripts from as early as the 11th century. Lubov Stoliarova’s corpus of inscriptions in pre-1400 Rus books comprises 514 short texts by scribes, painters, and bookbinders;275 nobody has counted inscriptions made in books by later owners or readers. Some of the inscriptions record events of general importance (such as the death of a prince, war, or an eclipse), and so can be treated as ‘historical’, or ‘annalistic’. In many cases an important event can be mentioned in a scribal colophon, but sometimes we find purely ‘annalistic’ notes. The corpus of ‘historical’ inscriptions in books (also prepared by Stoliarova) counts 29 texts, 14 of which are purely ‘annalistic’, starting with a year-date and then reporting a significant event.276 The earliest examples date from the late 13th century. Most of such inscriptions record just one event, although some describe two or even more, as in the annals proper, e.g.:

273 Aleksei A. Gippius and Savva M. Mikheev, “Nadpisi-graffiti tserkvi Blagoveshcheniia na Gorodishche: predvaritel’nyi obzorm,” Arkhitekturnaia arkheologiia 1 (2019): 36–43 (I quote the text from p. 39 where it is printed in a standartized version with some conjectures included; see transcription without conjectures: ibid., p. 36). 274 See: Aleksandr V. Lavrent’ev, “Groza vo Vladimire 13 iiulia 1340 g. i krovel’nye raboty v Uspenskom sobore,” in ‘Vertograd mnogotsvetnyi’: Sb. k 80-letiiu B.N. Flori, ed. Anatolii A. Turilov (Moscow: Indrik, 2018), 179–81 ff. 275 Stoliarova, Svod. 276 Liubov’ V. Stoliarova, “Zapisi istoricheskogo soderzhaniia XI–XIV vekov na drevnerusskikh pergamennykh kodeksakh,” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 1995 (1997), 3–79.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

65

In the year 6804 [1296], the 10th indiction, under Archbishop Kliment, under Posadnik Andrei, the Novgorodians expelled [Prince] Andrei’s vicars from Gorodishche,277 not wishing Prince Andrei. And the Novgorodians sent for Prince Daniil to Moscow, inviting him to the throne in Novgorod, to his father’s possession. And the prince sent ahead, instead of himself, his son called Ivan. And Prince Daniil himself …278 In that same year they built the Great Bridge over Volkhov. And Skoren, deacon of St. Sophia wrote [this]. В лѣто 6804, индикта 10, при владыцѣ Климентѣ, при посадницѣ Андрѣе, съгониша новгородци намѣстниковъ Андрѣевыхъ съ Городища, не хотяще князя Андрѣя. И послаша новгородци по князя Данилья на Мъскву, зовуще его на столъ в Новъгородъ на свою отцину. И присла князь переже себе сына своего въ свое мѣсто именемь Ивана, а самъ князь Данилии … Того же лѣта поставиша мостъ Великыи чересъ Вълхово, а псалъ Скорень, дьяконъ святыя Софии.279 An entry of any of letopisi could look the same, however, this text was written in a liturgical book. Most of such isolated annalistic notes were likely made soon after the events in question. However, at least in one case the record is retrospective. A Pskovian 14th-century manuscript contains a record, made c. 1323 but reporting the death of Prince Vsevolod Mstislavich in Pskov in 6645 (1137). It is interesting that the note differs (in details and dating) from the notes on this event in both the Novgorodian and the Pskovian annals.280 The ‘brief chronicle’ of Iakov the Monk. This is a series of notes on St. Vladimir’s life and deeds included in a hagioraphical text: the Memorial and Encomium for Prince Vladimir by a certain Iakov (Jacob) the Monk. Those notes, which could reflect a very early form of historical writing, will be discussed in detail below, in subchapter 2.5. The ‘autobiography’ of Vladimir Monomakh. The Instruction to Sons (Поучение, Pouchenie) of Prince Vladimir Monomakh (1053–1125, great prince 277 The residence of princes near Novgorod. 278 The phase is unfinished and then two lines are left blank. 279 Stoliarova, “Zapisi istoricheskogo soderzhaniia XI–XIV vekov,” 30–2, 67–8, no. 9–10. See also: Valentin L. Ianin, “K voprosu o roli Sinodal’nogo spiska Novgorodskoi I letopisi v russkom letopisanii XV v.,” Letopisi i khroniki 1980 (1981): 153–5 ff. 280 Stoliarova, “Zapisi istoricheskogo soderzhaniia XI–XIV vekov,” 46–7, 73, no. 19. Compare also the graffito quoted above.

66

chapter 1

of Kiev in 1113–25) is included into the annal for 1096 of Laur. and is otherwise unknown. It has a short autobiographical section dedicated to Vladimir’s ‘ways … and hunts’ (‘пути … и ловы’).281 Vladimir firstly lists his ‘ways’: military campaigns and difficult journeys, and then some of his hunting achievements. The ‘autobiography’ contains no absolute dates: phrases are added one to another with the help of such wordings as ‘and’ (‘и’), ‘and then’ (‘и потомь’), etc. Scholars have noticed that the ‘autobiography’ is similar to (and possibly influenced by) the autobiographical section of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Corinthians,282 it is also akin to the autobiographical prefaces of Byzantine and later Rus wills.283 Finally, the text has been compared to the so-called annals of ancient Near Eastern rulers, i.e. reports of the rulers’ military and other achievements narrated in first person.284 Lists of rulers. Some 15th-century manuscripts contain lists of princes, church hierarchs, Novgorodian city magistrates, episcopal sees, and Rus towns. In most of the cases such lists or, more often, collections of lists are placed either inside the annals (e.g. in the annal for 989 of N1Y), or before or after them. Most of examples of this genre are connected with Novgorod, although a list of the princes of Kiev up to the Mongolian invasion is placed before the annalistic text in Hyp. and Khlebn. The date of the latter list is uncertain, but probably it is a 13th-century text composed in Galich.285 As for the Novgorodian lists and their collections, in their present form they are 15th-century compositions. However, solid reasons exist to think that some of them were augmented gradually, and that their oldest layers date from a much earlier time, possibly even the late 11th century. The Novgorodian lists will be discussed in detail below, in subchapter 3.2. Annalistic notes of a Novgorodian monastery. A series of annalistic notes are written on the last, blank page of a late 12th-century manuscript of monastic rule which belonged to the Annunciation Monastery near Novgorod. This text consists of excerpts from the Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod with some minor additions, and a prayer. Those brief ‘annals’ will be discussed in detail below, in subchapter 3.9. 281 PSRL, 1, 247. 282 Boris A. Uspenskii, “Vladimir Monomakh i apostol Pavel,” in Verenitsa liter: K 60-letiiu V.M. Zhivova, ed. Aleksandr M. Moldovan (Moscow: Iazyki slavianskikh kul’tur, 2006), 43–5. 283 Anna F. Litvina, “Zhanr avtobiograficheskoi preambuly: ‘Pouchenie’ Vladimira Monomakha kak dukhovnaia gramota,” Slavianovedenie 4 (2004): 3–27. 284 Viacheslav Vs. Ivanov, “Tipologiia avtobiograficheskogo poucheniia tsaria kak zhanra,” Slavianovedenie 2 (2004): 69–79. 285 Iusupovich, “Velikokniazheskii kievskii svod,” 364.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

67

The Brief Chronicle of Patriarch Nikephoros with its Rus continuation and similar texts. Chronographikon syntomon (the Brief Chronicle) of Patriarch Nikephoros I of Constantinople (d. 829), one of Byzantine minor chronicles, consists of lists of biblical patriarchs, ancient kings, Roman and Byzantine emperors (with durations of their reigns and notes on some important events), and patriarchs of the five ecumenical sees. It is known in dozens of Greek copies, as well as in Latin and Slavonic translations. According to Elena Piotrovskaia, the latter is extant in 61 manuscripts, of which the two earliest (dating from the late 13th century and c. 1400) as well as some later ones are followed by a Rus continuation. It covers Rus history from the 9th century up to 1278 and is written more or less in the same style as the Brief Chronicle itself. The last phrases show a special interest to Rostov and Yaroslavl. This continuation was probably composed in the city of Rostov, though its earliest surviving copy is in the late 13th-century Novgorodian Kormchaia (Кормчая, Nomocanon, bishop’s book of canonic law).286 Translations of some other minor Byzantine chronicles as well as similar Slavonic texts are also known in early Rus manuscripts,287 although with no local continuations. The earliest Rus manuscript containing such a text is the second earliest precisely dated Rus book, Sviatoslav’s Miscellany of 1073.288 A brief text of the same sort, extant in a manuscript of c. 1400, mentions two Rus princes: And from Christ to Constantine 318 years, and from Constantine to Vladimir, who baptized the Rus Land, 700 years without 25. From Vladimir to Vsevolod, son of Iurii, 200 years. А от Христа до Костянтина лѣт 318 и от Костянтина до Володимира иже крести Русьскую землю лѣт 700 бесполутретья десять лѣт. От Володимера до Всеволожа Гюргевича лѣт 200.289

286 See: Piotrovskaia, Vizantiiskie khroniki. 287 Ibid., 52–94. 288 See facsimile: Lidiia P. Zhukovskaia, ed., Izbornik Sviatoslava 1073 goda: Faksimil’noe izdanie (Moscow: Kniga, 1983), fol. 264–26. See text and study: Elena K. Piotrovskaia, “Letopisets vskore konstantinopol’skogo patriarkha Nikifora i Izbornik Sviatoslava 1073 g.,” in Izbornik Sviatoslava 1073 g.: Sb. st., ed. Boris A. Rybakov (Moscow: Nauka, 1977), 317–31. 289 Piotrovskaia, Vizantiiskie khroniki, 157. See electronic facsimile: http://old.stsl.ru/manu scripts/book.php?manuscript=2&col=1&Submit=%CE%F2%EA%F0%FB%F2%FC (13.08.2018).

68

chapter 1

The mention of Vsevolod ‘the Big Nest’ (1176–1212) may imply that the text was composed (or rewritten) in his reign.290 Annalistic notes in an Easter table. Annals in Easter tables are a form of historical writing found throughout medieval Europe (and often regarded, no doubt mistakenly, to be the earliest form of annals).291 Pre-1400292 Rus has only one surviving example of such a text in a 14th-century miscellany.293 The table is designed for 532 years of the Great Indiction (Figure 10). 28 lines and 19 columns make 532 cells, in each of which there is a key letter to be used in another table to find out the date of Easter. The size of a cell is approximately 7 × 7 mm. In some of the cells a very brief historical note written in small letters accompanies the key letter, e.g.: [1271] Андр(ей) оженися. (Andrei married.) [1272] Яросл(а)в(ич). Михаило ро(дися). (Mikhail, son of Iaroslav, was born.) [1276] Василии Костро(мской) умр(е). (Vasilii of Kostroma died). There are 40 cells with such notes. Most of them report events of the second half of the 13th and the first half of the 14th century. The last note concerns the events of 1340. Although a single scribe, in one sitting, drew the table and wrote the notes, something can be said of this text’s history. Firstly, the analysis of the dates (that is, of placing a certain event in a certain cell) leads to the conclusion that the table was based on an exemplar, in which the notes for the 1260s had been made contemporarily.294 This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that another table from the same manuscript appears to have been copied from an 290 Piotrovskaia, Vizantiiskie khroniki, 58. 291 See on this issue: Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, “Early Irish Annals from Easter-Tables: A Case Restated,” Peritia: Journal of the Medieval Academy of Ireland 2 (1983): 74–86; Rosamond McKitterick, History and Memory in the Carolingian World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 97–100 et al; Joanna Story, “The Frankish Annals of Lindisfarne and Kent,” Anglo-Saxon England 34 (2005): 73–4, 85–7; Burgess and Kulikowski, Mosaics, vol. 1, 1–5. On England see subchapter 1.6. 292 There is a series of some 50 historical notes on events of 1449–90 in the margins of a paschalia in a 15th-century Rus manuscript, see: Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon] and Liudmila M. Orlova-Gimon, “Letopisnyi istochnik istoricheskikh zapisei na paskhalii v rukopisi RGB. 304.I.762 (XV v.),” Istochnikovedcheskie issledovaniia 6 (2014): 54–79. 293 GIM, Syn., 325, fol. 192v. The text of the historical notes with introduction and comments see: Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “Letopisnye zapisi na paskhal’nykh tablitsakh v sbornike XIV v.” In PSRL, 3, Moscow: Jazyki russkoi kul’tury, 2000, 569–89. 294 Ibid., 577.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

69

figure 10 Easter table for 532 years with annalistic notes (GIM., Syn. 325, fol. 192v, mid-14th century) reproduced from: PSRL, 3

70

chapter 1

exemplar of c. 1269.295 Secondly, the usage of past tenses changes between the notes for 1313 and 1316 (up to 1313 aorist tense is used, and from 1316 perfect tense is used). This probably reflects a change of scribes in the exemplar.296 Thirdly, although the manuscript is certainly Novgorodian, only the last three notes (for 1332, 1335, and 1340) are likely to have been written in Novgorod. Earlier notes can be attributed to the city of Tver. Only twice do those notes report births of princely sons (s.a. 1272, 1298), and both times that was in Tver. Some other events concerning Tver more than other cities also are mentioned.297 Thus, it is likely that the exemplar of this Easter table came from Tver, and that two or more scribes made the annalistic notes in that exemplar at different times between the 1260s and the 1320s. The last Novgorodian notes can be attributed to the scribe of the extant manuscript (copying the Tver exemplar, he decided to add at the end three notes concerning recent events in his home city). It is interesting that just at the time in question, s.a. 1341, N1Y says: Тои же зимы приихалъ Михаилъ княжичь Олександрович со Тьфѣри в Новъгород ко владыцѣ, сынъ хрестьныи, грамотѣ учится. In that same winter Mikhail, the son of prince Aleksandr, came from Tver to Novgorod, to the archbishop, [as he was] his godson, to learn to read.298 This note shows that in the early 1340s the see of Novgorod was in good relations with Tver: a nice moment for a Tver manuscript to be copied in Novgorod. 1.6

A Comparative Perspective: Historical Writing in Anglo-Saxon England and Old Rus

All or almost all genres and forms of early Rus historical writing are paralleled by similar texts produced in other countries. For example, letopisi are comparable 295 Anastasiia A. Romanova, “K probleme utochneniia datirovki rukopisei XIV–XVI vv. po tablitsam i tekstam paskhalii,” Opyty po istochnikovedeniiu: Drevnerusskaia knizhnost’: Arkheografiia, paleografiia, kodikologiia, ed. Ekaterina V. Krushel’nitskaia (Saint-Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 1999), 187; eadem, Drevnerusskie kalendarnokhronologicheskie istochniki XV–XVII vv. (Saint-Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2002), 69. 296 Gimon, “Letopisnye zapisi,” 575. 297 Ibid., 575–6; Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “Novgorodskoe istoriopisanie v pravlenie Vasiliia Kaliki (1330–1352),” in Istoricheskoe povestvovanie v Srednevekovoi Rossii: K 450-letiiu Stepennoi knigi: Mat-ly vseros. konf., ed. Artem E. Zhukov (Moscow – Saint-Petersburg: Al’ians-Arkheo, 2014), 63–5. 298 PSRL, 3, 454.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

71

to the annals and chronicles of medieval Europe (from Ireland to Poland), as well as numerous texts with an annalistic framework from other parts of the world (for example, Chinese annals, the annals of the pontifices of Rome, pictographic ‘annals’ of American Indians, and many other). Chronographs (compilations dedicated to sacred and world history) roughly can be paralleled to the world chronicles of the medieval West and Byzantium (the latter being the direct source of the Rus chronographs),299 although the crucial feature of early chronographs is their mosaic nature and the absence of original portions of text. Lists of rulers are an almost universally practiced form of concise history: the Sumerian King List300 being one of the earliest examples. However, it seems that a more productive way of investigation would be to compare the entire corpus of the early Rus forms of historical writing with a corpus of such texts produced in another country during a comparable period. A plausible candidate for such a comparative study would be Anglo-Saxon England. Why England? First, Anglo-Saxon England and Rus both belong to the periphery of the post-Roman world. There was no direct continuity between the Roman culture (including written culture) and that of the two societies in question. Rus emerged outside the former Roman borders. Anglo-Saxon kingdoms emerged in the area that used to be a Roman province, but the continuity between Roman Britain and Anglo-Saxon England is hardly traceable. Both England and Rus were baptized as a result of religious missions from, and political contacts with, other realms (in the case of England with Rome, Frankia, and, at the same time, the Celtic world; in the case of Rus with Byzantium, maybe Bulgaria and Rus’s Western neighbors301). The written cultures of both countries in early period emerged under a strong influence from abroad, and largely as by-products of the conversion.302 Second, for the purposes of typological comparison it would be better if the two objects of the comparison were situated far from one another, and the direct contacts between them were not intensive. This is exactly the case

299 Vodolazkin, Vsemirnaia istoriia, 24. 300 See chapter 2, note 268. 301 See on those cultural influences: Zhivov, “Osobennosti,” 586–617. 302 On Rus see above, in subchapter 1.1. As for the Anglo-Saxons, some usage of Germanic runes can be traced before the conversion, but the earliest inscriptions are few, brief, and often poorly legible, see: John Hines, “The Runic Inscriptions of Early Anglo-Saxon England,” Britain 400–600: Language and History, ed. Alfred Bammesberger and Alfred Wollmann (Heidelberg: Winter, 1990), 437–55.

72

chapter 1

of England and Rus. Some contacts certainly existed,303 but they were not, and could not be, so intensive as to substantially influence the sphere of written practices. Third, Anglo-Saxon England is a good candidate for such a comparative study because of the richness of the surviving material. Venerable Bede, the ‘father’ of Anglo-Saxon historiography, was highly appreciated in the medieval West, and so his works are extant in numerous copies, including some almost contemporary to Bede himself. The text of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People (HE) is so intelligible, that it is more or less clear what Bede’s sources were, and which were the germs of historical writing that had likely appeared before Bede. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle—a phenomenon evidently akin to early Rus letopisi—also is extant in early manuscripts some of which are ‘living chronicles’, that is, changes and variations of script, ink, and pen in them reflect the process of their composition, updating, and revision. Minor forms of historical writing also are well represented in surviving Anglo-Saxon manuscripts. Fourth, in both of those countries vernacular writing existed in early times (this was not the case in many countries of Continental Europe). However, in England writing in Latin was no less important, and during the earliest period of the development of Christian written culture, Old English was used in very few spheres that did not include historical writing. Only during the late 9th century did both Latin and vernacular become languages of historical writing. As for Rus, the term ‘vernacular’ is somewhat problematic as Church Slavonic (the language of almost all Rus literature) was largely based on the speech of Southern and Western Slavs, and differed (although not crucially) from the speech of the locals.304 303 Mikhail P. Alekseev, “Anglo-saksonskaia parallel’ k Poucheniiu Vladimira Monomakha,” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom) 2 (1935): 39–80; Vladimir T. Pashuto, Vneshniaia politika Drevnei Rusi (Moscow: Nauka, 1968), 134–6; Vsevolod M. Potin, Drevniaia Rus’ i evropeiskie gosudarstva v X–XIII vv.: Istoriko-numizmaticheskii ocherk (Leningrad: Sovetskii khudozhnik, 1968), 119–23; Mikhail F. Mur’ianov, “O novgorodskoi kul’ture XII veka,” Sacris Erudiri: Jaarboek voor Godsdienstweten schappen 19 (1969–70): 415–36; Aleksandr V. Nazarenko, Drevniaia Rus’ na mezhdunarodnykh putiakh: Mezhdistsiplinarnye ocherki kul’turnykh, torgovykh, politicheskikh sviazei IX–XII vv. (Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury, 2001), 499–503; Elena A. Mel’nikova, “Angliia i domongol’skaia Rus’: Na kraiu anglosaksonskoi oikumeny,” Drevniaia Rus’: Voprosy medievistiki 3 (61) (2015): 84–5; Denis V. Sukhino-Khomenko, “English Royal Exiles in Rus and the Practice of Expatriation in Late Anglo-Saxon England,” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 30 (2018): 284–9. 304 See in subchapter 1.1.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

73

Fifth, the period from the conversion of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms to Christianity (from 597 to the 650s) to the Norman Conquest (1066), that is, some 410–470 years, is comparable to the ‘parchment’ period in Rus writing (from c. 988 to c. 1400) that is the main focus of this book. After the end of this period in both countries a remarkable outburst of both literature (including historiography) and bureaucratic writing took place. 15th-century Rus annalistic writing was much more intensive than that of the previous period, by the end of the 15th century we can trace the development of bureaucracy (pistsovye knigi, inventories of land and duties, were the most impressive sign of it).305 Two decades after the Norman Conquest, in 1086, the Domesday Book, also a large-scale taxation inventory, was created.306 The late 11th and the early 12th century was a heyday of English medieval historical writing.307 Finally, the total quantity of extant books, written or owned in the two countries within the time in question (that is, in England before 1066, and in Rus before 1400), is comparable. The quantity of extant books written or owned in England before 1100 is estimated as 1,235.308 Of this total, 285 books are likely to have been written between 1066 and 1100,309 and so the quantity of extant manuscripts written or owned in England before 1066 is about 950. According to Lubov Stoliarova, 262 books survive from pre-1300 Rus.310 As for the 14th century, according to Nina Shelamanova, 645 books are extant.311 So, 305 On 1400 as a boundary for this research see introduction. 306 On the gradual development of bureaucratic writing in England see: Michael T. Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record: England, 1066–1307, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1993), 32–46. 307 Antonia Gransden, Historical Writing in England c. 550 to c. 1307 (Ithaca (N.Y.): Cornell University Press, 1974), 105–218; Stanislav G. Mereminskii, Formirovanie traditsii: angliiskoe istoriopisanie vtoroi poloviny XI–pervoi poloviny XII vekov (Moscow: Un-t Dmitriia Pozharskogo, 2016). 308 Michael Lapidge, The Anglo-Saxon Library (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 63, based on the catalogue by Helmut Gneuss: Helmut Gneuss, Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts: A List of Manuscripts and Manuscript Fragments Written or Owned in England up to 1100 (Tempe (Arizona): Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2001). Lapidge adds that, maybe, some ten books were listed in Gneuss’s catalogue by mistake as they probably had been written by Anglo-Saxons on the Continent (Lapidge, The Anglo-Saxon Library, 79). 309 Richard Gameson, The Manuscripts of Early Norman England (c. 1066–1130) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 5, 189. 310 Stoliarova, Drevnerusskie nadpisi, 53; eadem, Iz istorii, 13. 311 “Predvaritel’nyi spisok slaviano-russkikh rukopisei XI–XIV vv., khraniashchikhsia v SSSR (dlia ‘Svodnogo kataloga rukopisei, khraniashchikhsia v SSSR, do kontsa XIV v. vkliuchitel’no’),” Arkheograficheskii ezhegodnik za 1965 god (1966): 182. However, this is the quantity of archival items, some of which are in fact parts of the same manuscripts. On

74

chapter 1

the total quantity of surviving pre-1400 Rus books roughly can be estimated as 900. Thus, the figures for England and Rus are alike.312 However, the quantity of manuscripts containing pieces of historical writing is remarkably different. My own preliminary list of extant books containing historical writing written or owned in England before 1066 comprises 76 items (of which it is within 46 of them that historical writing is the main, or part of the main, content; others containing only minor forms of historical writing or short excerpts).313 A similar list of Rus pre-1400 books comprises only 15 items (of which it is only within 3 that historical writing is the main content).314 So, the weight of historical writing in the surviving material is radically different. This difference can be largely explained in terms of the preservation of books. Firstly, after the dissolution of monasteries in England in the 1530s many manuscripts perished. The books with the best chances to survive were those that fell into the hands of early antiquarians, who, in turn, were more interested in histories and chronicles than in other kinds of writing.315 Secondly, many early Anglo-Saxon books (mainly of the 8th century) survived on the Continent where Anglo-Saxon missionaries were active, and where the writings of Venerable Bede (including his historical writings) were in great demand.316 the other hand, this figure does not include manuscripts kept abroad (Stoliarova, Iz istorii, 37, 156–7, note 106). 312 One must keep in mind, however, that Gneuss listed books written or owned in England, and Stoliarova’s and Shelamanova’s calculations concern only books written in Rus. Just as books in Latin written on the Continent could easily circulate in England, books in Church Slavonic written in Bulgaria or Serbia often were owned in Rus. Nobody counted how many of surviving books were owned in pre-1400 Rus, but in any case, the figures seem comparable. 313 Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 552–61. The latter figure, of course, is arbitrary, as it is impossible in all cases to decide if a text is ‘a part of the main content of the manuscript’, or not. The latter figure also includes fragments of manuscripts which contain historical writing. 314 Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 563–5, and appendix 2 in the present book. This figure does not include historical graffiti and isolated annalistic notes in non-historical books. 315 Neil Ker showed this with figures on the example of the library of St. Augustine’s (Canterbury). A late 15th-century catalogue of this library survives, from which one can judge that less than 10% of books survived the Reformation. For histories and chronicles, however, the percentage is much higher: 26 of 58 (that is, almost a half) books are extant: Neil R. Ker, “The Migration of Manuscripts from English Medieval Libraries,” in idem, Books, Collectors and Libraries: Studies in the Medieval Heritage, ed. Andrew G. Watson (London: Hambledon, 1985), 464–5 [first published in 1942]. 316 Bede’s HE was probably appreciated as a standard narrative on Christianization, missionaries, and saints: Malcolm B. Parkes, “The Scriptorium of Wearmouth-Jarrow,” in Bede and his World: the Jarrow Lectures, vol. 2, ed. Michael Lapidge (Aldershot: Variorum, 1994), 570 [first published in 1982].

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

75

If we speak not in terms of the quantity of surviving manuscripts, but in terms of the existence of certain genres (or forms) of historical writing, the similarity between Anglo-Saxon England and early Rus becomes evident. Let us, then, compare the genres of historical writing. Foreign historical narratives. As stated above, at least six translated historical narratives were known and used in Rus before 1400. The fact that Latin was the language of liturgy and literature in Anglo-Saxon England made it easier for many continental (classical, early Christian, early medieval) historical narratives to circulate in England, to be read there, and to influence local historical writing. Some of those texts are known in extant manuscripts written or owned in England before 1066, others are mentioned in surviving booklists, some are known via quotations by Anglo-Saxon authors. Using the most important scholarly works, guides, and handlists,317 I counted some 21 foreign historiographical works definitely or presumably known in England before 1066.318 This figure is by no means final, but it shows that texts of this sort were pretty numerous. There is also one Old English translation of a Latin historical work (the Old English Orosius, a translation, with many additions and alterations, of Paul Orosius’s History Against the Pagans made in the circle of King Alfred of Wessex in the late 9th century).319 The Rus chronographs, compilations covering world history and based on the Bible and translated historical works, find no direct parallel in Anglo-Saxon England. 317 Jack D.A. Ogilvy, Books Known to the English, 597–1066 (Cambridge (Mass.): Medieval Academy of America, 1967); Janet M. Bately, “World history in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: Its sources and its separateness from the Old English Orosius,” Anglo-Saxon England 8 (1979): 177–94; Michael Lapidge, “Surviving booklists from Anglo-Saxon England,” in Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England: Studies presented to P. Clemoes on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, ed. Michael Lapidge and Helmut Gneuss (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 33–89; idem, “Asser’s reading,” in Alfred the Great: Papers from the Eleventh-Centenary Conferences, ed. Timothy Reuter (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), 27–47; idem, The Anglo-Saxon Library; Frederick M. Biggs, Thomas D. Hill, Paul E. Szarmach, eds., with assistance of Karen Hammond, Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture: A Trial Version (New York: State University of New York at Binghamton, 1990); Gameson, The Manuscripts; Gneuss, Handlist. The project Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture is being continued, see: http://bede.net/saslc/index.html (15.08.2018). See also online database Fontes Anglo-Saxonici: http://fontes.english.ox.ac.uk/ (15.08.2018). 318 See the list and all references in: Gimon, Istoriopisaie, 172–8. A similar work in relation to England between 1066 and c. 1150 has been undertaken by Stanislav Mereminskii (Formirovanie traditsii, 350–62), and in relation to the Frankish state by Rosamond McKitterick (History and Memory, 39–50) and Aleksandr Sidorov [“Sochineniia antichnykh, rannekhristianskikh i ‘varvarskikh’ istorikov v kul’turnom prostranstve karolingskoi epokhi,” Srednie veka 69, no. 3 (2008): 46–80]. 319 See edition with introduction and commentary: Janet M. Bately, ed., The Old English Orosius (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980).

76

chapter 1

Is there any similarity in the choice of foreign pieces of historiography copied or used by the Anglo-Saxons and the Rus? The only direct coincidence is the History of the Jewish War by Joseph Flavius.320 Speaking more generally, in both countries the most outstanding (from our modern point of view) pieces of classical and (in the case of Rus) Byzantine historiography remained unknown. We hear nothing of Caesar, Titus Livius, Tacitus, or Suetonius in Anglo-Saxon libraries, as well as of, say, Procopius, Leo the Deacon, etc. in the libraries of Old Rus. As Michael Lapidge points out, books for early libraries of Anglo-Saxon monasteries were deliberately selected. That is why classical Latin works on politics, philosophy, cosmology, rhetoric, as well as lyric poetry (except poems which were used for school training), were not imported to or copied in Anglo-Saxon scriptoria. ‘These works were not acquired by Anglo-Saxon librarians because they were of no use to scholars engaged in interpreting the Bible and explaining the organization of the Church’. The choice of foreign historiographical works followed similar guidelines.321 The choice of Byzantine chronicles, as opposed to histories (pieces of rhetorical historiography) in Rus can be explained by a desire to obtain a more or less complete accounts of sacred, Roman, and Byzantine history.322 Nikita Meshcherskii pointed to several reasons why no one Byzantine history had been translated into Church Slavonic: histories were focused on the inner life of Byzantium, which was not of interest to the Slavs; chronicles paid more attention to the history of the church and questions of theology; the language of histories was too sophisticated.323 In more general terms, as Viktor Zhivov points out, of the ‘humanistic’ and the ‘ascetic’ intellectual traditions of Byzantium, it was mainly the latter that was in demand among the Rus—and this was not only the position of the Rus recipients, but also a characteristic of those missionaries and clerics who came to Rus from Byzantium.324

320 A manuscript of the Latin translation of this work written in Italy in the 6th century is known to have been owned in 8th-century Northumbria, although later to have returned to the Continent (Gneuss, Handlist, 127, no. 834). The work was used by Venerable Bede in the early 8th century; it has been argued that Bede could be familiar not only with the Latin translation but with the Greek original as well (see: Ogilvy, Books, 185–6; Lapidge, The Anglo-Saxon Library, 218, 317). 321 Lapidge, The Anglo-Saxon Library, 127–9, quotation from p. 129. 322 Vasilii M. Istrin, “Khronografy v russkoi literature,” Vizantiiskii vremennik 5, no. 1–2 (1898): 131–3. See also: Piotrovskaia, Vizantiiskie khroniki, 6–11. 323 Nikita A. Meshcherskii, Istochniki i sostav drevnei slaviano-russkoi perevodnoi pis’mennosti IX–XV vekov (Uchebnoe posobie) (Leningrad: Izd-vo LGU, 1978), 70. 324 Zhivov, “Osobennosti,” 586–93.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

77

In both countries ‘world history’ was in fact both biblical history and the history of empires (Roman, Frankish, Byzantine).325 However, some texts could be regarded not as compendia of useful knowledge, but as reading for entertainment (as Alexandria in Rus), or as standard school texts (as Lucanus’s Pharsalia in Anglo-Saxon England).326 The earliest narratives on ‘national’ history. The problem of the beginnings of historical writing will be discussed in the next chapter, which will also contain comparative observations. However, a few words can be said here. The most prominent Anglo-Saxon writer, Venerable Bede (c. 673–735),327 was the author of four pieces of historical writing: the Shorter Chronicle (703), the Greater Chronicle (725) (both being chronological summaries of the world history included into Bede’s treatises on chronology),328 the History of the Abbots of Wearmouth-Jarrow (probably 716),329 and, finally, the Ecclesiastical History of the English People (HE; finished in 731).330 The latter work is an outstanding piece of early medieval historiography. It was extremely popular and authoritative both in medieval England and on the Continent. Some 160 manuscripts of HE are known, including 16 ones 325 Evgenii Vodolazkin (Vsemirnaia istoriia, 7) defines the oecumene of the Old Rus ‘world history’ as the Near East and the Mediterranean. 326 The work was quoted by several Anglo-Saxon authors and is mentioned in the list of books in Alcuin’s poem (Lapidge, “Surviving booklists,” 46, 48, 69–71; Alcuin, The Bishops, Kings and Saints of York, ed. Peter Godman (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 124–5; Lapidge, The Anglo-Saxon Library, 105, 110–1, 141, 183, 219, 231, 239, 245, 248; http://fontes.english.ox.ac .uk/data/content/sources/src_title_list.asp?SourceAuthor=LVCAN.&Mode=all&sort=HE ADER.TEXT_AUTHO&pagesize=All (15.08.2015). 327 On Bede see, for example: George H. Brown, A Companion to Bede (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2009); Scott Degregorio, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Bede (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). 328 Both Chronicles are printed: MGH, Auctorum antiquissimorum t. 13, Chronicorum minorum saec. IV. V. VI. VII vol. 3, ed. nova (Berolini, 1961), 223–327. See an English translation of the Greater Chronicle and a commentary: Bede, The Reckoning of Time, transl., with intr., notes and commentary by Faith Wallis (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1999), 157–237. 329 See edition and English translation: Christopher Grocock and Ian N. Wood, ed. and transl., Abbots of Wearmouth and Jarrow: Bede’s Homily i. 13 on Benedict Biscop. Bede’s History of the Abbots of Wearmouth and Jarrow. The Anonymous Life of Ceolfrith. Bede’s Letter to Ecgbert, Bishop of York (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2013), 21–75. On the date of the composition see: Ibid., xxi. 330 The most recent edition of the Latin text is: Beda, Storia degli inglesi (Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum), a cura di Michael Lapidge, traduzione di Paolo Chiesa (Roma; Milano: Arnoldo Mondadori, 2008–10), vol. 1–2. When I quote HE I use the translation from the edition: Bertram Colgrave and R.A.B. Mynors, eds., Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969).

78

chapter 1

written in England before 1066, of which, in turn, 6 were copied within the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the 8th and the 9th centuries, some being very close to Bede’s lifetime.331 An abbreviated Old English translation of HE was probably made in the late 9th century and survives in five 10th- and 11th-century manuscripts.332 HE can be paralleled to many ‘Barbarian histories’, that is, early narratives on the history of recently converted ‘Barbarian’ states, outlining the origins of these states and their dynasties, and the story of their conversion. PVL or, rather, the hypothetical Oldest Tale, the non-annalistic text-predecessor of PVL, seems to belong in the same category.333 Bede’s HE is more focused on the history of the conversion and the church, while PVL’s (and probably the Oldest Tale’s) focus is on the history of the dynasty, including the deeds of its pagan representatives. However, both themes are well represented in all of those texts. One can trace remarkable similarities in both Bede’s and PVL’s treatment of the pagan past and the events of the conversion.334 In more general terms, Bede’s HE and the Oldest Tale fulfilled the same task: to narrate the origins of their polities (in Bede’s case, of several interrelated polities, the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, with a special focus on Bede’s home, the Kingdom of Northumbria) and to somehow place the establishment of those polities and their conversion to Christianity into the history of the world. The theme of the conversion is significant both for HE and PVL, but it is difficult to say whether it had been equally significant for the Oldest Tale (I guess that it should have been). Whatever the case, there is another Rus text dedicated exactly to this issue: the Sermon on Law and Grace by Ilarion. Ilarion’s Sermon and the Oldest Tale are somewhat supplementary texts, jointly doing more or less the same job Bede had done in his HE.335 The Shorter and Greater Chronicles by Bede were attempts at writing a concise history of the world. In very general terms, they can be paralleled to Rus chronographs, also being attempts at composing some synoptic narrative on world history. However, they are quite a different phenomenon. While Bede’s 331 Colgrave and Mynors, eds., Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, xlii–lxx; Michael Lapidge, “Beda Venerabilis,” in La transmissione dei testi latini del Medioevo, ed. Paolo Chiesa and Lucia Castaldi, vol. 3 (Firenze: SISMEL, Edizioni del Galluzo, 2008), 78–112. 332 See edition: Thomas Miller, ed., The Old English Version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People, parts 1–2 (London: N. Trübner & Co., 1890–1). See on this text: Dorothy Whitelock, “The Old English Bede,” Proceedings of the British Academy 48 (1962): 57–90; Sharon M. Rowley, The Old English Version of Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2011). 333 See subchapter 2.3. 334 See subchapter 2.7. 335 See on the correspondence of the titles below, on p. 118–9.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

79

Chronicles are short chronological summaries of world history resulting from Bede’s own investigations in chronology, the early Rus chronographs are compilations with little attempt to add anything original. Bede also included into his Chronicles, mostly in the Greater one, notes on local, British, and Anglo-Saxon history.336 Notes on local history were not characteristic to early Rus chronographs. Rather, this can be paralleled to the Rus continuation of Patriarch Nikephoros’s Brief Chronicle, also a concise chronological summary of the history of the world. Its Rus continuation is, however, a relatively late text, as it ends with the events of 1278. The fourth example of Bede’s historical writing, the History of the Abbots of Wearmouth-Jarrow, can be compared to the early texts dedicated to the history of the Kievan Cave Monastery. This monastery, founded in the mid-11th century, was a remarkable center of early Rus literature, including annalistic writing. Letopisi as a genre emerged there in the second half of the 11th century: the bulk of PVL’s text certainly was written there. It is therefore not surprising that texts specially dedicated to the history of this monastery appeared quite early. Two of them (included into PVL s.a. 1051 and 1074 and narrating, respectively, the history of the monastery up to Abbot Feodosii I, and after his death) were quite early. Later the tradition of narrating the monastery’s history led to the composition of the Paterikon of the Kievan Cave Monastery. So, in England and in Rus we observe writing of a self-history by a monastery that was not only a prominent center of writing, but also the home of early historical narratives. Finally, similar ‘minor forms’ of historical writing are characteristic to the beginnings of historiography in England and Rus, namely lists of rulers and brief annals.337 Local church histories. Aside from the above-mentioned History of the Abbots of Wearmouth-Jarrow, Anglo-Saxon narratives dedicated to the history of particular religious houses include: 1. Two poems—Alcuin’s Versus de patribus, regibus et sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (The Poem on Fathers, Kings and Saints of the Church of York), written between 780 and 793,338 and Æthelwulf’s De abbatibus, written 336 Two local events are reported in the Shorter Chronicle, and 32 ones in the Greater Chronicle, see: Nicholas J. Higham, (Re-)Reading Bede: The Ecclesiastical History in Context (London – New York: Routledge, 2006), 114–21. See also: Diarmuid Scully, “Bede’s Chronica Maiora: Early Insular History in a Universal Context,” in Anglo-Saxon/Irish Relations before the Vikings, ed. James Graham-Campbell and Michael Ryan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 47–73. 337 See below in this subchapter, and in 2.6. 338 See edition, translation and study in: Alcuin, The Bishops, Kings and Saints of York. The poem can have been written (or finished) outside England, but it is written by an

80

chapter 1

between 803 and 821 and influenced by Alcuin’s historical poem, maybe describing the history of the community of Lindisfarne.339 2. Some 10th- or 11th-century works written in prose and largely focused on the property of the religious houses in question, thus combining features of a chronicle and a cartulary.340 There is nothing comparable to the poems of Alcuin and Æthelwulf in Rus. Works similar to English chronicles-cartularies produced in Rus date from the 16th and the 17th centuries.341 In the early period, the only narratives dedicated to the history of a particular religious house are the above-mentioned works written in the Kievan Cave Monastery. The annals. Rus letopisi are the main focus of this book. Their similarity to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is beyond doubt. The term Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, although traditionally used in the singular, designates in fact a tradition, a total of several interrelated manuscripts, the texts of which are partly akin, and partly independent.342 The late 9th-century ‘common stock’ was continued and altered throughout the 10th, the 11th, and the first half of the 12th century in various religious houses of England. The eight extant manuscripts (traditionally labeled as A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H) represent various stages and forms of this development. Only some of those manuscripts (B, F, G, and probably D) were created as one-time enterprises; the others contain changes of hands, ink, and pen, so reflecting the very process of annalistic writing. The longest was the history of A: first written around 900, this manuscript was updated and altered until the early 12th century.343 The early Rus letopisi writing was a phenomenon of the same character and scale. The ‘common stock’ PVL was composed in Kiev in the early 12th century,344 and was later continued in different centers. The annals of Kiev, Rostov, Novgorod, etc. could borrow materials from each other, so that the extant manuscripts contain a very complicated Anglo-Saxon and addressed to readers in York (Ibid., xlii–lvii, 110–1, lines 1408–9), and so must be regarded as a part of Anglo-Saxon historical writing. 339 See edition, translation and study: Æthelwulf, De abbatibus, ed. Alistair Campbell (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967). On the influence of Alcuin’s poem see: ibid., p xlvi–xlvii. 340 See an edition of one of those texts: Ted Johnson-South, ed., Historia de Sancto Cuthbeto: A History of Saint Cuthbert and a Record of His Patrimony (Woodbridge: D.S. Brewer, 2002). On the whole genre see: ibid., 12–4. 341 See references in: Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 226, note 430, and p. 306–8. 342 Charles Plummer suggested to speak of chronicles rather than of a Chronicle, see: Charles Plummer, ed. Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel: A revised text, on the basis of an edition by J. Earle, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899), xxiii. 343 See also in subchapter 3.7. 344 However, PVL’s text-predecessor, the Initial Compilation of the 1090s, also can be regarded as a ‘common stock’ as the Novgorodian annals were based upon it, see subchapter 2.2.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

81

picture of textual correspondences and differences. The content as well as the process of keeping and revising of Rus letopisi and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are no doubt similar.345 Finally, it is characteristic to both the traditions to include into annals texts of other genres (see, for example, poetic accounts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, or hagiographical narratives and legal documents introduced into Rus letopisi). An important difference, however, is the starting point of the tradition. The ‘common stock’ of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle dates from the late 9th century, that is, from the time when the tradition of Anglo-Saxon Christian writing was almost three centuries old, and more than 150 years after Bede had written his HE. Even if the ‘common stock’ had texts-predecessors,346 this does not change the picture substantially. On the other hand, the genre of Rus letopisi appeared in the second half of the 11th century, that is, less than a century following the baptism of Rus, and probably quite soon after the composition of the Oldest Tale, the earliest narrative on ‘national’ history. The distance between Bede’s HE and the ‘common stock’ of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is not only chronological, but also geographical (Bede worked in Northumbria, and the ‘common stock’ was composed in Wessex), and linguistic (Bede wrote in Latin, and the language of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is Old English). Also, Bede’s HE was used when composing the ‘common stock’, but mostly not the main body of Bede’s text, but his ‘annals’ (the chronological summary of HE in v: 24),347 while PVL, as far as one can judge, incorporated (via one or, rather, two intermediate texts) the bulk of the text of the Oldest Tale. Nevertheless, 8th-century Northumbria had its own Latin annalistic tradition. Other scribes continued Bede’s ‘annals’ in HE v: 24. In different manuscripts of HE one finds annalistic continuations for 731–4, 733–4, 732–66. Those records were certainly made in Northumbria, some of them in Bede’s lifetime (he died in 735) and maybe even by Bede himself.348 Also, in some manuscripts 345 See subchapters 3.7, 4.5. 346 This is possible but highly hypothetical, see, for example: Janet M. Bately, “The compilation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 60 B.C. to A.D. 890: Vocabulary as evidence,” Proceedings of the British Academy 64 (1980 for 1978), 93–129. 347 Janet M. Bately, “Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,” in Saints, Scholars, and Heroes: Studies in medieval culture in honour of Ch.W. Jones, ed. Margot H. King and Wesley M. Stevens, vol. 1 (Collegeville, Min.: Hill Monastic Manuscript Library, Saint John’s Abbey and University, 1979), 233–54. 348 See: Joanna Story, “After Bede: continuing the Ecclesiastical History,” in Early Medieval Studies in Memory of Patrick Wormald, ed. Stephen Baxter et al. (Farnham – Burlington: Ashgate, 2009), 165–84.

82

chapter 1

Bede’s annals have several insertions of Mercian origin (for 653–705).349 Some later works, including the ‘Northern recension’ of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, probably used non-extant 8th- and early 9th-century annalistic material of Northumbrian origin. The reliability of some of these notes is confirmed by independent sources and astronomic data.350 The annalistic tradition in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms was much older than the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, although those early Latin annals were not so extensive as the Chronicle or Rus letopisi. Rather, it can be paralleled to the early brief annals that were supposed to have been kept in 11th-century Kiev.351 The decline of Northumbria (due to the Viking invasions which started in 793) broke this tradition, but another tradition of keeping annals that more closely resembled Rus letopisi emerged in late 9th-century Wessex. Attempts at writing non-annalistic ‘national’ history. While the annals were the dominant form of historical writing, attempts at narrating ‘national’ history in a non-annalistic form are known both in Anglo-Saxon England and in Rus. First of all, there are the biographies of rulers. As it has been said above, the earliest text of this genre composed in Rus is the late 13th-century (?) Life of Aleksandr Nevskii. The lives of Dovmont of Pskov and Dmitrii Donskoi appeared later. The earliest Anglo-Saxon royal biography is the Life of King Alfred written in 893 by Bishop Asser.352 King Alfred of Wessex (872–99) was one of the most prominent figures of Anglo-Saxon history. He stopped the Viking expansion, strengthened the Kingdom of Wessex, which in the following century became the nucleus of the Kingdom of England, and patronized 349 Joshua A. Westgard, “The Wilfridian Annals in Winchester Cathedral Library, MS 1 and Durham Cathedral Library, MS B. ii. 35,” in The Study of Medieval Manuscripts of England: Festschrift in Honor of Richard W. Pfaff, ed. George H. Brown and Linda E. Voigts (Tempe, Ar.: ACMRS – Turnhout: Brepols, 2010), 208–23. 350 See: David Rollason, “Nothern Annals,” in The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Michael Lapidge, John Blair, Simon Keynes & Donald Scragg (Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2014), 339–40. 351 See subchapter 2.4. 352 The only manuscript of the work perished in the fire in 1731, but the text can be reconstructed from earlier editions, transcripts, as well as some medieval sources that quote the Life. See the standard reconstruction of the text: William H. Stevenson, ed., Asser’s Life of King Alfred together with the Annals of Saint Neots erroneously ascribed to Asser (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1904). See also an English translation: Simon Keynes and Michael Lapidge, transl. with intr., Alfred the Great: Asser’s Life of King Alfred and other contemporary sources (London: Penguin, 1983), 66–110. Several times the Life was suggested to be a later forgery, not a work written in Alfred’s lifetime—see criticism of those theories: ibid., 50–1; Simon Keynes, “On the Authenticity of Asser’s Life of King Alfred,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 47, no. 3 (1996): 529–51; Lapidge, “Asser’s reading,” 44–7.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

83

the development of literature in Old English: several important texts were translated from Latin, and the ‘common stock’ of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was composed. The Life itself, however, is written in Latin. It consists of a biography of the king (chapters 1–86) and a general assessment of his reign (chapters 90–106), including a section on Asser’s own contribution to Alfred’s achievements (chapters 87–9).353 The Life ends quite unexpectedly, and may be in fact an unfinished draft. It is based upon the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the annals of which are translated into Latin and supplemented with additional information.354 Phrasings of the Life are sometimes close to the lives of saints, but the work as a whole is not a piece of hagiography: it is rather a biography, or maybe encomium, written by King Alfred’s close companion in his lifetime. The Life certainly was influenced be Einhard’s Life of Charlemagne, although was not an imitation.355 The position of the Life of King Alfred somewhere between historiography, secular biography, and hagiography makes it similar to Rus princely lives: those of Aleksandr, Dovmont, and Dmitrii. Two later Latin texts can be regarded as other examples of the genre of rulers’ biographies: the non-extant verse life of King Æthelstan (924–39; the work is mentioned and fragmentarily retold by William of Malmesbury),356 and Encomium Emmae Reginae, or Gesta nutonis, a narration of the events of 1013–40, in which King Cnut (1016–35) is the central figure, and his widow Emma (Ælgifu) is the addressee.357 So, in both countries, although not in the earliest period, a genre of rulers’ biographies emerged. It may not be a mere coincidence that the earliest examples of the genre originated during times of especially dangerous foreign invasions in both England and Rus, and praised rulers which were successful war leaders: King Alfred in the late 9th century managed to stop the Vikings, and Aleksandr Nevskii in the mid-13th century acted under the recently established Mongol rule and won the Swedish and the Germans.358 353 The chapters have been introduced by modern editors. 354 See: Keynes and Lapidge, transl. with intr., Alfred the Great, 55–6. On the usage of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle see: Thomas A. Bredehoft, Textual Histories: Readings in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (Toronto – Buffalo – London: University of Toronto Press, 2001), 126–31, 135–6. 355 See: Stevenson, ed., Asser’s Life, lxxxi; Keynes and Lapidge, transl. with intr., Alfred the Great, 55; Lapidge, “Asser’s reading,” 28. 356 Gransden, Historical Writing, 53–5. 357 Alistair Campbell, ed., Encomium Emmae reginae, with supplementary intr. by Simon Keynes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). 358 Also compare Mari Isoaho’s observation (The Image, 146), that the Life of Aleksandr Nevsky, as the Life of Charlemagne by Einhard, was written in a time of inner conflict and thus provided an example of a recent glorious and stable reign. This is not the case of the Life of King Alfred written in Alfred’s lifetime.

84

chapter 1

An important difference is that in Rus all three examples of the genre were incorporated into letopisi, and in England, on the contrary, the annals were a source for Alfred’s biography. Rulers’ biographies were not the only form of non-annalistic history in England and Rus. In the South-West of Rus, in the 13th century, the local historiographer(s) abandoned the annalistic framework and composed the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, which, nevertheless, was regarded as a continuation of the annalistic Kievan Chronicle, and had many other links with the genre of letopisi. A somewhat akin (although by no means identical) phenomenon was the Chronicle of Ealdorman Æthelweard (written between 978 and 988).359 The work is sometimes called ‘a Latin translation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’,360 and partly can be regarded as such, but it is clearly nonannalistic. The document’s chronology is mostly respective (e.g.: ‘Then, after a period of two years’361), though year-numbers AD are used from time to time to underline the importance of some events.362 The work consists of books and chapters, many of which are dedicated to particular reigns. The other Æthelweard’s source was Bede’s HE, quite probably in Old English translation (and so, Æthelweard somewhat translated it back into Latin).363 Æthelweard often added new details, or modified the text in accordance to his personal vision of events.364 The Chronicle was (according to its Prologue) addressed to Abbess Matilda of Essen (in Germany), a relative both of the kings of England and of Æthelweard himself.365 A commissioner from the Continent can be a key to the uniqueness of the work within English historical writing. However, the only surviving manuscript originated in England in the early 11th century. The Galician-Volhynian Chronicle originated in the South-West of Rus, and foreign influence can also partly explain the uniqueness of the work. Again, as is the case with rulers’ biographies, the interrelations between the works 359 See edition, translation and study: Alistair Campbell, ed., The Chronicle of Æthelweard (London: Thomas Nelson, 1962). As it was the case with Asser’s work, the only manuscript of Æthelweard’s Chronicle perished in the fire of 1731, but some its fragments remain, as well as the edition of 1596. 360 Sean Miller, “Æthelweard,” in The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, edited by Michael Lapidge, John Blair, Simon Keynes & Donald Scragg (Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2014), 20. On the usage of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle see: Wojtek Jezierski, “Æthelweardus redivisus,” Early Medieval History 13, no. 2 (2005): 173–4; Bredehoft, Textual Histories, 65–7. 361 Campbell, ed., The Chronicle of Æthelweard, 27. 362 Jezierski, “Æthelweardus,” 171–2. 363 Campbell, ed., The Chronicle of Æthelweard, xxxvi–xxxvii, note 3. 364 See: ibid., xvii–xxxv; Jezierski, “Æthelweardus,” 162–8. 365 Campbell, ed., The Chronicle of Æthelweard, 1–2. See also: ibid., 26, 34, 38–9.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

85

in question and the annals are mirror-like. Æthelweard largely translated the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle into Latin and replaced its annal-numbers with wordings like ‘After four years’ (‘post quadriennium’), ‘When nine years passed’ (‘Deinde impletis annis nouem’),366 ‘Then, when one year passed’ (‘Igitur post cursum unius anni’),367 and so on; and Æthelweard tried to variegate such phrasings.368 The Galician-Volhynian Chronicle was originally non-annalistic, and later the scribe of Hyp. replaced many of the wordings of this sort with annal-numbers.369 Minor forms of historical writing. Many of them are the same or almost the same in the two countries. In both we find: – Annals in Easter tables: historical notes in an Easter table were made in 7thcentury Kent;370 a set of such notes was written by an Englishman in Bede’s time or slightly later and largely was based on his Greater Chronicle;371 seven late 10th-century obits were written in an Easter table in the Leofric Missal;372 sixteen obits for 978–1057 were written by several 11th-century scribes in the Easter table of Ælfwine’s prayerbook;373 finally, several sets of 366 367 368 369

Ibid., 19. Ibid., 37. Jezierski, “Æthelweardus,” 174. Another attempt to write an English history in Latin, in a form different from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, probably was the Historical Compilation (Historical Miscellany) by Byrhtferth of Ramsey (c. 970–c. 1020), which was, as Michael Lapidge and Cyril Hart argue, the basic source of 12th-century Historia regum Anglorum. Byrhtferth’s work was a miscellany rather than a coherent narrative, it consisted of fragments based on different sources, some of which were annalistic in form. See: Michael Lapidge, “Byrhtferth of Ramsey and the early sections of Historia Regum attributed to Symeon of Durham,” Anglo-Saxon England 10 (1982): 97–122; Cyril Hart, Learning and Culture in Late Anglo-Saxon England and the Influence of Ramsey Abbey on the Major English Monastic Schools: The New Curriculum of Monastic Schools, vol. 1 (Lewiston, N.Y., etc.: E. Mellen Press, 2003), 147–9, 473–561. 370 Story, “The Frankish Annals,” 81–97, 108–9. 371 Ibid., 59–109. The Easter tables with those notes are extant in six Frankish manuscripts and in a fragment of a Northumbrian 8th-century book. Four of the continental manuscripts include the above-mentioned 7th-century Kentish notes. 372 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 579, fol. 53r. I haven’t worked with the manuscript de visu. See facsimile: http://image.ox.ac.uk/show?collection=bodleian&manuscript=msbodl579 (17.07.2018). The book itself dates from c. 900. See: Nicholas Orchard, ed., The Leofric Missal, vol. 1–2 (London: Boydell, 2002). On the notes in the Easter table see: ibid., vol. 1, 156; vol. 2, 86; see also: David N. Dumville, Liturgy and the Ecclesiastical History of Late Anglo-Saxon England: Four Studies (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1992), 44; Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 249–52. 373 London, BL, Cotton Titus D. xxvii, fol. 14v–18v. See edition and study of the manuscript: Beate Günzel, ed., Ælfwine’s Prayerbook (London, British Library Cotton Titus D. xxvi + xxvii) (London: Boydell Press, 1993), historical notes are printed at p. 109–10. See also:

86

chapter 1

historical notes in Easter tables postdate the Norman Conquest;374 in Rus the only pre-1400 Easter table with historical notes dates from the mid-14th century but probably had a 13th-century exemplar. – Lists of rulers and their collections: Bede mentions an already existing king-list indicating durations of reigns; a king-list of the same type follows Bede’s HE in one of its earliest manuscripts, the Moore one;375 lists of kings and church hierarchs are found in later manuscripts, often forming collections;376 the 15th-century Novgorodian lists of princes, church hierarchs, and city magistrates probably have earlier layers, and one can suppose that the earliest Novgorodian lists were composed in the 1090s. – Brief summaries of the chronology of the world: notes on Six [Seven] Ages of the World, both in Latin and Old English, are found in several Anglo-Saxon books;377 brief summaries of world chronology, probably based on Byzantine minor chronicles, are known in Rus—not to count more extended and more

Simon Keynes, ed., The Liber Vitae of the New Minster and Hyde Abbey, Winchester, Brittish Library, Stowe 944, together with leaves from British Library, Cotton Vespasian A. viii and British Library, Cotton Titus D. xxvii (Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1996), 111–22 (notes printed at p. 123; a facsimile: ibid., Pt. XVI–XVIII); Rebecca J. Rushforth, An Atlas of Saints in Anglo-Saxon Calendars (Cambridge: Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Celtic, University of Cambridge, 2002), 24; Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 252–6. The first ten obits were written by the main hand of the manuscript (and could be copied from an exemplar, see: Keynes, ed., The Liber Vitae, 118, 122), and the remaining six notes (for 1023–57) were made by various hands and inks (Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 255). 374 See an overview: Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “Annaly na paskhal’nykh tablitsakh kak forma istoriopisaniia (Angliia, konets X–nachalo XII v.),” Srednie veka 71, no. 1–2 (2010): 50–79. The long set of annals in Oxford, St. John’s College, 17, fol. 139–43 probably had a pre-Conquest exemplar (see: Hart, Learning, vol. 1, 145–7). The most well known set of annals in an Easter table, and the only one in Old English (London, BL, Cotton Caligula, A. xv, fol. 132v–139), was started c. 1073 (see: ASC, 8, 129–34). 375 See subchapter 2.6. 376 See: Raymond I. Page, “Anglo-Saxon episcopal lists,” Nottingham medieval studies 9 (1965): 71–95; 10 (1966): 2–24; David N. Dumville, “The Anglian collection of royal genealogies and regnal lists,” Anglo-Saxon England 5 (1976): 23–50; Simon D. Keynes, “Between Bede and the Chronicle: BL Cotton Vespasian B. vi, fols. 104–9,” in Latin Learning and English Lore: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Literature for Michael Lapidge, ed. Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe and Andy Orchard, vol. 1 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005), 55–7, 60–1; Jacqueline Stodnick, “ ‘Old Names of Kings or Shadows’: Reading Documentary Lists,” in Conversion and Colonization in Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Catherine Karkov and Nicholas Howe (Tempe, Ar.: ACMRS, 2006, 109–31). See a list of English pre-1100 manuscripts containing such lists: Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 278–81. 377 See: Hildegard L.C. Tristram, Sex aetates mundi: Die Weltzeitalter bei den Angelsachesen und den Iren: Untersuchungen und Texte (Heidelberg: Winter, 1985). See also a list of 16 Anglo-Saxon manuscripts containing such notes: Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 266–7.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

87

prominent texts already mentioned: Bede’s two Chronicles and the Brief Chronicle of Patriarch Nikephoros with the Rus 13th-century continuation. – ‘Proto-autobiographies’: the list of ‘ways and hunts’ included by Prince Vladimir Monomakh into his Instruction to Sons roughly can be paralleled to Venerable Bede’s autobiographical note followed by a list of his writings included into HE at its very end378—both texts mostly list the author’s achievements in certain spheres—of course, quite different in the cases of a learned monk and of a lay ruler; some other Anglo-Saxon and Rus texts contain shorter authobiographical notes.379 – Short historical notes dedicated to particular religious houses: the late 12thcentury annalistic notes of the Annunciation Monastery near Novgorod placed in the book of the monastic rule find a clear parallel in a similar set of two annals of Bury St Edmunds, also in a manuscript of Benedictine Monastic Rule (the latter annals, however, date not from Anglo-Saxon period, but from c. 1100).380 Some other brief texts can be roughly paralleled to those: a mid-10th-century note on King Edgar’s establishment of monasteries placed as a historical postscript after the Old English translation of the Benedictine Rule;381 a note on the history of New Minster, Winchester, in the abbey’s

378 Colgrave and Mynors, Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, 566–71. Bede probably followed the example of Gregory of Tours, who also placed at the end of his History of the Franks some information on the author and a list of his writings, see: Karl Luttercott, “Beda Hagiographicus: Meaning and Function of Miracle Stories in the Vita Cuthberti and Historia Ecclesiastica,” in Beda Venerabilis: Historian, Monk & Northumbrian, ed. L.A.J.R. Houwen and A.A. MacDonald (Groningen: E. Forsten, 1996), 92, note 31. 379 Those by Willibrord (Anglo-Saxon missionary on the Continent, d. 739, see: David Howlett, “Willibrord Autobiographical Note and the ‘Versus Sybillae de Iudicio Dei’,” Peritia: Journal of Medieval Academy of Ireland 20 (2008): 154–64; David A.E. Pelteret, “Diplomatic Elements in Willibrord’s Autobiography,” Peritia: Journal of Medieval Academy of Ireland 22–23 (2011–2012): 1–14), Asser (see above in this subchapter), Rus Metropolitan Ilarion (see: Moldovan, ed., “Slovo o zakone i blagodati”, 4–5), Kirik the Novgorodian (see in subchapter 3.4). It is interesting that England and Rus possess similar examples of autobiographical texts focused on land properties and probably not genuine: the ‘autobiographies’ of Bishop Giso of Wells, see: Simon D. Keynes, “Giso, Bishop of Wells (1061–88),” Anglo-Norman Studies: Proceedings of the Battle Conference 19 (1996): 213–26, and Abbot Lazar of Murom Island (d. 1391), see: Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 306–8. 380 See on both texts subchapter 3.9. 381 London, BL, Cotton Faustina A. x, fol. 148r–151v (the 12th century). I haven’t worked with the manuscript de visu. See: Dorothy Whitelock, “The Authorship of the Account of King Edgar’s Establishment of Monasteries,” in Eadem, History, Law and Literature in 10th–11th Century England (London: Variorum Reprints, 1981), 125–36 [first published in 1970]; David Pratt, “The voice of the king in ‘King Edgar’s Establishment of Monasteries’,” Anglo-Saxon England 41 (2013): 145–204.

88

chapter 1

liber vitae;382 a series of historical notes on the see of Exeter written by three hands in the Leofric Missal;383 some Rus texts known in 15th–17th-century transcripts.384 There is no one example of a Rus pre-1400 rulers’ genealogy,385 while it was a very significant minor form of historical writing for the Anglo-Saxons.386 Only in England does one find chronological notes in which the quantity of years between the events and the moment of writing is indicated.387 On the contrary, isolated historical notes in liturgical books as well as ‘historical’ graffiti, so well-known in Rus, are absent, as far as I know, from Anglo-Saxon materials. In summation, most genres (forms) of historical writing attested in AngloSaxon England find clear parallels in pre-1400 Rus, and vice versa. In both countries one finds: – foreign historical narratives transcribed and/or translated; – an early coherent, non-annalistic narrative on the emergence of the polity (although many differences exist between Bede’s HE and the hypothetical Oldest Tale388); 382 London, BL, Stowe 944, fol. 8r–12v. I haven’t worked with the manuscript de visu. See a facsimile and a study: Keynes, ed. The Liber Vitae. Note dates from c. 1000; the manuscript’s date is 1031. 383 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodl. 579, fol. 2r–3v. On the manuscript see above, note 372. On the historical notes see: Patrick W. Conner, Anglo-Saxon Exeter: A Tenth-century Cultural History (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1993), 215–25 (the text is printed on pp. 221–5). According to Conner, hand A worked after 1050, hand C—after 1071, and hand B—somewhere between or simultaneously with hand C (ibid., 216, note 4; 218). 384 See Anatolii Turilov’s articles in: Iaroslav N. Shchapov, ed., Pis’mennye pamiatniki istorii Drevnei Rusi: Letopisi. Povesti. Khozhdeniia. Poucheniia. Zhitiia. Poslaniia: Annotirovannyi katalog-spravochnik (Saint-Petersburg: Blits, 2003), 44–9, 186–7. 385 See also subchapter 2.6. 386 The earliest extant collection of Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies is in London, BL, Cotton Vespasian, B. vi, fol. 109r–v (the early 9th century). Pedigrees of Anglo-Saxon kings are included into Bede’s HE, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and other texts. See: Kenneth Sisam, “Anglo-Saxon Royal Genealogies,” Proceedings of the British Academy 39 (1953): 287–348; Dumville, “The Anglian collection”; David N. Dumville, “The West Saxon genealogical regnal list and the chronology of early Wessex,” in Idem, Britons and Anglo-Saxons in the Early Middle Ages (Aldershot: Variorum, 1993), 2–66 [first published in 1985]; Bredehoft, Textual Histories, 14–37; Stodnick, “Old Names of Kings or Shadows,” 109–31. 387 Those are: the second part of the Moore Memoranda on Northumbrian History (see in subchapter 2.6), a note in London, BL, Cotton Vespasian, B. vi, fol. 104r (see: Keynes, “Between Bede and the Chronicle,” 52–4), and glosses in the Saint-Petersburg manuscript of Bede’s HE (see on them and the Moore Memoranda: David N. Dumville, “The two earliest manuscripts of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History?” Anglo-Saxon 1 (2007): 60–6). All the three examples originate from 8th- or early 9th-century Northumbria. 388 See above and in the following chapter.

The Surviving Texts and the Typology of Genres

89

– attempts at correlating the local history with that of the world; – texts dedicated to the history of particular religious houses; – the extended annals, which for a long period became the dominating form of historiography; – biographies of rulers; – other attempts at writing history in non-annalistic form in the time of the dominance of the annals; – annalistic notes in Easter tables; – lists of lay and ecclesiastical rulers (and their collections); – ‘proto-autobiographies’; – brief notes on the history of particular religious houses. However, differences also exist. The Anglo-Saxons did more to write the history of the church: Bede’s HE is much more concerned with the ecclesiastical history than the Oldest Tale or PVL; more works on church history were produced in England later, including poems and chronicles-cartularies. The Anglo-Saxons wrote down royal genealogies, and the Rus did not (before 1400), as far as we know. The Anglo-Saxons in the 8th century counted years from the event to the moment of writing—a practice not attested in Rus. On the contrary, only in Rus one finds chronographs, that is, compilations on world history, as well as isolated ‘historical’ graffiti and notes in books. Historical writing in Rus is more of a continuous tradition: the genre of letopisi emerged in Kiev in the second half of the 11th century, and during the following several centuries it was the basic form of historiography all over Rus. In England there was less continuity (although some, nevertheless, existed) between the outburst of historiography in pre-Viking Northumbria (works by Venerable Bede and related texts including brief annals in Latin) and the historical writing of the late 9th–11th centuries dominated by the process keeping and revising of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. This lack of continuity is due to the Viking invasions, over the course of which the Kingdom of Wessex became the main center of power and of culture. However, despite the devastation of the Mongolian invasion of Rus in 1237–40, it did not break the longestablished tradition of annalistic writing at least in some Rus centers. Thus, similarities are more impressive than differences. In light of the lack of intensive direct contacts between England and Rus (and keeping in mind that we compare not synchronous phenomena: the 7th–11th centuries for England, and the 11th–14th centuries for Rus) the only one conclusion can be made: the similarity is typological. In similar conditions similar phenomena emerge. In recently converted states historical writing takes a similar shape, and similar kinds of texts start to be composed. It is especially significant that most of those kinds appeared already in quite an early period (that is,

90

chapter 1

in early 8th-century Northumbria, and some minor forms even earlier, and in 11th-century Rus). This early period can be characterized as an outburst of historiography, a time of searching for a form of writing national history, summarizing world and local chronology, describing the history of the most outstanding monasteries, and so on. Later in both countries the extended annals became the basic form of historiography, although some other kinds of texts broke their monopoly. A typological comparison of Anglo-Saxon and Rus historical writing will be continued in the following chapters. In subchapter 2.6 I will discuss the earliest minor forms of historical writing. In subchapter 2.7 I will try to show that the treatment of the pagan past and the conversion to Christianity is surprisingly similar in Bede’s HE and in the Oldest Tale/PVL. In subchapters 3.7, 4.3 and 4.6 I will compare the practices of keeping the annals, as well as their content.

chapter 2

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev Povest’ vremennykh let (PVL), or the Primary Chronicle,1 was written in Kiev in the 1110s, and is the key text for the history of Rus up to the early 12th century. This is not the only source; its information in many cases can be supplemented or corrected (or confirmed!) with the use of both Rus and foreign sources. However, PVL is the only text to give a coherent history of Rus from the 9th century: of the settlement of East Slavonic tribes, the origins of the Rurik dynasty, the deeds of first princes of Kiev, the conversion of Rus under St. Vladimir in 988, the internal and external wars of the 11th and the early 12th centuries, etc. Until today, any narrative of early Rus history would be based on the narrative of PVL. PVL (being, as is has already been said, the common text of Laur., Radz., MA, Hyp., and Khlebn. up to 1110) starts, according to Laur., as follows: This is the tale of times and years:2 how the Rus Land originated, who was first to start to be prince in Kiev, and how the Rus Land has been established.3 Here we’ll start this tale … 1 The most reputable editions of PVL are those of the chronicles including PVL’s text: PSRL, 1 (Laur.); 2 (Hyp. and Khlebn.); 38 (Radz. and MA). An important edition was prepared by Dmitrii Likhachev and edited by Varvara Adrianova-Perets; it includes the text of Laur. with some emendations, a translation into modern Russian, an introduction and a commentary (Varvara P. Adrianova-Peretts and Dmitrii S. Likhachev, eds., Povest’ vremennykh let, 2nd ed., corr. and suppl. (Saint-Petersburg: Nauka, 1996) [first published in 2 volumes in 1950]). A valuable research tool is a line-by-line collation of the texts-witnesses of PVL in: Donald Ostrowski, David Birnbaum and Horace Lunt, eds. The Pověst’ vremennykh lět: An Interlinear Collation and Paradosis (Cambridge, Mass.: Harward University Press, 2004). PVL has been translated into many languages. For an English translation see: Samuel Hazzard Cross and Olgerd P. Szerbowitz-Wetzor, transl. and ed., The Russian Primary Chronicle: Laurentian text (Cambridge, Mass.: The Medieval Academy of America, 1953). Here all translations are mine. 2 The most well-known translation is ‘the Tale of Bygone Years’, but a better one would be ‘the Tale of Times and Years’, as it has been independently suggested by Aleksei Gippius and Horace Lunt, see: Aleksei A. Gippius, “‘Povest’ vremennykh let’: O vozmozhnom proiskhozhdenii i znachenii nazvaniia,” Cyrillomethodianum 15–16 (1991–1992): 7–23 [revised 2nd ed. in Iz istorii russkoi kul’tury, ed. Vladimir Ia. Petrukhin, vol. 1 (Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury, 2000), 448–60]; Horace Lunt, “On Interpreting the Russian Primary Chronicle: The Year 1037,” The Slavic and East European Journal 32, no. 2 (1988): 261, note 1. A kind of literate translation, perhaps, would be: ‘The Tale of the Years of the Time’ (as the adjective ‘времяньныи’ means ‘of time’, ‘belonging to time’). 3 Compare Elena Melnikova’s translation ‘and how the Russian land turned into what it is’ (Melnikova, The Eastern World, 96). © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004335592_004

92

chapter 2

Се повѣсти времяньных лѣт, откуду есть пошла Руская земля, кто в Киевѣ нача первѣе княжити, и откуду Руская земля стала есть. Се начнемъ повѣсть сию …4 Hyp. has a partially different title: The tale of times and years by the monk of Feodosii’s Cave Monastery: how the Rus Land originated, [and] has been established, and who was first to start to be prince in it. Повѣсть временныхъ лѣт черноризца Федосьева манастыря Печерьскаго, откуду есть пошла Руская земля, стала есть, и хто в неи почалъ пѣрвѣе княжити.5 The other versions read more or less the same, with some variants, the most well-known of which is Khlebn.’s addition of ‘Nestor’ (‘Нестера’), the name of the otherwise anonymous monk of the Cave Monastery6—an addition quite probably based upon the Paterikon of the Cave Monastery.7 It is a question of which of the two versions of the title quoted above is primary. The choice should be based on which of the stemma of the witnesses the scholar prefers, and there are alternative stemmas (see below).8 PVL has an annalistic framework except for the initial section, the so-called Introduction of PVL, which describes the settlement of peoples after the Flood, the customs of Slavonic tribes, the foundation of Kiev, etc. The annal-numbers from 6360 [852] up to 6618 [1110] form an uninterruptable chain, although there are numerous barren annals, especially in the text for the 9th and the 10th centuries (Figure 5). The annals for the 9th, the 10th and, largely, the first half of the 11th centuries are more or less focused on the dynastic history and the conversion of Rus. In the text for the 9th and the 10th centuries there are no precise (month-and-day) dates. The accounts of that section obviously are based partly on oral tradition, and partly on Byzantine sources. S.a. 907, 911, 944, and 972 the texts of treaties between Rus and Byzantium are included. 4 5 6 7 8

PSRL, 1, 1–2. See also Figure 6. PSRL, 2, 2. Ibid., variant 23. See chapter 1, note 226. See discussion and references: Donald Ostrowski, “The Title of the Povest’ vrtemennykh let Redux,” Ruthenica 6 (2007): 315–21. To my mind, one cannot rule out the possibility that the words ‘черноризца Федосьева манастыря Печерьскаго’ (‘by the monk of Feodosii’s Cave Monastery’) were a gloss in the original of PVL.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

93

Precise dates are provided s.a. 1015, 1054 (deaths of St. Vladimir and Iaroslav the Wise), and from the 1060s they become numerous. The annals for the second half of the 11th and the early 12th century look more as a contemporary chronicle: they contain notes on quite different events (such as building of churches or natural phenomena), but political and military matters still remain central. The present chapter can be regarded as an introduction to PVL studies. However, its main focus will be not on details concerning the textual history of PVL, but on the problem of the very beginnings of historical writing in Rus. What kinds of texts appeared first? How did the tradition of letopisi writing emerge? The conclusions will be looked at in a comparative perspective: how did historical writing emerge elsewhere? Finally, I will return to PVL as we have it, and look at its portrayal of the pagan past of Rus and its conversion to Christianity—again in a comparative perspective. 2.1

The Manuscript Witnesses and Redactions of Povest’ vremennykh let

Any discussion of PVL starts from the problem of the interrelations of the main witnesses of its text, which is closely connected to the problems of the authorship, date, and redactions of PVL. This subchapter is an introduction into those interrelated topics. There are five main witnesses of PVL’s text: Laur., Radz., MA, Hyp., and Khlebn.,9 not to count texts akin to the ‘classical’ PVL but different from it in many respects: N1Y, the Novgorodian-Sophian chronicles, etc. The five ‘classical’ witnesses contain basically the same text up to the annal for 1110, although with substantial variations. Radz. and MA, as well as Hyp. and Khlebn., constitute pairs within which the texts are especially close. Laur. of 1377, the oldest witness,10 in many respects is close to Radz. and MA but the latter two sometimes are closer to Hyp. and Khlebn. The interrelations of those five witnesses, as well as of the Novgorodian texts, have been extensively discussed by scholars. The first stemmata were suggested by Aleksei Shakhmatov and Sergei Bugoslavskii.11 Bugoslavskii’s stemma was minimalistic in comparison to Shakhmatov’s one: Bugoslavskii 9 See descriptions of those texts in subchapter 1.2, and Figures 5–7. The Trinity Chronicle lost in the fire of 1812 (see note 138 in chapter 1) obviously was the sixth witness. 10 Laur. and the lost Trinity Chronicle certainly used to form the third pair. 11 See an overview with references and the stemmata themselves: Donald Ostrowski, “Principles of editing the Povest’ vremennykh let,” Palaeoslavica 7 (1999): 12–7.

94

chapter 2

tried to avoid any possibility of contamination—of a usage of more than one exemplar by a scribe—and criticized Shakhmatov’s overuse of hypotheses about such contaminations. The difference between the approaches of Shakhmatov and Bugoslavskii laid, inter alia, in their treatment of N1Y. For Shakhmatov, this source reflects not PVL as such, but an earlier Kievan text, the Initial Compilation of the 1090s.12 Shakhmatov treated the differences between ‘classical’ PVL and N1Y (which are numerous and substantial) as the result of the re-working of the Initial Compilation by the author of PVL. To the contrary, Bugoslavskii regarded N1Y as just one more witness of PVL’s text. Therefore, Bugoslavskii took into account minor variant readings in the common text of N1Y and ‘classical’ PVL, but he treated the differences of larger scale (such as, for example, the absence of many fragments in N1Y) as no more than results of work of a later Novgorodian scribe. Several studies of the text-relationships of the witnesses of PVL appeared in recent decades. Ludolf Müller preparing a German translation of PVL created his own stemma, which was minimalistic in a sense that it, as Bugoslavskii’s stemma, avoided contaminations. Contrary to Bugoslavskii, Müller preferred not to include N1Y into his stemma at all, dealing only with the ‘classical’ witnesses of PVL. Müller’s stemma met objections from the sides of Aleksandr Nazarenko13 and Aleksei Gippius,14 inter alia concerning the necessity of admitting of at least one contamination as well as of some considering of the Novgorodian material. Müller in a later paper agreed with many of the objections.15 The most important discussion concerning the interrelations of the witnesses of PVL is conducted between Donald Ostrowski, Aleksei Gippius, and Tetiana Vilkul. It is obvious for all the participants of this discussion that no simple stemma can explain all variant readings: in any case, a scholar should suppose at least one contamination, that is, a usage by one of the scribes of more than one exemplar. Thus, the question largely is: where on the stemma such a contamination should be placed, and what classes of variant readings should be explained through this contamination. This main question is answered differently by Ostowski, on the one hand, and by Gippius and Vilkul, on the other. 12 See in the next subchapter. 13 Aleksandr V. Nazarenko, “Novyi trud izvestnogo slavista: K vykhodu v svet nemetskogo perevoda Povesti vremennykh let L. Miullera,” Slavianovedenie 2 (2002): 128–39. 14 Aleksei A. Gippius, “O kritike teksta i novom perevode-rekonstrukstii ‘Povesti vremennykh let’,” Russian Linguistics 26 (2002): 63–126. 15 Ludolf Müller, “K kritike teksta, k tekstu i perevodu Povesti vremennykh let’,” Russian Linguistics 30, no. 3 (2006): 401–36.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

95

Donald Ostrowski’s project has been to prepare ‘an interlinear collation of the five main MS witnesses to the PVL and of three published versions of the PVL as well as a paradosis (proposed best reading) based primarily on the use of stemma codicum.’16 The edition so designed appeared in 2004.17 In his stemma, Ostrowski basically follows Bugoslavskii’s approach: he treats N1Y not as a reflection the Initial Compilation, but as a witness of PVL’s text of equal value with its ‘classical’ witnesses. According to Ostrowski, there were two contaminations: between Laur. and N1Y, and between Laur. and Khlebn.18 Diagram 1 shows Ostrowski’s stemma.19 According to Gippius (who follows Shakhmatov in regarding N1Y as a reflection of the Initial Compilation), the contamination took place in the course of the making of the Radz.–MA branch. This explains the fact that in many cases Radz. and MA agree with Laur. while in many others they agree with Hyp. and Khlebn. Gippius says this was not a scribe working simultaneously with two exemplars. Rather, the scribe responsible for the contamination had two exemplars available, and switched several times from copying the one to copying the other, and that is why in some zones of PVL’s text Radz.–MA basically agree with Laur. and in some other zones (like, for example, in the abovequoted title of PVL) they basically agree with Hyp.–Khlebn. Gippius presented this argument, firstly, in a detailed review of Müller’s translation in which he also discussed Ostrowski’s stemma.20 Vilkul, in a detailed and careful review of Ostrowski’s edition, supported his conclusion about the contamination between Laur. and N1Y (to which Gippius objects) but insisted that there was indeed the contamination between Hyp. and Radz.–MA. Contrary to Gippius, Vilkul assumed that the scribe of the exemplar of Radz.–MA used not a common exemplar of Hyp. and Khlebn., but a text-predecessor of Hyp. only, and this assumption allows us to avoid the hypothesis of contamination in Khlebn. Contrary to Gippius, Vilkul does not support the theory of the Initial Compilation, but, contrary to Bugoslavskii and Ostrowski, she does not place Hyp.–Khlebn. and N1Y into the same branch of the stemma, considering N1Y as going back to an earlier stage of PVL’s transmission

16 17 18

19 20

Ostrowski, “Principles,” 5. See reference in note 1 in this chapter. Ostrowski, “Principles,” 17–9 ff.; idem, “Scribal Practices and Copying Probabilities in the Transmission of the Text of the Povest’ vremennykh let,” Palaeoslavica 13, no. 2 (2005): 48–77; idem, “The Načal’nyj svod and the Povest’ vremennyx let,” Russian Linguistics 31 (2007): 269–308. Ostrowski, “The Načal’nyj svod,” 303, Figure 5. Gippius, “O kritike teksta.”

96

chapter 2 α γ

η

θ

β δ ζ

Syn.

ε

Radz.

MA

Trinity Chronicle

Laur.

Hyp. Khlebn.

N1Y (Com.)

Pogodin MS. Ermolaev MS. Early 19th-century edition diagram 1 Stemma of the witnesses of PVL by Donald Ostrowski

N1Y (Acad.)

N1Y (Tolstoi MS.)

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

97

history.21 Both, Vilkul’s review and Ostrowski’s reply to it (the scholar mostly remained with his opinion)22 contain lots of useful observations on particular readings and scribal practices. The latest contribution to this discussion is Gippius’s article in which he discusses objections by Ostrowski and presents additional case in support of his own view. In this paper Gippius agrees with Vilkul’s idea of the exemplar of Hyp. only, not of Hyp.–Khlebn., being used by the scribe of Radz.–MA.23 Diagram 2 shows Gippius’s modified stemma.24 It is not the place to analyze in detail the case made by Ostrowski, Gippius, and Vilkul. They discuss, in most cases, particular variant readings disputing which of the variants is primary, and which one is secondary. I must stress the extra-level of this discussion, dealing with issues of scribal practices, grammar, historical context, biblical quotations, and many other domains of knowledge. Sometimes the discussion concerns general issues of textual criticism and their application to Rus letopisi (e.g., should we, all things being equal, consider lectio brevior primary or not?). In most of the cases Gippius’s argument (and the very important conclusion about the contamination in Radz.– MA which is shared by Gippius and Vilkul) seems convincing to me, so I would adopt Gippius’s stemma. Another issue, deeply interconnected with this one, is the problem of the redactions of PVL. It is clear that PVL was composed in Kiev in the 1110s. However, it has been postulated that within that decade the text was once or twice revised, and that different groups of extant manuscripts reflect different stages of this revision. The issue is not a simple one. The only thing we know absolutely for sure is that in 1116 Abbot Silvestr of the Vydubichi Monastery near Kiev ‘wrote’ (composed? revised? copied?) PVL. This is known from his colophon which survives in three of the five witnesses of ‘classical’ PVL, namely in Laur., Radz., and MA, after the annal for 6618 (1110): [I,] Abbot Silvestr of St. Michael’s, wrote this book [called] the Annals (letopisets), hoping to obtain God’s mercy, under Prince Vladimir, him being prince in Kiev, and me at that time being abbot at St. Michael’s, in the year 6624 [1116], the 9th indiction, and who reads this book, be in prayers for me. 21 Tatiana L. Vilkul, “Tekstologiia i Textkritik. Ideal’nyi proekt  …,” Palaeoslavica 12, no. 1 (2004): 171–203, especially pp. 173–83. 22 Ostrowski, “Scribal practices.” 23 Alexey A. Gippius, “Reconstructing the original of the Povest’ vremennyx let: a contribution to debate,” Russian Linguistics 38 (2014): 341–66. 24 Ibid., 364, Figure 4.

98

chapter 2 Initial Compilation PVL

Syn.

Laur. NovgorodianSophian Chronicles N1Y (Com.)

N1Y (Acad.)

Trinity Chronicle

Radz.

MA

N1Y (Tolstoi MS.)

Hyp. Khlebn.

diagram 2 Modified stemma of the witnesses of PVL by Aleksei Gippius

Игуменъ Силивестръ святаго Михаила написах книгы си лѣтописець, надѣяся от Бога милость прияти, при князи Володимерѣ, княжащю ему Кыевѣ, а мне в то время игуменящю у святаго Михаила, в 6624, индикта 9 лѣто, а иже чтеть книгы сия, то буди ми въ молитвахъ.25 Shakhmatov’s theory was as follows: in 1113 the first redaction of PVL was composed. The place of its composition was the Kievan Cave Monastery, and the author was probably Monk Nestor, known as a hagiographer (he wrote the lives of St. Feodosii of the Cave Monastery and St. Princes Boris and Gleb) and— in some later sources (including the incipit to one of the witnesses of PVL, Khlebn.)—as a chronicle-writer (letopisets).26 In 1116 the second redaction was made by Silvestr, whose colophon is quoted above. In 1118 somebody within the circle of Prince Mstislav, the eldest son of Vladimir Monomakh, created the third redaction. The first redaction has not survived. The second redaction 25 PSRL, 1, 286. 26 See note 130 in chapter 1.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

99

is reflected by Laur., Radz., and MA, and the third one found its way into Hyp. and Khlebn. However, as there appear to be some readings contradicting such a straightforward scheme, Shakhmatov had to postulate that in some cases there were secondary contaminations of witnesses.27 Doubts have been expressed about this theory. Some scholars find the hypothesis of a third redaction to be excessive, and insist that the differences between Laur., Radz., and MA on the one hand, and Hyp. and Khlebn. on the other are not so deep as to be attributed to a deliberate act of revision.28 There is a series of notes peculiar to Hyp. and Khlebn., but Oleg Tvorogov’s idea was that they could originally be glosses, and so we must not suppose an entire revision of PVL underlies Hyp. and Khlebn.29 It also has been argued that Silvestr’s editorial role was minimal, and he instead produced a new manuscript of PVL, not a redaction.30 Another point of view is that there were no redactions of PVL at all, but only one text: that written by Abbot Silvestr in 1116. This view implies that the variant readings of the five witnesses should be explained in terms of text-transmission, rather than early deliberate revisions.31 Aleksei Gippius has undertaken a successful (to my mind) attempt at rehabilitating Shakhmatov’s theory of the ‘third’ redaction. The important difference between Shakhmatov’s and Gippius’s views is that, according to Gippius, some parts of the text of Radz. and MA go back to the ‘second’ redaction (and are therefore closer to Laur.), while some other portions of the text are drawn from the ‘third’ redaction (and so are closer to Hyp. and Khlebn.).32 Also, according to Gippius, after the ‘third’ redaction had been completed in 1117–8, some material from it was copied into the manuscript of the ‘second’ redaction (Silvestr’s manuscript), and for that purpose at least one quire of the

27

See the most systematic account of Shakhmatov’s view: Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, part 2, 528–63. 28 See, for example: Timberlake, “Redactions,” 198–200. 29 Oleg V. Tvorogov, “Sushchestvovala li tret’ia redaktsiia ‘Povesti vremennykh let’?,” in In memoriam: Sb. pamiati Ia.S. Lur’e, ed. Mark N. Botvinnik, E.I. Vaneeva (Saint-Petersburg: Atheneum-Feniks, 1997), 203–9. Those additions probably were made on the base of the annals of Pereyaslavl-upon-Dnieper, see: Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “‘Ipat’evskie’ dopolneniia k ‘Povesti vremennykh let’,” in Akademik A.A. Shakhmatov: zhizn’, tvorchestvo, nauchnoe nasledie (k 150-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia), ed. O.N. Krylova and M.N. Priemysheva (Saint-Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriia, 2015), 279–94. 30 Timberlake, “Redactions,” 200–1. 31 Aleksei [Oleksiy] P. Tolochko, “Perechityvaia pripisku Sil’vestra 1116 g.,” Ruthenica 7 (2008): 154–65. See also: Vadim Iu. Aristov, “Vasilii-Sil’vestr (o lichnosti avtora ‘Povesti vremennykh let’),” Ruthenica 12 (2013): 169–86. 32 Gippius, “Reconstructing the original,” 349–61.

100

chapter 2

manuscript (containing the text for 1096–7) was replaced with a new one.33 To my mind, Gippius’s theory, however complicated it may seem, is, by now, the best solution of the questions that arise from the comparison of the five witnesses. Nevertherless, I am sure the discussion of this issue will continue. If Silvestr’s manuscript of 1116 was not the original of PVL, the latter should be dated to 1113 × 1116.34 However, in Gippius’s view, there is no reason to attribute to Silvestr any substantial changes in a previously written text (that is, to distinguish between the ‘first’ and the ‘second’ ‘redactions’). So, Silvestr could be just a copyist of PVL, or—on the contrary—its author. The discussion below will concern earlier, 11th-century stages of the formation of PVL’s text, and so it will not be a crucial issue for us now if Silvestr was the author or a copyist. 2.2

Texts-Predecessors of Povest’ vremennykh let: An Introduction into Discussion

Many scholars suppose that PVL was not composed afresh in the 1110s. Just the opposite: it was based upon earlier texts which can be hypothetically reconstructed. Aleksei Shakhmatov put forth the idea that N1Y 35 preserved for us an earlier text that was closely akin to PVL. He called this text Nachalnyi svod (Начальный свод), which is translated into English either as the Initial Compilation36 or as Base Compilation.37 Here is a summary of Shakhmatov’s argument. N1Y does not contain some fragments of text that are present in ‘classical’ PVL but are certainly (or probably) secondary inserts. Such fragments include: – the texts of the treaties between Rus and Byzantium s.a. 907, 911, 944, and 972; – some quotations from the Slavonic translation of the Chronicle of George Hamartolos; – several accounts of an obviously folkloric origin (in some of the cases the text without those fragments looks very consistent). 33 Aleksei A. Gippius, “K probleme redaktsii Povesti vremennykh let. I,” Slavianovediene 5 (2007): 20–44; idem., “K probleme redaktsii Povesti vremennykh let. II,” Slavianovediene 2 (2008): 3–24. 34 Aleksei A. Gippius, “Do i posle Nachal’nogo svoda: ranniaia letopisnaia istoriia Rusi kak ob”ekt tekstologicheskoi rekonstruktsii,” in Rus’ v IX–X vekakh: Arkheologicheskaia panorama, ed. Nikolai A. Makarov (Moscow – Vologda: Drevnosti Severa, 2012), 45–6. 35 Two main manuscripts of N1Y, Com. and Acad. (Figures 13–14), date from the mid-15th century. The other closest text, Syn., has no early section: it starts abruptly in the annal for 1016, and its annals for the 11th century are extremely brief (see subchapters 1.2, 3.3). 36 See, for example: Melnikova, The Eastern World, 94. 37 Timberlake, “Redactions,” 198.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

101

Then, N1Y has an introduction different from that of PVL. This introduction is datable to the early 1090s as it has many parallels with PVL’s entries for that time. All of this taken together speaks in favor of the reflection in N1Y of a text earlier than PVL and composed in the early 1090s.38 Shakmatov’s theory of the Initial Compilation has both followers and opponents. Of the former, Oleg Tvorogov,39 Aleksei Gippius,40 and Petr Stefanovich41 presented the most important cases in support of Shakhmatov’s view. Mark Aleshkovskii, basically agreeing with Shakhmatov’s argument, suggested a somewhat simplified theory. He argued that the text which found its way into N1Y is the first variant of PVL, it is the ‘author’s version’ which originated in 1091 in the Kievan Cave Monastery. The ‘classical’ PVL (as represented by the five ‘classical’ witnesses) is, in Aleshkovskii’s terms, the ‘redactor’s text’ of PVL.42 An elegant summary of the case in support of the theory of the Initial (Base) Compilation one can find in a paper by Alan Timberlake. Timberlake dates this editorial event43 to 1090–1 and—a very important point—argues that the same scribe kept annals before and after the editorial event, approximately from 1089 to 1109 or 1112.44 Of Shakhmatov’s opponents I would refer to the works by Vasilii Istrin,45 Donald Ostrowski,46 Tetiana Vilkul,47 and Vadym Aristov48 who consider Shakhmatov’s logic insufficient and prefer to regard N1Y’s text as secondary in comparison to ‘classical’ PVL. Those scholars believe that Shakhmatov’s judgments on what is primary and what is secondary are too arbitrary, and tend to explain the differences between PVL and N1Y in terms of manipulations with PVL by 15th-century Novgorodian scribe(s). This is an interesting 38 Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 1, 24–31; book 2, 380–412, 429–64. 39 Oleg V. Tvorogov, “Povest’ vremennykh let i Nachal’nyi svod: Tekstologicheskii kommentarii,” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom) 30 (1976): 3–26. 40 Aleksei A. Gippius, “Dva nachala Nachal’noi letopisi: K istorii kompozitsii Povesti vremennykh let,” Verenitsa liter: K 60-letiiu V.M. Zhivova, ed. Aleksandr M. Moldovan (Moscow: Iazyki slavianskikh kul’tur, 2006), 59–60; idem, “Do i posle Nachal’nogo svoda,” 46–9. 41 Stefanovich, “‘Skazanie,” 533–61. 42 Aleshkovskii, Povest’ vremennykh let, 22–7, 129–162. 43 This nice English wording belongs to Alan Timberlake (“Redactions,” 196). The Russian term is ‘свод’ (literally: ‘compilation’). In some cases of not so radical revision a previously existing text the word ‘редакция’ (‘redaction’) may be used. 44 Timberlake, “Redactions,” 203–12. 45 Istrin, “Zamechaniia,” 26: 50–78; 27: 214–7. 46 Ostrowski, “The Načal’nyj svod.” 47 Tatiana [Tetiana] L. Vilkul, “Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis’ i Nachal’nyi svod,” Palaeoslavica 11 (2003): 5–35; eadem, Letopis’, 98–231. 48 Vadym Aristov, “Rannje litopysannja pro ulychiv, drevljan y Svenel’da (do dyskusii’ navkolo idej O.O. Shahmatova),” Ukrai’ns’kyj istorychnyj zhurnal 6 (2011): 172–82.

102

chapter 2

example of scholarly polemics which demonstrates how dependent we are on our own common sense, and how different it can be for scholars handling the same material. To my mind, although in many particular cases alternative explanation is indeed possible, Shakhmatov’s argument, taken in its system, remains convincing and elegant. The most substantial are Vilkul’s objections concerning the quotations from Hamartolos, chronographs, and other translated sources in PVL and N1Y. According to Vilkul, N1Y’s account of early history of Rus is so different from that of PVL not because it goes back to an earlier text, but due to the additional usage of chronographic sources by the 15thcentury Novgorodian compiler. Even if so, the rest of Shakhmatov’s argument, not concerned with those chronograpic quotations, still remains. In addition, Ostrowski, following Sergei Bugoslavskii, stresses common readings of N1Y, Hyp., and Khlebn. against Laur., Radz., and MA, which, according to him, prove that those witnesses go back to a common exemplar secondary in comparison to the original of PVL.49 In this matter, as it has been already said in the previous subchapter, Gippius’s argument seems to me more convincing. In summation, the existence of the Initial Compilation is not something proved with mathematical precision. At least there are serious specialists who consider Shakhmatov’s theory convincing, and there are serious specialists who do not. I belong to the first of those parties, and I think that one can indeed treat the early section of N1Y as a reflection of a historiographical text earlier than PVL. However, most of my argument below (concerning the earliest forms of historical writing in Rus) is not dependent on this conclusion: the same deductions can be made from the analysis of ‘classical’ PVL only, without referring to the text extant in the Novgorodian tradition. The last point which must be said here about the Initial Compilation (and, to my mind, an important reason to adopt this theory) concerns a man called Ian Vyshatich (Янь Вышатич). PVL’s annals for the 1090s and the 1100s are full of precise dates, and evidently were composed contemporarily with the events.50 One of those entries, s.a. 1106, contains the following note: In this same year Ian passed away, good old man, having lived for 90 years, at a venerable age, having lived according to God’s law. He was not worse than the first righteous men. This is from him that I heard many stories, which I wrote down into this chronicle, having heard from him. He was a kind, and meek, and humble man, refrained from various things. And his

49 50

Ostrowski, “The Načal’nyj svod,” 292–4. See: Aleshkovskii, “K tipologii,” 139–43.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

103

tomb is in the Cave Monastery, in the narthex, where his body rests, laid in the month of June, on the 24th. В се же лѣто преставися Янь, старець добрыи, живъ лѣт 90, в старости маститѣ, живъ по закону Божью, не хужии бѣ первых праведник, от негоже и азъ многа словеса слышах, еже и вписах в лѣтописаньи семь, от негоже слышах. Бѣ бо мужь благъ и кротокъ и смѣренъ, огрѣбаяся всякоя вещи, егоже и гробъ есть в Печерьском монастыри в притворѣ, идеже лежить тѣло его положено месяца иуня въ 24.51 The easiest way to explain this note is to imagine a person who kept annals year by year and, in 1106, wrote down Ian’s death. He mentioned Ian’s stories as something that he had used earlier, when describing the events of the past— that is, when composing the Initial Compilation (the text which he was updating when Ian died—‘this chronicle’). An alternative possible explanation (the compiler of PVL working in the 1110s reported s.a. 1106 the death of Ian whose stories he had heard even earlier but wrote down only in the 1110s) seems to be strained.52 Indeed, PVL contains some accounts in which Ian is the central figure (s.a. 1071, 1089, 1091), as well as an account of the expedition against Byzantium in 1043 in which the central figure is Vyshata, introduced to the reader as ‘Ian’s father’.53 It has also been argued that Ian told the annalist stories not only about himself and his father, but also about his more distant ancestors, as well as transmitting to the compiler some elements of oral tradition about the distant past of Rus. This idea seems plausible, although, unfortunately, it is possible neither to separate Ian’s stories from the other material in PVL, nor to confirm that such persons as Dobrynia, his son Konstantin, and Ostromir were indeed Ian’s ancestors (it is especially probable that Ostromir was Ian’s grandfather,54 but objections exist).55 Anyway, s.a. 1093 Ian is mentioned among those ‘wise men’ (‘смыслении мужи’) whose reasonable advice was not accepted by Prince Sviatopolk II.56 The latter account has a tendency similar to the 51 PSRL, 1, 281. 52 See references and discussion: Aleshkovskii, “K tipologii,” 142–3; Timberlake, “Redactions,” 207–8; Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “Ian’ Vyshatich i ustnye istochniki drevnerusskoi Nachal’noi letopisi,” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2011 (2013): 65–9. 53 PSRL, 1, 154. 54 PVL mentions, in different annals, Vyshata, father of Ian (s.a. 1043), and Vyshata, son of Ostromir (s.a. 1064) (PSRL, 1, 154; 2, 142, 152). 55 See the discussion: Gimon, “Ian’ Vyshatich,” 69–84. 56 PSRL, 1, 219.

104

chapter 2

so-called Introduction of the Initial Compilation. This not only confirms that the author of the Initial Compilation knew Ian Vyshatich well, but also points at 1093 as the year of that text’s creation.57 It is quite obvious that the Initial Compilation was not the earliest historical text produced in Rus, as its author used earlier materials. Unfortunately, however, we have almost no texts to compare with PVL–N1Y, and thus the main method of letopisi studies does not work here. Thus, the reconstruction of any stages of historical writing earlier than the 1090s must be based mostly on the inner analysis of the texts of PVL and N1Y, although the comparison with such texts as the hagiographical works on St. Boris and Gleb and Memorial and Encomium to Prince Vladimir by Iakov the Monk plays a certain role.58 So, all reconstructions of Rus historical writing before the 1090s are highly hypothetical—from those suggested by Shakhmatov, up to those presented recently (including, of course, mine). However, this topic is extremely important for our understanding of the emergence of historical writing in Rus, and for our assessment of the quality of PVL and N1Y as historical sources. Due to this, attempts at understanding those early stages of historical writing do continue. In the following three subchapters I will try to develop more or less solid points in this discussion and, based upon them, outline my own vision of the beginnings of historical writing in Rus. In the remaining part of this subchapter I will give a short overview of the discussion. Shakhmatov’s vision was as follows: the first extended text, the ‘Oldest Compilation,’ was composed in Kiev in 1039, after the building of the stone cathedral of St. Sophia. In Novgorod, however, a short chronicle (letopis’, летопись, as opposed to large-scale ‘compilation’, летописный свод) already existed: it was first written in 1016, and then continued in 1036. C. 1050 the Kievan and Novgorodian material was united into the ‘First Novgorodian Compilation’. All those texts had not yet acquired an annalistic structure, and contained only a few absolute dates. More annalistic was the ‘Compilation of Monk Nikon’, or the ‘First Compilation of the Kievan Cave Monastery’, of 1073, based on the ‘Oldest Compilation’ but not on the ‘First Novgorodian’ one. The next stage of this development was the Initial Compilation (the ‘Second Compilation of the Cave Monastery’) of the 1090s, which was based on Nikon’s and the ‘First Novgorodian’ compilations.59 This view, however sophisticated 57 58

See: Gippius, “Dva nachala,” 77, note 19; Gimon, “Ian’ Vyshatich,” 107–8. See on the latter subchapter 2.4. According to Gippius the NS-chronicles reflect the historical narration of c. 1060, but, to my mind, their source was the Initial Compilation (see subchapter 3.3). I will also tentatively argue that Syn. in a section for the 1010s–40s goes back directly to the Kievan 11th-century brief annals. 59 Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, part 1. See also: Priselkov, Istoriia, 48–84.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

105

it is, is the most well-known theory of early Rus historiography, which one can find in many generalizing works and manuals. Some scholars (Mikhail Priselkov, Dmitrii Likhachev, Arsenii Nasonov, Lev Cherepnin) made minor corrections to this scheme;60 others suggested alternative theories of pre-1090s Rus historical writing. For example, according to Mark Aleshkovskii, there was no historiography in Rus before the 1060s. In the 1060s annals started to be kept in the circle of Vsevolod, son of Iaroslav, and in the 1060s or 1070s a coherent narration of Rus history was composed in the circle of Iziaslav, another, and elder, son of Iaroslav. Those two genres were united in 1091 in the Kievan Cave Monastery, when the first version of PVL (in our terms, rather, the Initial Compilation) was created.61 New visions of the earliest history of Rus historiography were presented by Apollon Kuzmin,62 Sergei Tsyb,63 Aleksei Gippius,64 Constantine Zuckerman,65 Savva Mikheev,66 not to mention some other, more particular, suggestions.67 The best way to speak of this discussion would be not to present each theory in its entirety, but to discuss several key issues, trying to define in each case what can be said more or less for sure, and what, on the contrary, remains within the sphere of arbitrary assumptions.68 A key element, present in most of the theories, starting from Shakhmatov’s one, is the ‘Compilation of Monk Nikon’ of the 1070s. Such an editorial episode is acknowledged by many scholars.69 Shakhmatov’s case for Monk Nikon of the Kievan Cave Monastery to be the author of PVL’s account of the events of the 1060s and the 1070s remains convincing (Shakhmatov showed the

60 Priselkov, Istoriia, 48–84; Nasonov, Istoriia, 11–78; Lev V. Cherepnin, “ ‘Povest’ vremennykh let’, ee redaktsii i predshestvuiushchie ei letopisnye svody,” Istoricheskie zapiski 25 (1948): 293–333; etc. 61 Aleshkovskii, “K tipologii,” 139–62; idem. Povest’ vremennykh let. 62 Apollon G. Kuz’min, Nachal’nye etapy drevnerusskogo letopisaniia (Moscow: Izd-vo Moskovskogo un-ta, 1977). 63 Sergei V. Tsyb, Drevnerusskoe vremiaischislenie v “Povesti vremennykh let”, 2nd ed. (SaintPetersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2011) [first published in 1995]. 64 Gippius, “Do i posle Nachal’nogo svoda”, as well as some other papers. 65 Konstantin Tsukerman [Zuckerman], “Nabliudeniia nad slozheniem drevneishikh istochnikov letopisi,” In Boriso-glebskii sbornik, ed. Konstantin Tsukerman, vol. 1 (Paris: Association Des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2009), 183–305. 66 Mikheev, Kto pisal “Povest’ vremennykh let”? 67 As an introduction to those problems see: Gippius, “Do i posle Nachal’nogo svoda”. 68 The issue of earliest Novgorodian texts will be discussed in subchapter 3.3. 69 See, e.g.: Gippius, “Dva nachala,” 74–7 ff.; Mikheev, Kto pisal “Povest’ vremennykh let”?, 123–9.

106

chapter 2

correlation between the movements of Nikon himself and the focus of the annals).70 Nikon (or, maybe, another monk of his circle) is a good candidate for the founder of the very genre of letopisi (extended annalistic chronicles), the one who introduced the annalistic framework into previous non-annalistic historical narration71 (an alternative hypothesis is that the annalistic framework was introduced only in the 1090s, in the Initial Compilation).72 In any case, there can be little doubt that in the second half of the 11th century the annals were kept in the Cave Monastery,73 although we do not know exactly how regularly the records were made, how many times and by whom the text was revised. To the contrary, the ‘Novgorodian Compilation’ of the middle of the 11th century (as well as any earlier Novgorodian ‘chronicles’) is probably a fiction. This question, as well as the problem of the earliest historical records in Novgorod, will be discussed in detail in subchapter 3.3. Let us now turn to the problem of the beginnings of historical writing in Rus. Three main possibilities are discussed. Firstly, most of scholars agree that there was an early non-annalistic, coherent narration of the history of Rus (let us call it the Oldest Tale) which later was redesigned into the annalistic account as we know it in PVL or N1Y. Various hypotheses have been put forth concerning its date and content (what was the main topic of that text? where it ended? which of PVL’s accounts go back to that text and which ones do not?). Secondly, some scholars (especially in recent years) suppose that there were two beginnings of historical writing in Rus: not only the coherent Oldest Tale, but also early brief annals. Some think, to the contrary, that there was no Oldest Tale, and the brief annals were the sole originators of Rus historiography. Thirdly, an important question, touched by most of the students of the early Rus historical writing, is that of the origin of the historical notes included into Iakov the Monk’s Memorial and Encomium to Prince Vladimir. Those notes describe St. Vladimir’s reign and differ in some important respects from the relevant account of PVL. Some scholars (including Shakhmatov) believed that those notes go back to the Oldest Tale; others postulated some specific piece of historiography dedicated to Vladimir only. So, we have at least three candidates 70 Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, part 1, 285–6. See also: Priselkov, Istoriia, 59–60; Mikheev, Kto pisal “Povest’ vremennykh let”?, 128. See, however: Alan Timberlake, “Intervals of The Kiev Chronicle (1050–1110),” Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 64 (2005): 68–9. 71 Likhachev, Russkie letopisi, 85–6; Mikheev, Kto pisal “Povest’ vremennykh let”?, 98–101; Nazarenko, “Dostovernye godovye daty,” 628. 72 Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 1, 83–4; Gippius, “Dva nachala,” 73–4. 73 E.g.: Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 1, 284–307. On the annals of the Cave Monastery of that time see also below, subchapters 4.2 and 4.9.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

107

that could be called the earliest piece of Rus historical writing: the Oldest Tale (an extended non-annalistic narration), the brief annals, and some text dedicated to Vladimir. Those three possibilities will be discussed in the next three subchapters. Here I must mention some other, less promising ideas concerning the issue of the beginnings of Rus historical writing. Vasilii Istrin suggested a theory that, first of all, the Byzantine chronicles of George Hamartolos and George Syncellus were translated from Greek in Rus. Then a chronograph, that is, an abbreviated compilation based on those two chronicles, was created. Then notes on Rus history started to be included into the chronograph, and then—after the death of Iaroslav the Wise (1054)—the Rus material was separated from that on the world history, and so the first version of PVL appeared.74 As Istrin summarized, ‘original translations led to original compilations, and the latter led to the composition of the national history’ as opposed to the ‘possibly arrogant view of the Greek teachers’.75 This idea has been modified by Olexiy Tolochko, who finds a potentially possible analogy to the beginnings of Rus historical writing in Bulgaria. In the extant manuscripts of the 12th-century Bulgarian translation of Byzantine Chronicle of Constantine Manasses there are ‘numerous glosses on local Bulgarian history’, and in the most luxurious Vatican codex they are ‘inserted into the main body of the text but visibly highlighted with red ink’.76 Such a scenario of the beginning of Rus historiography is an attractive one. Besides the Bulgarian example one can point, for instance, at Venerable Bede’s Greater Chronicle (written in 725), which is a chronological summary of the world history that contains some 32 notes on local British events.77 For Bede himself this was an earlier stage of historiographical work than his Ecclesiastical History of the English People (finished in 731) dedicated entirely to the history of England, but also trying to correlate the local and the general histories (exactly as PVL does in its section for the 9th–10th centuries).78 However, Istrin’s and Tolochko’s ideas remain rather speculative: there are no extant texts which can prove such a scenario in the case of 11th-century Rus. The extant letopisi do not contain

74 Istrin, “Zamechaniia,” 26: 81, 84–8, 98–102. 75 Ibid., 91. 76 Oleksiy P. Tolochko, “Christian Chronology, Universal History, and the Origin of Chronicle Writing in Rus’,” in Historical narratives and Christian identity on a European periphery: Early history writing in Northern, East-Central, and Eastern Europe (c. 1070–1200), ed. Ildar H. Garipzanov (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), 222. 77 Nicholas J. Higham, (Re-)Reading Bede: The Ecclesiastical History in Context (London – New York: Routledge, 2006), 115–21. See also subchapter 1.6. 78 On Bede’s Ecclesiastical History see also subchapters 1.6, 2.6, and 2.7.

108

chapter 2

traces of being previously additions to a world chronicle, and the earliest chronographs with notes on Rus history date from a relatively late time.79 Aleksei Shakhmatov believed that, although the non-annalistic ‘Oldest Compilation’ of 1039 was the earliest narration of Rus history in general, its author used written accounts of some events: short narrations of Princess Olga, the Varangian Martyrs,80 Vladimir, Boris and Gleb.81 Contantine Zuckerman ironically called Shakhmatov’s view, ‘the primordial chaos of early sources’ above which the ‘Oldest Compilation’ rises.82 All those hypothetical early narrations belong to the domain of hagiography. The interrelation between hagiography and letopisi in this early period presents a serious scholarly problem until now. Olexiy Tolochko, for example, finds it very probable that hagiographical accounts of early events such as the martyrdom of Boris and Gleb appeared earlier than the first letopisi.83 Tolochko quotes Lars Boje Mortensen saying that in Hungary, Denmark, and Norway lives of local royal saints (Stephen I, Canute IV, and Olav II respectively) were the first form of historiography, which was followed, after some time, by more extended historical narratives.84 Those three parallel cases make this idea plausible. However, Savva Mikheev, summing up some recent studies of particular texts, concludes that in most of the cases (except Iakov the Monk’s Memorial and Encomium85), the early pieces of hagiography are secondary in comparison to letopisi.86 According to Nadezhda Miliutenko, in St. Vladimir’s lifetime his biography, or encomium, appeared. It was used both by the compiler of the ‘Oldest Compilation’ of the 1030s (Miliutenko shares Shakhmatov’s view) and by Iakov the Monk. Inter alia, the scholar refers to Aleksandr Nazarenko’s observation that there are parallels between Rus and foreign sources in the biography of Vladimir that should be explained as the result of the usage of the 79 See subchapter 1.3. 80 The story of two baptized Varangians, father and son, who were killed by the pagan Kievans (PVL s.a. 983). 81 Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, part 1, 314–9. See similar hypotheses in later studies, e.g.: Nasonov, Istoriia, 22–7, 34, 46–7 (on the earliest Vyshgorod records on St. Boris and Gleb, and their miracles). See also Anatolii Turilov’s articles in: DRSM, 138–9, 576, 741. 82 Tsukerman, “Nabliudeniia,” 190. 83 Tolochko, “Christian Chronology,” 223–4. 84 Lars B. Mortensen, “Sanctified Beginnings and Mythopoietic Moments. The First Wave of Writing on the Past in Norway, Denmark, and Hungary, c. 1000–1230,” in The Making of Christian Myths in the Periphery of Latin Christendom (c. 1000–1300), ed. by Lars B. Mortensen (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2006), 257–8 et al.; Tolochko, “Christian Chronology,” 223. 85 See subchapter 2.5. 86 Mikheev, Kto pisal “Povest’ vremennykh let”?, 161.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

109

same hagiographic tradition, which in the first half of the 11th century was still transmitted in oral form.87 In a later work Nazarenko supposed that a quasihagiographic written account of Vladimir’s baptism and his Christian reign existed as early as in 1015–7, when it was reflected by the Chronicle of Thietmar of Merseburg. This account could be, according to Nazarenko, the earliest form of historical writing in Rus.88 In his most recent work, however, Nazarenko inclines to the theory of the Oldest Tale which he, following Aleksei Gippius, dates to the very end of the 10th century.89 Alan Timberlake suspects that an early account of Vladimir’s choice of the faith (now in PVL s.a. 986–7) could be written c. 1000 in Bulgaria and used by the earliest Rus historiographers.90 All the hypotheses mentioned date the earliest texts to the 11th or, the earliest, to the very end of the 10th century—that is, to the time after the conversion of Rus (988 according to PVL). However, some scholars advocated the idea that early annalistic records had been made as early as in the 10th or even the 9th century. Such an idea was expressed by many 19th-century scholars,91 but became less popular after Shakhmatov’s works. However, some scholars insist that there were contemporary annalistic records in the 10th or even the 9th century. The latter is mostly based on the evidence of the Nikonian Chronicle of the 1520s. This late Moscow compilation contains a lot of notes absent from earlier witnesses, and some of them cover 9th-century events. The authenticity of those notes, however, is hardly probable. For some of them a source has been found, others can be explained in terms of fabrication.92 Most scholars reasonably consider that there were no historical records in Rus before the late 10th century. The earliest date of PVL, not taken by the annalist from Byzantine sources but, nevertheless, confirmed by independent (again Byzantine) evidence, is the year of the death of Princess Olga: 969.93 Whatever the origin of

87 Nazarenko, Drevniaia Rus’, 435–50. 88 Aleksandr V. Nazarenko, “Kreshchenie sv. Vladimira v ustnoi i pis’mennoi traditsii drevneishei pory (XI v.),” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 12 (2000): 42–8. 89 See below, note 135. 90 Alan Timberlake, “Point of View and Conversion Narrative: Vita Constantini and Povest’ vremennykh let,” in Miscellanea Slavica: Sb. st. k 70-letiiu Borisa A. Uspenskogo (Moscow: Indrik, 2008), 269–270. 91 See references: Gimon, “K probleme,” 759–60. 92 See references to both points of view: ibid., 776. 93 Aleksandr V. Nazarenko, “Dostovernye godovye daty v rannem letopisanii i ikh znachenie dlia izucheniia drevnerusskoi istoriografii,” Drevnejshie gosudarstva Vostochnoj Evropy 2013 (2016), 615–6.

110

chapter 2

this date may be,94 PVL’s dates of other events of the 960–70s (not to say of earlier ones) appear not to be strict.95 This implies that the first narrative of 10th-century events was created at a chronological distance and was based on oral tradition, although reliable in many respects, as the comparison with the Byzantine sources shows.96 Finally, some scholars are skeptical about the very possibility of reconstructing any texts-predecessors of PVL. Recent works by Tetiana Vilkul, Olexiy Tolochko, and Vadym Aristov represent this direction in PVL studies. Vilkul, as it has already been said, argues against the theory of the Initial Compilation and insists that all quotations from Byzantine sources found in PVL must be attributed to one person, the author of PVL. The scholar suggests that PVL should be seen as the Primary Chronicle in a strict sense, i.e. as the first attempt at historiography in Rus, although she does not exclude that there could exist some earlier historical records.97 Tolochko and Aristov criticize the very possibility of the stratification of PVL’s text. The scholars suggest that it should be regarded as a piece of historiography created by one person in the 1110s, although they admit the existence of early annalistic records (kept in the 11th and the early 12th centuries) and a possibility that PVL could be composed during a long period of time.98 I do not think this view is convincing. Tolochko and Aristov, expressing a general skepticism about the approach of Shakhmatov and his followers, do not discuss in detail the case for the stratification of PVL. However, the case exists. Besides the comparison of ‘classical’ PVL with N1Y (here the skeptics refer to Vilkul’s argument), the case includes: the traces 94

95 96 97 98

It is present in PP, and so can go back to its early common source with PVL (see subchapter 2.5). However, the date comes not from the last part of PP (with historical notes on Vladimir) but from its purely hagiographical part dedicated to Olga. Whatever way this date came to be included into PVL, it is possible that it was for the first time written in the late 10th century or later, as it could be deduced from traditional knowledge on the durations of the reigns. On the other hand, PP tells us not only the year, but also the month and the day of Olga’s death, and this hints at a necrology (Nazarenko, Drevniaia Rus’, 378–9), but the latter is not likely to indicate years. As Olga was Christian, there were literate people in her circle, and so a contemporary record of her death in a, say, liturgical book also is not impossible. Sergei V. Bakhrushin, “[K voprosu o dostovernosti Nachal’nogo svoda],” in idem, Trudy po istochnikovedeniiu, istoriografii i istorii Rossii epokhi feodalizma (Nauchnoe nasledie), ed. B.V. Levshin (Moscow: Nauka, 1987), 16–8; Nazarenko, “Dostovernye godovye daty,” 615–6. See, for example: Petr O. Karyshkovskii, “O khronologii russko-vizantiiskoi voiny pri Sviatoslave,” Vizantiiskii vremennik 5 (1952): 127–38. Vіlkul, Letopis’, 7. Tolochko, “Perechityvaya pripisku”; idem, “Christian Chronology,” 205; idem, Ocherki nachal’noi Rusi (Kiev – Saint-Petersburg: Laurus, 2015), 20–43; Aristov, “Svod,” 105–11, 114–7.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

111

of secondary introduction of annalistic framework into a previously coherent narration (see the next subchapter), the wordings like ‘up to this day’ (‘до сего дня’) which point at the 1060s–70s as to the time of writing, not to the 1110s,99 the linguistic heterogeneity of PVL,100 and many other observations. Thus the idea that PVL is one author’s text, although plausible in a comparative perspective,101 contradicts the results of the analysis of PVL itself. 2.3

The Problem of the Oldest Tale (the Non-Annalistic ‘Nucleus’)

It has long been recognized that much of the text of PVL originally had been a coherent narration without annalistic structure. In a number of cases it is quite obvious that an annal-number (‘In the year …’, ‘Въ лѣто…’), or even a set of annals (barren or not), interrupts an otherwise coherent text.102 Just a couple of examples:103 6463 [955] ⟨…⟩ Having said that, she [Princess Olga] prayed for her son [Sviatoslav] all nights and all days, and fed her son until he grew into manhood. In the year 6464. In the year 6465. In the year 6466. In the year 6467. In the year 6468. In the year 6469. 99 See: Mikhail K. Karger, “K kharakteristike drevnerusskogo letopistsa,” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom) 11 (1955): 59–71; Andrei V. Kuz’min, “Boiarskii dvor kak istoriko-topograficheskii kommentarii letopistsa XI veka,” Germenevtika drevnerusskoi literatury 10 (2000): 44–51. 100 Aleksei A. Gippius, “Rekosha drouzhina Igorevi … : K lingvotekstologicheskoi stratifikatsii Nachal’noi letopisi,” Russian Linguistics 25 (2001): 147–81; idem, “Rekosha drouzhina Igorevi … –3: Otvet O.B. Strakhovoi (Eshche raz o lingvisticheskoi stratifikatsii Nachal’noi letopisi),” Palaeoslavica 17, no. 2 (2009): 248–87. 101 See below, subchapter 2.6. 102 See: Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 1, 83–4; Bakhrushin, “[K voprosu],” 24–5; Aleshkovskii, Povest’ vremennykh let, 138–50; Sergei V. Tsyb, Khronologiia domongol’skoi Rusi, part 1: Kievskii period (Barnaul: Izd-vo Altaiskogo un-ta, 2003), 67, 70–71; Gippius, “Rekosha drouzhina,” 163; idem, “Dva nachala,” 73–4; idem, “Do i posle Nachal’nogo svoda,” 50 ff.; Tsukerman, “Nabliudeniia,” 189–99; Dmitrii A. Dobrovol’skii, Etnicheskoe samosoznanie drevnerusskikh letopistsev XI–nachala XII v.: Cand. diss. [unpiblished] (Moscow: Ros. gos. gumanit. un-t, 2009), 104–5. 103 In those cases I quote Laur., but N1Y’s text is identical.

112

chapter 2

In the year 6470. In the year 6471. In the year 6472 [964]. Prince Sviatoslav having grown up and matured, he started to gather numerous and brave warriors ⟨…⟩104 In the year 6483 [975]. Sveneld’s105 son Lut hunting, he went out from Kiev, chased animals in a forest, and Oleg106 saw him, and said: ‘Who is this?’ And he was said: ‘Sveneld’s son’. And, having ridden, he killed him, as Oleg was hunting. And a hatred started between them about that, Iaropolk107 [started to hate] Oleg. And Sveneld was always saying to Iaropolk: ‘Go against your brother and take his land’, as he wanted to take revenge for his son. In the year 6484. In the year 6485 [977]. Iaropolk went against his brother to the Land of Drevliane ⟨…⟩108 The most famous and the most convincing example is better to be quoted from N1Y, for in PVL it is complicated by additional insertions and rearrangements. N1Y represents an earlier stage of the text—however not the earliest one. Here the annal for 945 is an obvious continuation of the annal for 922, although the text as we have it places 22 years between them:109 6430 [922] ⟨…⟩ And [Igor] granted the tribute from the Drevliane to Sveneld,110 and they were taking a black kuna from a smoke.111 And the retinue said to Igor: ‘You have given too much to one man’. We will say later what happened in those years. In the year 6431. In the year 6432. In the year 6433. ⟨…⟩112 104 PSRL, 1, 64; 3, 116–7. 105 Sveneld is mentioned several times in the Primary Chronicle as the voevoda (military commander) of Igor, Sviatoslav, and, finally, Iaropolk. 106 Prince of Drevliane’s land, son of Sviatoslav. 107 Prince of Kiev, son of Sviatoslav, the elder brother of Oleg. 108 PSRL, 1, 74; 3, 124. 109 Vadym Aristov’s (“Rannje litopysannja,” 172–82) made an attempt at showing that N1Y’s text is secondary in comparison to PVL. 110 See above note 105. 111 ‘по чернѣ кунѣ от дыма’, a formula of archaic taxation. 112 All annals are barren.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

113

In the year 6448 [940]. In this year the Ulichi113 gave tribute to Igor, and Peresechen was seized. In this same year he gave their tribute to Sveneld. In the year 6449. In the year 6450 [942]. [Igor] gave the Drevliane’s tribute to the same Sveneld. In the year 6451. In the year 6452. In the year 6453 [945]. In that year the retinue said to Igor: ‘Sveneld’s men114 have gotten rich with arms and clothes, and we are naked. And go, o prince, with us for a tribute, you will get [the tribute], and we will’. ⟨…⟩115 In those examples, as well as in a number of others, the text after the set of (mostly barren) annals is an obvious continuation of what was said before. Sergei Soloviev had already noticed these traces of the original nonannalistic narration in the middle of the 19th century.116 Most of scholars, who suggested their versions of the early history of Rus letopisi writing, had some ideas about the earliest non-annalistic narration. Various scholars have referred to this earliest narration differently. For example, some call it ‘the nucleus’ (ядро), ‘the narrative nucleus’ (нарративное ядро), or ‘the oldest nucleus’ (древнейшее ядро).117 Constantine Zuckerman speaks of ‘the Tale’ (Сказание),118 and Savva Mikheev calls it ‘the Old Tale’ (‘Древнее сказание’).119 I will call it the Oldest Tale because such a designation, on the one hand, refers to Shakmatov’s ‘Oldest Compilation’ (Shakhmatov’s hypothesis is here one of the earliest and the most well-known) and, on the other hand, outlines the non-annalistic character of that text (a ‘tale’ as opposed to annals, chronicle, or letopis’). Aleksei Shakmatov dated his ‘Oldest Compilation’ to the late 1030s. According to Shakhmatov, this text included some year-dates of late 10thand early 11th-century events, but had no annalistic framework. The ‘Oldest Compilation’ was based on oral tradition, a Bulgarian chronicle, and some 113 One of so-called East Slavonic ‘tribes’ which, according to PVL, used to inhabit Eastern Europe and were one by one subdued by Kievan princes. 114 ‘отрочи’, that is, young men, of course, members of Sveneld’s retinue. 115 PSRL, 3, 109–10. 116 Sergei M. Soloviev, Sochineniia, in 18 books, book 2 (Moscow: Nauka, 1988), 102. 117 Gippius, “Do i posle Nachalnogo svoda,” 51 ff.; Nazarenko, “Dostovernye godovye daty,” 595 ff. 118 Tsukerman, “Nabliudeniia,” 189. 119 Mikheev, Kto pisal “Povest’ vremennykh let”?, 120–3 et al.

114

chapter 2

short written hagiographical accounts (e.g. of Princess Olga, of the Varangian Martyrs, etc.). The ‘First Novgorodian compilation’ of c. 1050 was, according to Shakhmatov, based on the Kievan ‘Oldest Compilation’, and was also still non-annalistic.120 Dmitrii Likhachev argued that the earliest non-annalistic text was dedicated only to the spread of Christianity in Rus and comprised narrations on the baptism of Olga, the Varangian Martyrs, Vladimir’s conversion, the martyrdom of Boris and Gleb, and the pious deeds of Iaroslav the Wise. All other information on the early history of Rus and the deeds of pagan princes, based on oral tradition, was added at the next stage of the development of the text.121 Several scholars, on the contrary, supposed that there existed an early narration of the deeds of early princes (mostly pagan ones), which was later supplemented with more ecclesiastical elements. Such were theories of Nikolai Nikolskii (the ‘Tale of the Poliane-Rus’ covering events up to at least Vladimir’s time),122 Lev Cherepnin (the compilation of c. 996, created after the consecration of Desiatinnaia123 Church and maybe based upon an earlier ‘Tale of the Poliane-Rus’),124 Sergei Bakhrushin (the ‘Tale of the first princes of Rus’ written in Iaroslav the Wise’s time),125 Mikhail Tikhomirov (the ‘Tale of the first princes of Rus’ of the late 10th century).126 A much later date for the oldest non-annalistic narration was suggested by Mark Aleshkovskii: he dated the ‘Initial Chronicle’ (‘Начальная летопись’), as he called it, to the 1070s and attributed to the circle of Iziaslav, son of Iaroslav the Wise and Prince of Kiev at the time. Aleshkovskii tried to show that traces of a previously non-annalistic text could be followed in PVL up to c. 1060.127 120 Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 1, 309–12. At p. 359–430 see Shakhmatov’s hypothetical reconstruction of the text of the ‘Oldest Compilation’. 121 Likhachev, Russkie letopisi, 62–76, 84–5. A criticism of this theory see: Dmitrii A. Balovnev, “Skazanie ‘O pervonachal’nom rasprostranenii khristianstva na Rusi’. Opyt kriticheskogo analiza,” Tserkov’ v istorii Rossii 4 (2000): 5–46. 122 Nikolai K. Nikol’skii, Povest’ vremennykh let, kak istochnik dlia istorii nachal’nogo perioda russkoi pis’mennosti i kul’tury. K voprosu o drevneishem russkom letopisanii, vol. 1 (Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1930, 31–44). See criticism in: Nasonov, Istoriia, 16–8. 123 This nickname of the church is translated as ‘of the tithe’, that is, receiving the tenth part of the prince’s income. In English it is often called ‘the Church of the Tithes’. However, the usage of the Old Rus word and not the translation seems less confusing. 124 Lev V. Cherepnin, “’Povest’,” 331–3. 125 Bakhrushin, “[K voprosu],” 23–9. 126 Mikhail N. Tikhomirov, “Nachalo russkoi istoriografii,” in idem, Russkoe letopisanie (Moscow: Nauka, 1979), 46–66 [first published in 1960]. The idea of a ‘Tale of Rus princes’ has been supported by Sergei Tsyb (Drevnerusskoe vremiaischislenie, 42, 60; Khronologiia, 67–70 ff.). 127 Aleshkovskii, Povest’ vremennykh let, 138–50.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

115

Aleksei Gippius suggested linguistic criteria for reconstructing the earliest non-annalistic piece of historiography. The most important of his observations concerns the distribution of forms of the verb ‘речи’ (‘to say’). In earlier periods there were two alternative stems of conjugation of this verb in aorist: the archaic one (the most frequent representative is 3rd pl. ‘рѣша’), and the new, regular ones (3rd pl. ‘рекоша’). They are distributed unevenly in PVL. The archaic forms prevail in the text up to the late 10th century, although one can meet them later as well. Some other features of language and style demonstrate the same pattern. Gippius deduced that the oldest ‘nucleus’ of PVL should have finished with the description of the late 10th-century events, namely of the conversion.128 After criticism by Olga Strakhova,129 Gippius modified and empowered his argument, but the main conclusion remained intact: one can identify in PVL the fragments of the earliest ‘nucleus’ that covered the events of the 9th and the 10th centuries.130 Although it is impossible to date this ‘nucleus’ on linguistic grounds, Gippius prefers an early date: c. 1000, in Vladimir’s lifetime. To answer a possible critique, Gippius says that the creation of such a work must not be regarded as a large-scale literary enterprise. The hypothetical ‘nucleus’ was no more than several parchment quires, and, for such a text to appear, it was enough to realize that writing could be used not only for the needs of the church—and we have signals that it was realized in Vladimir’s time (at least we know of inscriptions on coins).131 Gippius defines this hypothetical text as a written summary of oral tradition. The only available models for such a presentation were, according to Gippius, the historical books of the Old Testament.132 Later Gippius suggested one more modification to his theory: he supposed that c. 1060 the Oldest Tale was altered and continued, but still did not become annalistic.133 Two scholars, Constantine Zuckerman and Savva Mikheev, having agreed in general with the conclusions of Gippius, suggested a later date for the Oldest Tale: 1016–7, the time of Iaroslav the Wise’s struggle for power after Vladimir’s 128 Gippius, “Rekosha drouzhina Igorevi  …,” 147–81. The idea that the text ended with the description of the conversion see Ibid., p. 164. See also: Gippius, “Do i posle Nachal’nogo svoda,” 57, 61. 129 Ol’ga B. Strakhova, “Rekosha drouzhina Igorevi … K stat’e A.A. Gippiusa o lingvotekstologicheskoi stratifikatsii Nachal’noi letopisi,” Palaeoslavica 16, no. 2 (2008): 217–58. 130 Gippius, “Rekosha drouzhina Igorevi … –3.” 131 Ibid., 263, note 16. 132 Ibid., 272. 133 Gippius, “Do i posle Nachal’nogo svoda,” 60–1; idem, “K rekonstruktsii drevneishikh etapov istorii russkogo letopisaniia,” Drevniaia Rus’ i srednevekovaia Evropa: vozniknovenie gosudarstv: Mat-ly konf., ed. Elena A. Mel’nikova (Moscow: IVI RAN, 2012), 41–50.

116

chapter 2

death in 1015.134 On the other hand, Aleksandr Nazarenko believes that the Oldest Tale ended with what is now the annal for 996 (the consecration of the Desiatinnaia Church, the grant of the tithe to it, and general assessment of Vladimir as a ruler). According to Nazarenko, this text was continued later with the ‘Tale of Iaroslav’, also non-annalistic and covering the events of the first half of the 11th century.135 Mikheev in a more recent work gave up the dating of the Oldest Tale to 1016–7 in favor of the mid-11th century (namely, after 1043), partly following the observations of Nazarenko.136 Thus, a variety of dates and reconstructions have been suggested for the Oldest Tale: from the 990s to the 1070s, and from a narration of ecclesiastical history to an account of the deeds of the earliest princes. Some recent hypotheses (those by Gippius and Nazarenko) suggest that the Oldet Tale had a continuation that was also non-annalistic. It is more or less clear that the extreme points of view on the content of the Oldest Tale are not plausible. It was neither a fully ecclesiastical text, nor a dynastic narration without any ecclesiastical elements. Certainly, it reported the deeds of pagan princes as well as the conversion of Olga and Vladimir. The question of dating and of the chronological coverage of the Oldest Tale is the most difficult. This is a question that is far from being safely answered. Perhaps the most popular variant is to date the Oldest Tale to the late 10th century (or, wider, to Vladimir’s lifetime). It was suggested for the first time by Lev Cherepnin, whose hypothesis was primarily based on the fact that the bulk of historical notes in Iakov the Monk’s Memorial and encomium for Prince Vladimir (PP) ends with the grant of the tithe (reported by PVL s.a. 996) and, at the same time, after 996 in PVL there is no detailed information on Vladimir until the annals for 1014–5.137 This coincidence makes an impression that there was a common source of PVL and PP that covered events up to 996.138 Such a source certainly existed. But I will show below139 that it was not necessarily the Oldest Tale. A simpler hypothesis would be that it was a brief overview of Vladimir’s deeds.

134 Tsukerman, “Nabliudeniia,” 199–229; Mikheev, Kto pisal “Povest’ vremennykh let”?, 120–2. 135 Nazarenko, “Dostovernye godovye daty,” 631–2, 638–45. 136 Savva M. Mikheev, “K probleme datirovki perekhoda russkogo nachal’nogo letopisaniia ot khronistiki k annalistike,” Drevniaia Rus’: Voprosy medievistiki 3 (65) (2016): 153–7. 137 The annal for 997 contains an anecdotal account of the ‘kissel (кисель) of Belgorod’ that was inserted by the compiler of PVL itself: it is absent from N1Y. After it and before 1014 there are only very brief notes (see in the next subchapter). 138 Cherepnin, “ ‘Povest’ vremennykh let’,” 332. 139 See subchapter 2.5.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

117

As for the lacuna in PVL after 996, it is a kind of ‘optical illusion’.140 If the text was originally non-annalistic, why should we judge it looking at its present annalistic structure? It is quite obvious that originally the Oldest Tale gave a general assessment of Vladimir’s reign (which is now all s.a. 996), and then reported the end of the reign and the prince’s death (now s.a. 1014–5). Even more: PVL’s account of Iaroslav the Wise’s reign has a somewhat similar structure. The first half of his reign is full of events. S.a. 1037 the construction of several churches is reported (including the main one, St. Sophia of Kiev), and a general assessment of his reign is given.141 The rest of the annals covering Iaroslav’s reign (he died in 1054) are comparatively brief (although not as brief as the annals for later period of Vladimir’s reign). This compositional similarity shows that either the account of Iaroslav’s reign used that of Vladimir’s reign as a prototype, or, rather, that they both were written at one time, according to one plan. The second possibility plays against the dating of the Oldest Tale to Vladimir’s lifetime. A more solid base for this date is the linguistic observations by Aleksei Gippius. However, it is difficult to determine where to draw the exact linguistic boundary. Gippius insists that the account of the building of the Desiatinnaia Church (now s.a. 991 and 996) does not belong to the Oldest Tale. But the archaic forms of the verb ‘речи’ are present later as well, and in the extended annal for 996 they are present exclusively. Wherever to draw the linguistic boundary, there is no guarantee that this boundary reflects the original end of the Oldest Tale. It also is possible that the Oldest Tale was all written later, but by two authors the first of which described the events up to Vladimir’s reign, and the second one dealt with more recent matters. Then, the annal for 996 (which would be the most natural candidate to be the ending the Oldest Tale if it were written in Vladimir’s lifetime) does not seem to be composed by a contemporary. The picture drawn in this annal looks like an image of the ‘golden age’ seen from a much later time. Vladimir fed the poor and the wicked, forged silver spoons for his retinue, was in friendly relations with the neighboring rulers.142 The latter statement is especially significant. It is said that Vladimir kept peace with Bolesław of the Poles, Stephen of the Hungarians, and Oldřich of the Czechs. Oldřich was the duke of Bohemia from 1012. In 1013 a conflict broke out between Rus and Poland. Is this a reason to date the Oldest Tale to 1012–3? Or, as Aleksandr Nazarenko states, Oldřich’s realm could not be called a neighbor of Rus until c. 1022 as from 1002 up to that 140 Tsukerman, “Nabliudeniia,” 197–8. 141 See an analysis of this entry: Lunt, “On Interpreting,” 251–64. 142 See also at the end of subchapter 2.6.

118

chapter 2

time Moravia was occupied by Poland? Nazarenko says that in any case those words should be regarded as later insertion.143 Alternatively, all the annal for 996 could have been written at a chronological remove, when the names of the neighboring rulers of the ‘golden age’ were still remembered but the details of the interrelations were not. Thus, the creation of the Oldest Tale in Vladimir’s lifetime is not impossible, but, in the absence of a decisive case, the skeptical view would be preferable. One can imagine that a coherent historical narration appeared immediately after the introduction of Christianity and Christian writing, but it would be more prudent to suppose that it was written later. In other countries, as a rule, the first coherent historical narrations appeared at a remove at least of several decades (if not a century or more) from the conversion to Christianity.144 It is more difficult to choose between the other suggested dates. Perhaps, I would agree with Aleshkovskii, Nazarenko, and Mikheev that a description of the relations with the Poles in NK1 s.a. 1043 is the last relict of the non-annalistic narration.145 If there are no grounds to date the Oldest Tale to the late 10th century or to the 1010s,146 the simplest solution would be to attribute the account s.a. 1043 to the main body of the Oldest Tale, not to its continuation. Perhaps, a key to the dating of the Oldest Tale has been found by Sergejus Temčinas. As he points out, the title of PVL and the title of Ilarion’s Sermon on Law and Grace147 both quote liturgical readings from Easter service (in the case of Ilarion’s treatise from the Gospel of St. John, 1: 17, and in the case of PVL that from the Acts of the Apostles, 1: 7). The interrelation of those two Biblical books is somewhat comparable to that of Ilarion’s treatise and PVL (the former outlines the general doctrine, and the latter narrates its dissemination and development). This makes Temčinas think that both texts are parts of one program that can be attributed to Ilarion and dated to shortly before Ilarion’s consecration as metropolitan in 1051.148 Of course, in the case of PVL Temčinas speaks not of the extant ‘classical’ PVL of the 1110s, but of its earliest text-predecessor, that is, the Oldest Tale. Aleksei Shchavelev, who dates 143 Nazarenko, “Dostovernye godovye daty,” 631–2, note 141. 144 See subchapter 2.6. 145 See: Mikheev, “K probleme,” 154. Aleshkovskii (Povest’ vremennykh let, 140) found the last such fragment in N1Y s.a. 1060. My own opinion is that this note of N1Y has a Novgorodian, not a Kievan origin, see subchapter 3.3. 146 See criticism of this Zuckerman’s and Mikheev’s dating: Gippius, “Do i posle Nachalnogo svoda,” 56–60; Gimon, “K probleme,” 764–6. 147 Ilarion was the first metropolitan of Kiev of Rus origin. He was consecrated in 1051. See also on Ilarion and his treatise in subchapter 2.3. 148 Temchin, “ ‘Slovo o zakone i blagodati’,” 319–20, 322.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

119

the Oldest Tale to the later years of Iaroslav the Wise’s reign and argues that the origin of the title of PVL goes back to it, is now further developing upon Temčinas’s idea.149 The problem with this theory is the uncertain date of the Sermon on Law and Grace, which has been dated by various scholars to various dates between the 1020s and 1050.150 However, the very connection of the two texts, their complementarity (and thus the connection of the Oldest Tale with Ilarion) is very probable, and the later years of Iaroslav the Wise’s reign seem to be a more plausible time for the writing of the Oldest Tale than any earlier dates. In any case, the questions of the exact date and the ending of the Oldest Tale remain open, but the very existence of such a text at the beginning of the Rus historiography seems quite certain. 2.4

The Traces of Early Annals and the ‘Two Beginnings’ of letopisi Writing

It has been supposed many times that some of PVL’s notes on 11th-century, or even earlier, events could go back to early annalistic records. This idea was especially popular among the scholars of the 19th century.151 In the 20th century, however, it was mostly left aside. In the classical works by Aleksei Shakhmatov, as well in the works of many of his followers and opponents, the writing of letopisi was presented mostly as a set of editorial events152 when previous texts were entirely revised and new ‘compilations’ (‘своды’) were created. Although Shakhamtov was quite aware that the writing of letopisi included not only editorial episodes but also contemporary recording of events,153 the latter was not studied as such during much of the 20th century. Shakhmatov (following 19th-century scholar Arist Kunik) supposed that some obits included into PVL s.a. 1000–93 go back to a ‘princely necrology’ (‘княжеский помянник’), which, in turn, used tombstone inscriptions.154 The idea of a necrology has also been expressed recently by Aleksandr Nazarenko: he argues that some precise (month-and-day) dates of the deaths of the late 149 The work not yet published. I refer to Shchavelev’s paper delivered in a conference on the 27th of February, 2018, see a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RXc6UdAfYA& index=11&list=PLvcdy_6j2FAMNUf_oaqv8iiNyQk_Nzcjt&t=0s (24.06.2018). 150 See note 221 in chapter 1. 151 See references: Gimon, “K probleme,” 759–61. 152 See above, note 43. 153 Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 1, 139, 348–52. 154 Ibid., 123–4; Adrianova-Peretts and Likhachev, eds., Povest’ vremennykh let, 468.

120

chapter 2

10th century can go back to such a text. However, Nazarenko speaks of a ‘church’ necrology which was likely to be comprised of names and, maybe, month-andday dates, but probably not year-dates—unlike Kunik and Shakhmatov who supposed some ‘princely’ necrology with year-dates,155 a kind of text otherwise not attested in early Rus. According to Nadezhda Miliutenko, those obits could go back to a series of graffiti.156 We know of many memorial graffiti in Old Rus churches, but in most cases they indicate the month and the day of the death, but not the year.157 It is more probable that short obits in PVL go back not to a necrology, and not to graffiti, but to a series of annals, as Arsenii Nasonov, Aleksei Gippius, and Sergei Tsyb have argued.158 Mark Aleshkovskii put forth the idea that there are two kinds of layers underlying the extant letopisi (including PVL): those describing the past and those describing the present. The first kind had a tendency to become coherent narratives with a certain central topic (or several such topics), a kind of a plot (Aleshkovskii called this ‘monothematism’, ‘монотематизм’). Events that had no relation to this plot were reported seldomly. Other features of such layers are the lack of precise dates, references to later events, and relative chronology. By contrast, the second type of layers is comprised of annals written more or less contemporaneously with the events described. Such annals are full of precise dates. They are discrete, that is, they consist of entries on various kinds of events (such as changes of bishops or abbots, natural phenomena, building of churches, etc.), which have no obvious connection with each other. These two types of layers are often mixed together in the extant compilations, and it is a scholar’s task to separate them and thus to define, if possible, the nature of any particular fragment of the annals. As for PVL, Aleshkovskii postulated the existence of two layers of the second type. Firstly, precise (monthand-day) dates become frequent from the annals for the 1060s in PVL;159 this reflects the start of keeping annals at that time in the circle of Vsevolod, son of Iaroslav. Secondly, from the early 1090s the indications of the hour at which 155 Nazarenko, Drevniaia Rus’, 378–9. 156 Nadezhda I. Miliutenko, Sviatoi ravnoapostol’nyi kniaz’ Vladimir i kreshchenie Rusi: Drevneishie pis’mennye istochniki (Saint-Petersburg: Izd-vo Olega Abyshko, 2008), 79. 157 Mariia M. Bubnova, “Problema klassifikatsii drevnerusskikh graffiti XI–XIV vv. (na primere nadpisei Kievskogo Sofiiskogo sobora),” Istochnikovedcheskie issledovaniia 5 (2012): 89–90. However, there are graffiti on deaths with year-dates (see subchapter 1.5 for inscriptions on Iaroslav, d. 1054, and Vsevolod, d. 1138). 158 Nasonov, Istoriia, 51–2; Aleksei A. Gippius, “U istokov drevnerusskoi istoricheskoi traditsii,” Slavianskii al’manakh 2002 (2003): 30; Tsyb, Khronologiia, 96. See also below. 159 This has earlier been noted by: Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 1, 291–2; Likhachev, Russkie letopisi, 84–5.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

121

events took place become frequent. This is, according to Aleshkovskii, a feature of more extended annals which started to be kept at that time in the Kievan Cave Monastery. It should be stressed that, in Aleshkovskii’s view, the annals of Vsevolod and the coherent narration (the Oldest Tale) of Iziaslav (both sons of Iaroslav) appeared in the 1060 and the 1070s independently. Those two traditions were united only in the 1090s in the Kievan Cave Monastery.160 This idea of two beginnings of historical writing in Rus seems to be very productive. Aleksei Gippius has drawn attention to the series of very brief notes in PVL’s s.a. 1000–11, which are the only content of those entries: In the year 6506 [998]. In the year 6507. In the year 6508. Malfred161 passed away. In this same year Rogneda, Iaroslav’s mother, passed away. In the year 6509. Iziaslav passed away, father of Briachislav, son of Vladimir. In the year 6510. In the year 6511. Vseslav passed away, son of Iziaslav, grandson of Vladimir. In the year 6512. In the year 6513. In the year 6514. In the year 6515. The saints were brought to [the church of] the Holy Virgin.162 In the year 6516. In the year 6517. In the year 6518. In the year 6519. Anna, Vladimir’s empress,163 passed away.164 In the year 6520. In the year 6521 [1013].165

160 161 162 163 164 165

Aleshkovskii, “K tipologii,” 133–62. A Scandinavian female name. This woman is otherwise unknown. The church is certainly the Desiatinnaia. As for the ‘saints’ the note is unclear. “Цесариця” (female from caesar). On this title in Rus see note 257 in chapter 1. The Byzantine princess, the baptism of Vladimir having been a condition of the marriage. PSRL, 1, 129–30.

122

chapter 2

Gippius argues that this series of notes (mainly obits) is a fragment of early annals that were kept by one of the clerics of the Desiatinnaia Church in the early 11th century.166 Gippius agrees with Aleshkovskii’s general view of the two beginnings of the historical writing in Rus, but dates both beginnings to a much earlier time (according to Gippius, the Oldest Tale could be a late 10th-century text, and the earliest annals date from the early 11th century).167 In a joint paper with Gippius, we argued that the earliest annals could be a continuation of the Oldest Tale, as Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People was later continued with brief annals.168 Even Olexiy Tolochko, who is an opponent of the very possibility of the reconstruction of PVL’s texts-predecessors,169 believes that brief annals were kept in Kiev during the 11th century: otherwise it would not be possible to explain numerous precise dates in PVL, or such notes as those for 1000–11 quoted above.170 However, if indeed the notes s.a. 1000–11 go back to contemporary annals, their present form is not always identical to the original one: the indications that Rodneda was ‘Iaroslav’s mother’ and Iziaslav was ‘father of Briachislav’ certainly should have been added later, when Iaroslav and Bryachislav were already central political figures.171 Aleksandr Nazarenko recently has shown that in several cases the year-dates of events reported by PVL can be checked with the help of foreign sources— and in most of such cases the dates appear to be correct. Here is the list of such verifiable dates for the first half of the 11th century, according to Nazarenko:

166 Gippius, “U istokov,” 30. Compare Zuckerman’s opinion: ‘The compiler, no doubt, found this information as a set [of notes], perhaps in an addition to a liturgical book’ (Tsukerman, “Nabliudeniia,” 197). 167 Gippius, “U istokov,” 25–43; idem, “Do i posle Nachal’nogo svoda,” 49–50. Compare also: Henryk Łowmiański, review of Russkie letopisi i ikh kul’turno-istoricheskoe znachenie, by Dmitrii S. Likhachev (Moscow and Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1947), Przegląd Historyczny 38 (1948): 284. 168 Timofey V. Gimon [Guimon] and Aleksei A. Gippius, “Russkoe letopisanie v svete tipologicheskikh parallelei (k postanovke problemy),” in Zhanry i formy v pis’mennoi kul’ture srednevekov’ia, ed. Iulia Ivanova (Moscow: IMLI RAN, 2005), 184–92. Compare Zuckerman’s and Mikheev’s opinion that the short annal for 1017 is an annalistic addition to the Oldest Tale which those scholars date to 1016–17 (Tsukerman, “Nabliudeniia,” 228–9; Mikheev, Kto pisal “Povest’ vremennykh let”?, 122). On the annal for 1017 see below. 169 Tolochko, “Christian Chronology,” 211–2. 170 Ibid., 207, 214–7, 227. 171 Mikheev (Mikheev, Kto pisal “Povest’ vremennykh let”?, 94, 111, 191, 209–10) classifies those notes as an insert by Monk Nikon (the 1070s) into the text of the Oldest Tale. This conclusion does not contradict the idea of the early annals: Nikon could make use of them when transforming the Oldest Tale into an annalistic chronicle (letopis’).

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

123

1017: the fire in Kiev (confirmed by the Chronicle of Thietmar of Merseburg); 1018: the military expedition of Bolesław I of Poland to Rus, to help Sviatopolk against Iaroslav the Wise (confirmed by the Chronicle of Thietmar of Merseburg); 1020: the birth of Vladimir, Iaroslav’s son (this date is verified in an indirect way: Icelandic sagas confirm 1019 as the date of Iaroslav’s marriage with Swedish princess Ingigerd); 1028: ‘a dragon-like omen’ (‘знаменье змиево’, probably a bolide; confirmed by Byzantine sources); 1030: the seizure of Belz (on the Rus-Polish frontier) by Iaroslav (confirmed by German sources); 1031: the military expedition of Iaroslav and Mstislav to Poland (confirmed by German sources); 1043: the unsuccessful Rus expedition against Byzantium (confirmed by Byzantine sources).172 Nazarenko says that the only way to explain the accuracy of those PVL’s dates is to suppose that annalistic records were made in Kiev during the first half of the 11th century. The scholar points out that the keeping of brief annals (from the 11th century) preceded the appearance of coherent historical narrations (in the early 12th century) in Poland and Bohemia, the closest neighbors of Rus.173 Nazarenko agrees that the brief notes s.a. 1000–11 also go back to those annals, and that they were kept in the Desiatinnaia Church.174 He points at PVL’s note s.a. 1007 (‘The saints were brought to [the church of] the Holy Virgin’) and 1039 (on the re-consecration of the Desiatinnaia Church) as proving this attribution.175 The scholar supports the theory of the two beginnings of historical writing in Rus: he argues (as it was mentioned above) that the Oldest Tale was written in the late 10th century, and was continued with the ‘Tale of Iaroslav’, and, parallel to that, brief annals were kept during the first half of the 11th century. Both texts were probably created and continued by the clerics of the Desiatinnaia Church, but they were originally regarded as belonging to different genres, and it was only in the second half of the 11th century that the

172 173 174 175

Nazarenko, “Dostovernye godovye daty,” 603–14. Ibid., 600–2. Ibid., 602, 641. Ibid., 641.

124

chapter 2

two traditions were united by the monks of the Kievan Cave Monastery who created the genre of annalistic chronicle, known as letopisi.176 Also, there is no doubt that some annalistic notes were made in Novgorod from the middle of the 11th century. Those notes survive in Syn., and the first of them is dedicated to the foundation of St. Sophia Cathedral of Novgorod in 1045.177 It can be supposed that the Novgorodian annalistic notes were a continuation of the Kievan annals, which could be brought to Novgorod in one of the books needed by the newly consecrated church. This hypothesis can be confirmed by the analysis of the text of Syn. between 1016 (where Syn. starts abruptly) and 1045. The remaining part of the annal for 1016 is the end of the extended narration of the events after Vladimir’s death. The boundary of 1016–7 was, in the eyes of the early Novgorodian compiler of the late 11th or the early 12th century, the end of the common history of Novgorod and Kiev, that is, the point from which he stopped copying the Kievan text in full.178 After this point, and before the first Novgorodian note s.a. 1045, only nine annals in Syn. are not blank, and those that are not blank are extremely brief. Here is this section of Syn.: In the year 6525 [1017]. Iaroslav went to Berestie. And Saint Sophia was founded in Kiev. In the year 6526. In the year 6527. In the year 6528 [1020]. Vladimir was born, son of Iaroslav. In the year 6529 [1021]. Iaroslav defeated Briachislav. In the year 6530. In the year 6531. In the year 6532. In the year 6533. In the year 6534. In the year 6535. In the year 6536 [1028]. A dragon-like omen appeared in the sky. In the year 6537. In the year 6538. In the year 6539. In the year 6540. In the year 6541. 176 Ibid., 641–5. 177 See subchapter 3.3. 178 See subchapter 3.3.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

125

In the year 6542. In the year 6543. In the year 6544. In the year 6545 [1037]. Iaroslav founded the city [walls] of Kiev, and the church of Saint Sophia. In the year 6546. In the year 6547 [1039]. The Church of Saint Virgin was consecrated by Vladimir.179 In the year 6548. In the year 6549. In the year 6550 [1042]. Vladimir, son of Iaroslav, went against the Häme (емь) with the Novgorodians. In the year 6551 [1043]. Vladimir went against the Greeks. In the year 6552 [1044]. Two princes were buried, sons of Sviatoslav: Iaropolk, Oleg, and their bones were baptized.180 Of the nine annals that are not blank, three correspond to the entries of PVL verified by foreign sources as listed above: s.a. 1020, 1028, and 1043. The annal for 1017 in Syn. is different from that in PVL, but the Chronicle of Thietmar of Merseburg, a strictly contemporary authority (Thietmar died in 1018), confirms its information. According to Thietmar, in 1017 the king of Rus (i.e. Iaroslav) attacked Bolesław I of Poland and seized a town,181 which quite probably was Berestie.182 S.a. 1018 Thietmar says that Bolesław and Sviatopolk I were welcomed in the cathedral of St. Sophia which had burned down in the previous year, and therefore had been rebuilt by 1018.183 Because of this Sergei Bakhrushin, Constantine Zuckerman, and Savva Mikheev regarded this Syn.’s

179 ‘By Vladimir’ is certainly a slip of the pen. Of course, that was a re-consecration of the church built by Vladimir in the late 10th century. PVL reads here: ‘The church of Saint Virgin was consecrated, which Vladimir, Iaroslav’s father, had erected, by Metropolitan Feopempt’ (PSRL, 1, 153). This is, by the way, the only mention of this metropolitan in PVL, and the first mention of any metropolitan of Kiev in this text. Even this fact provokes feeling that this is a contemporary annalistic note. 180 PSRL, 3, 15–6. 181 MGH SS, 3, Hannoverae, 1839, p. 857 (vii: 48); Aleksandr V. Nazarenko, Nemetskie latinoiazychnye istochniki IX–XI vekov: Teksty, perevod, kommentarii (Moscow: Nauka, 1993), 135, 140. 182 See: Nazarenko, Nemetskie latinoiazychnye istochniki, 157–60 (with references). 183 MGH SS, 3, Hannoverae, 1839, p. 870 (viii: 16); Nazarenko, Nemetskie latinoiazychnye istochniki, 137, 142, 187–8 (commentary with references).

126

chapter 2

annal as a contemporary record. The two latter supposed that it was the first annalistic addition to the Oldest Tale which they date to 1016–7.184 PVL (Laur.) reads here: ‘Iaroslav went,185 and the church was burned down’. Other witnesses of PVL’s text read: ‘Iaroslav came to Kiev, and the church burned down’. Syn. reads: ‘Iaroslav went to Berestie. And Saint Sophia was founded in Kiev’. Aleksei Gippius and Aleksandr Nazarenko reconstruct the reading of the archetype as follows: ‘Iaroslav went to Berestie, and the church of Saint Sophia burned down’.186 As it was said above, Thietmar’s Chronicle perfectly confirms three events: the expedition to Berestie, the fire of St. Sophia, and the construction of the new church (immediately after the fire). So, it can be supposed that either the early annals reported all the three occurrences (which is not impossible), or, if the reconstruction by Gippius and Nazarenko is correct, they reported only the raid to Berestie and the fire, and Syn.’s reading, ‘And Saint Sophia was founded in Kiev,’ is corrupted but nevertheless trustworthy. In any case, there is no doubt that the early Kievan annals contained a record for 1017, which reported at least the raid and the fire. The entries of Syn. s.a. 1039 and 1044 are likely to go back to brief contemporary annals as well, as they are similar to the entries of PVL s.a. 1000–11, and the annal for 1039 is dedicated, as it has already been mentioned, to the Desiatinnaia Church, the probable home of the brief annals. The only problematic entry is that for 1037: on the dedication of St. Sophia of Kiev. The date of the construction of the stone cathedral of St. Sophia is a subject of long-standing discussion. The most recent study of this problem belongs to Savva Mikheev. He argues that 1037 as the year of the foundation of St. Sophia is artificial: this is no more than the middle of Iaroslav’s reign (1019–54). PVL’s annal for 1037 describes events which could not all happen within one year, and gives a general assessment of Iaroslav’s reign. Syn.’s short annal for 1037 is, according to Mikheev, ‘no doubt an incompetent abbreviation’ of the extended account we find in PVL.187 Mikheev shows that it is very probable that St. Sophia was built earlier than in 1037, and thus the date of both PVL and Syn. is not trustworthy.188 If so, this entry in Syn. cannot go back to the early Kievan annals. This weakens the hypothesis that Syn.’s short annals for 1017–44 go back to the annals of the Desiatinnaia Church. However, it is not 184 Bakhrushin, “[K voprosu],” 17; Tsukerman, “Nabliudeniia,” 228–9; Mikheev, Kto pisal “Povest’ vremennykh let”?, 121–2. 185 It is not said where he went, the text is certainly corrupted. 186 Gippius, “O kritike teksta,” 98–9; Nazarenko, “Novyi trud,” 132. 187 Mikheev, “Kogda byl postroen Sofiiskii sobor v Kieve?,” 233. 188 Ibid., 233–40.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

127

impossible that they indeed do so, but this very entry was inserted later, when the first Novgorodian compiler in the late 11th or the early 12th century made use of a Kievan source, the Initial Compilation.189 So, it is probable, although not certain, that Syn.’s brief annals for 1017–44, just like PVL’s brief annals for 1000–11, allow us to have a look at the early Kievan annals. If such annals existed (one can be practically sure that they did) they certainly had to contain an entry concerning Vladimir’s death in 1015. This event is reported s.a. 1015 by the Polish Annales capituli Cracoviensis (the 13th century),190 but Nazarenko points out that probably this is not an independent confirmation of the date. This entry is absent from earlier Polish annals and probably goes back to some information of Rus origin.191 However, it is difficult to imagine that the annals of the Desiatinnaia Church, which had recorded in the early 11th century the deaths of Vladimir’s wives and of a certain Malfred, did not report Vladimir’s own death. PVL contains the precise date of this event (the 15th of July, 1015) which is the only month-and-day date in PVL up to the middle of the 11th century. It is very probable that the entry of the early annals contained this date. It is probable that the early annals also contained an entry for 1016. The annal for that year in N1Y (which is akin to that of PVL, but only partly) starts with a brief statement: ‘There was a battle near Lubech, and Iaroslav won, and Sviatopolk fled to Poland’ (‘Бысть сѣца у Любца, и одолѣ Ярославъ; а Святополкъ бѣжа в Ляхы’).192 Then one reads an extended account of the same events. Such a brief summary of what is narrated below is not typical for Rus letopisi. Rather, it must be supposed that originally there was a brief note that was later supplemented with a detailed narration.193 The short note may be one more fragment of the early annals. Thus, the brief annals were kept in the Desiatinnaia Church from at least the 1000s until at least the early 1040s. We are not able to reconstruct their entire text, but they certainly included the brief notes that we find in PVL s.a. 1000–11, a note on Vladimir’s death on the 15th of July, 1015, and those of the notes of PVL s.a. 1017–43 the dates of which are confirmed by foreign evidence. It is probable that Syn.’s brief entries s.a. 1017–44, as well as the first phrase of N1Y’s annal for 1016, also go back to those early annals. 189 190 191 192 193

See subchapter 3.3. MGH SS, 19, Hannoverae, 1866, p. 586. Nazarenko, “Dostovernye godovye daty,” 626. PSRL, 3, 174. Similar idea has been expressed: Aleshkovskii, Povest’ vremennykh let, 90–1; Vilkul, “Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis’,” 14.

128

chapter 2

One can only guess what was the physical form of those annals: were they a series of records in some liturgical book, or annotations in an Easter table,194 or additions to the Oldest Tale (if it indeed had been written in the late 10th century), or maybe something else? A hypothesis concerning the status of those annals (what did they continue?) will be suggested in the next subchapter. 2.5

Historical Notes in Iakov the Monk’s Memorial and Encomium: A ‘Royal Inscription’ of Vladimir?

A series of historical notes concerning the rule of St. Vladimir (980?–1015) is included into a hagiographical text, known as Pamiat’ i pokhvala kniaziu Vladimiru (Память и похвала князю Владимиру, i.e. Memorial and encomium for Prince Vladimir,195 PP) composed, maybe not entirely, by a certain Iakov (Jacob) the Monk.196 This text is known in some twenty manuscripts. The earliest manuscript, which perished in the Moscow fire of 1812 but is known through a careful early 19th-century copy, had been written in 1414. Two other surviving manuscripts date from the 15th century, the others were written later. PP consists of at least three parts, presumably of different origin: Iakov’s Memorial and encomium proper, a panegyric to Princess Olga (Vladimir’s grandmother who was Christian when the Rus people were still heathen), and the so-called Old Life of Vladimir (sometimes copied independently). This third part contains the historical notes. The date of composition of all this work, as well as its

194 There is a 14th-centrury example of a Rus Easter table with historical notes (see subchapter 1.5, Figure 10). But there are no traces of early texts of this sort. 195 I use the translation of the name of the work by Andrzej Poppe (“The Christianization and the Ecclesiastical Structure of Kyivan Rus’ to 1300,” in idem., Christian Russia in the Making (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), V, 330 [first published in 1997]). Another translation by the same scholar is ‘Memory and Eulogy of Volodimer’ (Andrzej Poppe, “How the Conversion of Rus’ Was Understood in the Eleventh Century,” ibid., III, 299 [first published in 1987]). 196 The full title is: ‘Memorial and encomium for Prince Vladimir of Rus, how he was baptized, and baptized his children, and all the Rus Land from end to end, and how Vladimir’s grandmother Olga was baptized earlier than Vladimir. Written by Monk Iakov’ (Miliutenko, Sviatoi ravnoapostol’nyi kniaz’ Vladimir, 417).

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

129

components, is unclear.197 Anton Vvedenskii presented recently some case for the work’s existence by the 1160s.198 Here I will discuss only the historical notes. It makes sense, first of all, to quote and translate the relevant fragment of PP: ⟨…⟩ And so Prince Vladimir doing good deeds, God’s grace enlightening his heart, and the Lord’s hand helping him, he defeated all his enemies, and everybody feared him. Wherever he went, he won: he defeated the Radimichi, and imposed tribute upon them, he defeated the Viatichi, and imposed tribute upon both of them,199 and he seized the Yotvingians,200 and he defeated the Silver Bulgarians,201 and he went against the Khazars, and defeated them, and imposed tribute upon them. And he planned [a raid] against the Greek city of Korsun,202 and Vladimir was so praying to God: “[O,] Lord, the Sovereign of everybody, what I ask from You is: give me the city, let me take Christian people and priests and bring them to my land, let them teach the Christian law to the people”. And God fulfilled his prayers, and [Vladimir] seized the city of Korsun, and took church vessels, and icons, and the relics of Saint Clement the Martyr, and of other saints. In those days there were two emperors in Constantinople, Constantine and Basil, and Vladimir sent to them, asking them to let him marry their sister, for him to be directed more towards the Christian law. 197 See the most recent editions: Miliutenko, Sviatoi ravnoapostol’nyi kniaz’ Vladimir, 417– 426; Aleksej A. Shakhmatov, Zhitiia kniazia Vladimira: Tekstologicheskoe issledovanie drevnerusskikh istochnikov XI–XVI vv., ed. Nadezhda I. Miliutenko (Saint-Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2014), 178–84, 339–49, and the principle studies: Sergei A. Bugoslavskii, “K literaturnoi istorii « Pamiati i pokhvaly » kniaziu Vladimiru,” Izvestiia Otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnosti Akademii nauk 29 (1925): 105–59; Miliutenko, Sviatoi ravnoapostol’nyi kniaz’ Vladimir, 80–92; Shakhmatov, Zhitiia kniazia Vladimira, 59–68, 171–177, 195–198; Vadym Iu. Aristov, “Pokhodzhennia istorychnykh povidomlen’ Pam’iati ta pokhvaly kniaziu Volodymyru Iakova Mnikha,” Ruthenica 13 (2016): 50–82. 198 Anton M. Vvedenskii, “Ob istochnike prolozhnogo zhitiia kniagini Ol’gi,” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 28 (2016): 44–8. 199 On the interpretation of this phrase see below. 200 The Yotvingians (ятвязи, Iatviazi, also known as Sudovians) were a Baltic-speaking entity living in what is now northeastern Poland, south-western Lithuania and partly western Belarus. 201 The expedition against the Bulgarians is also reported in PVL s.a. 985. There is no indication whether those were the Volga or the Danube Bulgarians, but the former is more plausible. See also below. 202 Chersones in the Crimea. See below.

130

chapter 2

And they gave him their sister, and sent to him many presents, and gave him relics of saints. ⟨…⟩203 After the holy baptism Blessed Prince Vladimir lived 28 years. In the second204 year after the baptism he went to the Rapids.205 In the third year he seized Korsun. In the fourth year he founded the stone church of the Virgin. In the fifth year he founded Pereyaslavl. In the ninth year Blessed Christ-Loving Prince Vladimir granted the tithe from what he owned to the church of the Virgin. Indeed, the Lord himself said about that: “where your treasure is, there also your heart will be”.206 Blessed Prince Vladimir had his treasure in the heavens, gained by almsgiving and his good deeds; and his heart was there, in the kingdom of heavens. And God helped him, and he succeeded to Kiev, to the throne of his father Sviatoslav and his grandfather Igor. And Sviatoslav was killed by the Pechenegs, and Iaropolk succeeded to Kiev to the throne of his father Sviatoslav; and, Oleg marching with his army near the town of Vruchii, a bridge broke down, and Oleg was crushed in the ditch; and Iaropolk was killed in Kiev by Vladimir’s men. And Prince Vladimir succeeded to Kiev in the eighth year after his father Sviatoslav’s death, in the month of July, on the 11th, in the year 6486. And Prince Vladimir was baptized in the 10th year after his brother Iaropolk’s murder. He repented and regretted for all that he had committed being pagan, not knowing God. And having discovered the True God, the Creator of heavens and earth, he repented all, and rejected devil and demons, and all [devil’s] services, and served God with his good deeds and almsgiving. He passed away peacefully in the month of July, on the 15th day, in the year 6523, in Jesus Christ. ⟨…⟩ Тако же пребывающу князю Володимерю въ добрыхъ дѣлехъ, благодать Божия просвѣщаше сердце его и рука Господня помогаше ему, и побѣжаше вся врагы своя, и бояхутся его вси. Идѣже идяше, одолѣваше: радимицѣ побѣди и дань на нихъ положи, вятичи побѣди и дань на нихъ положи на обоихъ, и ятьвягы взя, и сребереныя болгары побѣди, и на козары, шедъ, побѣди я и дань на нихъ положи. Умысли же и на грѣчкыи градъ Корсунь и сиче моляшеся князь 203 A huge portion of text between two translated fragments is a later interpolation, as Nadezhda Milyutenko shows (Shakhmatov, Zhitiia kniazia Vladimira). 204 ‘другое’, i.e. ‘second’, ‘other’, or ‘next’. Here the ‘first’ year is the one in which Vladimir was baptized. 205 The Dnieper Rapids being a dangerous part of the way from Kiev to the south, that is, to the Black Sea and Byzantium. 206 Matthew 6:21; Luke 12:34.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

131

Володимиръ Богу: « Господи Владыко всихъ, сего у тебе прошю: даси ми градъ, да прииму и да приведу люди крестьяны и попы на свою землю, и да научатъ люди закону крестьяньскому ». И послуша Богъ молитвы его; и прия градъ Корсунь, и взя съсуды церковныя, и иконы и мощи святаго священомученика Климента и иныхъ святыхъ. И въ ты дни бѣаста цесаря два въ Цесариградѣ, Костянтинъ и Василѣи, и посла къ нимъ Володимиръ, прося у нихъ сестры оженити ся, да ся бы болма на крестьяньскыи законъ направилъ. И даста ему сестру свою, и дары многы присласта к нему, и мощи святыхъ даста ему. ⟨…⟩ По святомъ же крещеньи пожи[ве] блаженыи князь Володимиръ 28 лѣтъ. На другое лѣто по крещеньи к порогомъ ходи, на третьее Корсунь городъ взя, на четвертое лѣто церковь камену святыя Богородица заложи, а на пятое лѣто Переяславль заложи; въ девятое лѣто десятину блаженыи христолюбивыи князь Володимиръ въда церкви святѣи Богородицѣ от имѣнья своего. О томъ бо и самъ Господь рече: « Идѣже есть скровище ваше, ту и сердце ваше будеть ». Блаженыи князь Володимиръ имяше скровище свое на небесѣхъ, съкрывъ милостынею и добрыми своими дѣлы, тамо и сердце его бѣ въ царьствии небеснѣмъ. И Богъ поможе ему, и сѣде въ Кыевѣ на мѣстѣ отца своего Святъслава и деда своего Игоря. А Святъслава князя печенѣзѣ убиша, а Ярополкъ сѣдяше в Кыевѣ на мѣстѣ отца своего Святъслава; и Олегъ идыи с вои у Вруча града, мостъ ся обломи с вои, и удавиша Олга въ гребли, а Ярополка убиша въ Кыевѣ мужи Володимировѣ. И сѣде въ Киевѣ князь Володимиръ въ-смое лѣто по смерти отца своего Святъслава, мѣсяца июня в 11, въ лѣто 6486. Крести же ся князь Володимиръ въ 10-е лѣто по убьеньи брата своего Ярополка. Каяшеся и плакашется блаженыи князь Володимиръ всего того, елико створи в поганьствѣ, не зная Бога. Познавъ же Бога истиньнаго, творча небесѣ и земли, покаявся всего и отвержеся дьявола и бѣсовъ, и всея службы его, и послужи Богу добрыми дѣлы своими и милостынею. Успе съ миромъ мѣсяца июля в 15 день, въ лѣто 6523, о Христѣ Исусѣ.207 These historical notes have drawn much scholarly attention because they give an account of St. Vladimir’s reign that differs in some respects from that of PVL. First of all, PP presents an alternative version of the very event of the conversion. According to PVL Vladimir was baptized in Korsun (Chersones), in the 207 Shakhmatov, Zhitiia kniazia Vladimira, 181–4.

132

chapter 2

Crimea, after having seized this city. But the annalist says to us that there are other, wrong versions of the story: And those ignorant say, that [Vladimir] was baptized in Kiev, and others say: in Vasilev, and others say otherwise. Се же не свѣдуще право глаголють, яко крестилъся есть в Киевѣ, и ини же рѣша Василиви, друзии же инако скажють.208 PP reflects exactly the point of view of ‘those ignorant’: it says that Vladimir undertook the raid against Korsun in the third year after the baptism. The reasons of the raid (to bring priests, educated people, icons, etc.) are connected to the conversion, but the very baptism of the prince, according to PP, had evidently taken place before the raid (in Kiev?). There are some other differences from the information of PVL. PP is the only source to mention Vladimir’s raid against the Khazars, as well as his expedition (?) to the Dnieper Rapids in the next year after the baptism. Finally, the dates given by PP differ from those of PVL. The very principle of ‘years after the baptism’ contradicts with PVL’s years from the Creation of the World. And when PP gives absolute dates, they also do not always match those of PVL (Vladimir succeeded to Kiev in 6486 in PP, and in 6488 in PVL). Olexiy Tolochko and Vadym Aristov recently argued that the historical notes of PP are completely secondary in comparison to PVL.209 Let us start with the discussion of their argument. Aristov insists that PP’s phrasing ‘he defeated the Viatichi, and imposed tribute upon both of them’ (‘вятичи побѣди и дань на нихъ положи на обоих’) is a re-interpretation of PVL’s note s.a. 982: Vladimir undertook a raid against the Viatichi, ‘and defeated them for the second time’ (‘и побѣди я въторое’).210 However, it is difficult to imagine an Old Rus scribe who could misunderstand the adverb ‘въторое’ (‘for the second time’) as if there were two different groups of the Viatichi, and Vladimir defeated both. On the contrary, it is very probable that PP’s ‘на обоих’ (‘upon both of them’) concerns the Radimichi and the Viatichi. If so, PP’s phrase ‘He defeated the Radimichi, and imposed tribute upon them, he defeated the Viatichi, and imposed tribute upon both of them’ is far from perfect, but it is easily understandable. Tolochko and Aristov believe that the ethnic name ‘the Silver Bulgarians’ (‘сребереныя болгары’) is a sign of a later composition of the document, as 208 PSRL, 1, 111. 209 Tolochko, Ocherki, 35–9; Aristov, “Pokhodzhennia,” 69–82. 210 Aristov, “Pokhodzhennia,” 69.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

133

it occurs, apart from PP, only once, in Hyp. s.a. 1182.211 The only parallel case, however, seems not to be a sufficient ground for dating: why could the term not be in use for a longer period of time? Tolochko and Aristov argue that the chronological system of PP (years of reigns and ‘after the baptism’) can only be secondary in comparison to the annalistic dating from the Creation of the World. Tolochko presents an example of such a secondary chronological system: that of the late 10thcentury Chronicle of Æthelweard, an Anglo-Saxon nobleman, based upon the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, where, as in any annals, each event had an absolute date from the Incarnation.212 However, the usage of regnal years or years from a certain remarkable event is a widespread archaic practice, basically more archaic than the use of any era. Such a dating scheme, as well as lists of rulers which indicate the lengths of reigns, can be found in many countries at the very early stages of the development of writing.213 After all, the usage of regnal years for dating was a common practice in Byzantium.214 So, those practices of dating cannot prove the theory that PP’s historical notes are based on PVL. In some cases Aristov tries to explain how a certain passage of PP could appear if its author used PVL. For example, a raid against the Khazars (mentioned by PP but not by PVL) could replace a raid against the Poles (Aristov suggests some ideas as to why).215 PP’s note on Vladimir’s expedition to the Rapids in the 2nd year after the baptism could replace PVL’s description of the idol of the pagan god Perun that, having been overthrown and then thrown into River Dnieper, floated down the river to the Rapids.216 These suggestions, however smart they are, do not prove that PP’s historical notes are secondary. So, the argument of Tolochko and Aristov is not convincing enough. The opposite (and more traditional) point of view is that the historical notes of PP are based on a lost source, earlier than the surviving PVL.217 This view, also, is not something established with mathematical precision. Both texts are problematic: PP is a compilation of an unknown date; historical notes in PP are situated in a strange, non-chronological order, and there is no guarantee that 211 Tolochko, Ocherki, 37–8, note 28; Aristov, “Pokhodzhennia,” 69. 212 Tolochko, Ocherki, 38–9; Aristov, “Pokhodzhennia,” 72. 213 See in subchapter 2.6. 214 See, for example: Nazarenko, Drevniaia Rus’, 385–8. 215 Aristov, “Pokhodzhennia,” 69–70. 216 Ibid., 79–81. 217 In the 19th century a third alternative was suggested: PP was supposed to have been written earlier than PVL and based on oral sources. See with references: Nikandr M. Levitskii, “Vazhneishie istochniki dlia opredeleniia vremeni kreshcheniia Vladimira i Rusi i ikh dannye. (Po povodu mneniia prof. Sobolevskogo).” Khristianskoe chtenie 3–4 (1890): 392– 4. This view is certainly wrong: PP and PVL do have much in common but PVL is not based on PP as we have it (see below).

134

chapter 2

in PP’s source the makeup and the order of those notes were the same;218 PVL itself is a text with a complicated history being a subject to alternative reconstructions. However, some points, to my mind, show that the historical notes of PP are really based on an early written source. It would be even more accurate to speak of the common, very early non-extant source of PP and PVL. Let us call it √PP. Below I will try to sum up the reasons to believe that √PP was really a very early text. But before that a brief summary must be given of the ideas suggested by previous scholars concerning ancient source of PP. They can be, generally speaking, deduced to three theories. 1. The historical notes of PP go back to an extended non-annalistic historical narration that preceded PVL, i.e. to the Oldest Tale. Aleksei Shakhmatov came to the conclusion that the compiler of PP had access to a very early chronicle, which was akin to PVL but differed greatly from it, especially in the aspect of datings. The scholar believed that this chronicle was the ‘Oldest Compilation’ that, according to Shakhmatov, had been created in Kiev c. 1039. This text did not have a regular annalistic structure, but contained both absolute and relative dates, as we see now in PP.219 Lev Cherepnin, who modified a bit Shakhmatov’s theory of the early stages of chronicle writing in Rus, supposed that the earliest historiographic text appeared as early as c. 996, soon after the consecration of the Desiatinnaia Church of the Virgin. Cherepnin based this on the fact that the bulk of the historical notes of PP end with this very event: the grant of the tithe to this church in the 9th year after the baptism, and so the common source of PP and PVL had to be a chronicle created in the late 10th century.220 Mikhail Tikhomirov believed that √PP was a chronicle based on the earliest Rus historiographic text: the late 10th-century ‘Tale of Rus Princes’.221 The view of Apollon Kuzmin is almost the same: PP was based on the late 10th-century ‘Tale of the First Rus Princes’, perhaps in a version edited by the clergy of the Desiatinnaia Church.222 In a recent and very important paper Aleksandr Nazarenko also shares the view that PP was based on the earliest historiographic text of Rus. 218 Aleksei Shckhmatov supposed a re-ordering of historical notes in PP (Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 1, 35; book 2, 315–6; idem. Zhitiia kniazia Vladimira, 172 ff.). Arsenii Nasonov said those suggestions are not justified enough (Istoriia, 28–30). 219 Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 1, 37–40, 311; book 2, 316–7; idem, Zhitiia kniazia Vladimira, 175. 220 Cherepnin, “Povest’ vremennykh let,” 332–3. 221 Tikhomirov, “Nachalo,” 61–3. 222 Kuz’min, Nachal’nye etapy, 359–61.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

135

The scholar calls it ‘the nucleus’ and dates (following Aleksei Gippius) it to Vladimir’s lifetime. According to Nazarenko, this ‘nucleus’ was later continued with the ‘Tale of Iaroslav the Wise’, and PP’s notes on Vladimir’s death and the duration of his life after his baptism go back to this continuation.223 2. PP presents us an example of very early brief historical notes. Sergei Bakhrushin wrote that the emergence of annalistic writing in Rus could be preceded by ‘brief notes on separate reigns without dates’. The lists of Vladimir’s military expeditions and his deeds ‘after the baptism’ in PP can be, according to Bakhrushin, an excerpt from such a note.224 Arsenii Nasonov believed, that it is more logical not to suppose an extended lost chronicle as a source of PP, but to treat PP’s historical material as an, ‘extremely rare example of the earliest annalistic notes’.225 The scholar did not doubt that those notes were written at the Desiatinnaia Church, as the bulk of the notes end with information on that church accompanied by an appropriate rhetoric passage.226 Andrzej Poppe, giving reference to Nasonov’s opinion, says that PP’s source ‘could have been isolated annalistic records’.227 Savva Mikheev supposes that the scribe who first created the annalistic framework of the text for the 10th–11th centuries (according to Mikheev, that was the annalist of the 1070s) used either PP, ‘or some similar text’ as a base for chronological calculations. So, Mikheev does not share the view that √PP was the Oldest Tale. On the contrary, the scholar believes that PP or a similar text was used when the Oldest Tale was being transformed into annals. Mikheev does not specially discuss the question of the source of PP’s historical material—however, he gives a reference to Nasonov’s view that PP reflects a set of brief historical notes, not an extended text.228 3. PVL and PP both go back to a biography (encomium) of Saint Vladimir written in his lifetime. Nadezhda Miliutenko suggested a theory that the common source of PP and PVL was a biography of (or, rather, an encomium to) Vladimir, written in his lifetime, soon after the consecration of the Desiatinnaia Church. The same biography was reflected (probably via oral transmission) in the 1010s in the Chronicle of Thietmar of Merseburg (975–1018).229 223 Nazarenko, “Dostovernye godovye daty,” 631–45. 224 Bakhrushin, “[K voprosu],” 18–9. 225 Nasonov, Istoriia, 31. 226 Ibid., 30. 227 Andrzej Poppe, “The Political Background to the Baptism of Rus’: Byzantine-Russian Relations Between 986–89,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 30 (1976): 210. 228 Mikheev, Kto pisal “Povest’ vremennykh let”?, 56–7. 229 Miliutenko, Sviatoi ravnoapostol’nyi kniaz’ Vladimir, 57, 80, 96–9. In what concerns Thietmar, Miliutenko bases on the observations of Aleksandr Nazarenko.

136

chapter 2

To my mind, there are some points concerning the interrelations between PVL and PP about which one can be more or less sure. First of all, in spite of all difficulties and lacunas in the available sources (both Rus and foreign), it is most probable that Vladimir was in fact baptized not in Korsun (as PVL says), but two years earlier, perhaps in Kiev. This is just what PP says to us, and so its version of the events is more reliable than that of PVL.230 If so, PP’s unique note that, in the 2nd year after the baptism Vladimir ‘went to the Rapids,’ is explainable. He went there to meet his Byzantine bride in the most dangerous zone of her supposed travel from Constantinople to Kiev.231 Then, no doubt, there is a connection between PP’s years ‘after the baptism’ and PVL’s years from the Creation of the World, and, moreover, PVL’s absolute dates are secondary in comparison to PP’s relative dates. The dates of the two texts can be juxtaposed as follows: table 2

The Chronology of PP and PVL

PP’s years ‘after the baptism’

PVL’s years from the Creation of the Worlda

1st year: the baptism 2nd year: the expedition to the Rapids 3rd year: the seizure of Korsun 4th year: the foundation of the Desiatinnaia Church 5th year: the foundation of the town of Pereyaslavl 9th year: the grant of the tithe

6496 (988): the baptism (in Korsun) – – 6499 (991): the foundation of the Desiatinnaia Church 6500 (992): the foundation of the town of Belgorod 6504 (996): the grant of the tithe

a I refer here to the dates of Hyp.–Khlebn. and N1Y. In Laur., Radz. and MA some of the dates certainly are corrupted.

230 See: Poppe, “The Political Background,” 195–244; Aleksandr V. Nazarenko et al., “Vladimir (Vasilii) Sviatoslavich,” in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, ed. Patriarch Alexii II, vol. 8 (Moscow: Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, 2004), 696–7. The foreign sources do not enable us to completely exclude the possibility of the baptism in Korsun (ibid., 696; Iurii A. Artamonov, “Kreshchenie Rusi,” in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, ed. Patriarch Kirill, vol. 38 (Moscow: Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, 2015), 728). However, ‘all the sum of data’ tells against the ‘Korsun version’ of the baptism (Nazarenko et al., “Vladimir (Vasilii) Sviatoslavich,” 696). 231 Poppe, “The Political Background,” 241. The princess, however, did not arrive.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

137

So, the dates of the two sources perfectly match each other (apart from what concerns the seizure of Korsun). Although the fortresses founded in the 4th/6500 year, according to PP and PVL, are different (Pereyaslavl and Belgorod respectively), certainly this is not a coincidence: the common source (√PP) must have reported in this year a foundation of a town.232 The seizure of Korsun by Vladimir, according to foreign sources, took place between April and July–August, 989, i.e. in 6497. Vladimir probably was baptized in 987 or early in 988, i.e. in 6495.233 It is very probable that the consecration of the Desiatinnaia Church (and thus the grant of the tithe) took place in 6503 (995): in the later Prologues234 the day of commemoration of this event is the 12th of May, which was Sunday in 995, not in 996.235 So, we see a one-year shift: all dates in PVL are one year later than in reality. It is clear, thus, that PP’s years ‘after the baptism’ must be regarded as primary, and PVL’s years from the Creation of the World are secondary.236 Why did such a shift appear? It is the most probable that the scribe who created the annalistic framework of what later became PVL used as his starting point the wrong date for Vladimir’s baptism: the year 6496. Another question is: from where did the scribe take that date? The simplest explanation237 was suggested by Savva Mikheev. The annalist knew that, as PP says, ‘after the holy baptism Blessed Prince Vladimir lived 28 years’. Counting from 6532 (1015) as the year of Vladimir’s death (again given by PP), and using the ‘inclusive’ way

232 Aleksei Shakhmatov believed that originally Belgorod was mentioned (Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 1, 40; see also: Mikheev, Kto pisal “Povest’ vremennykh let”?, 100, note 140; Nazarenko, “Dostovernye godovye daty,” 623–4, note 114). It is more or less clear that both fortresses in the southern border of Rus were built at about the same time (Miliutenko, Sviatoi ravnoapostol’nyi kniaz’ Vladimir, 77). The narration of the foundation of Pereyaslavl in PVL s.a. 6501 (993) is an early 12th-century insertion based on oral tradition: it is absent from N1Y (Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 2, 458). 233 See: Poppe, “The Political Background,” 224–41; Nazarenko, “Dostovernye godovye daty,” 618–23. 234 That is, in church books containing short lives of saints and narrations on church festivals settled in calendar order. 235 Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 1, 38. 236 This is a general point at which most of scholars agree: Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 1, 38; Mikheev, Kto pisal “Povest’ vremennykh let”?, 56–7; Nazarenko, “Dostovernye godovye daty,” 623–4, 627–8. 237 The explanation suggested by Andrzej Poppe—that 6496 was remembered as ‘the year of the baptism of crowds in Kiev’ (Poppe, “The Political Background,” 242)—seems no more than a conjecture.

138

chapter 2

of counting years,238 the scribe concluded that the year of the conversion was to be 6496.239 Thus, several of PVL’s dates of late 10th-century events can be deduced from the dates ‘after the baptism’ of √PP. All this leads to another conclusion: the chronological information given by PP appears to be strict anywhere it can be checked. Thus, √PP really was a very early written text. The bulk of PP’s historical notes end with the grant of the tithe (995 or 996). After that only Vladimir’s death in 6523 (1015) is reported. Most of scholars believe that √PP (whatever this text actually was) was written by one of the clerics of the Desiatinnaia Church soon after its consecration in 996 (or, rather, 995).240 If so, the passages on Vladimir’s 28 years after the baptism, as well as on his death in 1015, could not belong to the original text of √PP. Those points are, to my mind, more or less secure. Other issues are far from being easily resolved.241 For example, it is not clear how √PP reported Vladimir’s military deeds before his baptism. In PP (as we have it) they are listed without dates. In PVL they are reported in several subsequent annals. The makeup and the order of the expeditions in PP and PVL correspond, but only partly:

238 Old Rus knew both ways of counting years: ‘inclusive’ (when the starting year was counted as well—we see this in PP: the 1st year is that of the baptism, the 2nd year is the next one, etc.) and ‘exclusive’ (the way more familiar to us today—the starting year is not counted). 239 Mikheev, Kto pisal “Povest’ vremennykh let?”, 56–57. 240 Cherepnin, “Povest’ vremennykh let,” 332; Nasonov, Istoriia, 30; Miliutenko, Sviatoi ravnoapostol’nyi kniaz’ Vladimir, 80; Nazarenko, “Dostovernye godovye daty,” 631. The opposite opinion is that of Vadym Aristov (“Pokhodzhennia,” 70): PP here follows PVL, in which there is no detailed information on Vladimir after the 990s. But, as it was pointed out above, PP’s dates ‘after the baptism’ are no doubt primary in comparison with PVL’s dates from the Creation of the World. 241 One becomes especially pessimistic about resolving of some of the problems when being aware that early scribes could, at least theoretically, use different variants of Anno Mundi (not necessarily 6508 years between the Creation of the World and the Incarnation), or different beginnings of a year (the 1st of September, the 1st of March later or earlier than the 1st of September). Also, they could use not calendar years, but years counted strictly from the day of Vladimir’s baptism (or, say, his accession to the throne). See: Tsyb, Khronologiia, 85–97; Aleksandr A. Romenskii, Imperiia romeev i «tavroskify». Ocherki russko-vizantiiskikh otnoshenii poslednei chetverti X v. (Kharkov: Maidan, 2015), 131–4. See also appendix 1.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev table 3

139

Vladimir’s military expeditions before the conversion in PP and PVL

PP

PVL

against the Radimichi; against the Viatichi; against the Yotvingians; against the Silver Bulgarians; against the Khazars.

6489 (981): 1) against the Poles, 2) against the Viatichi; 6490 (982): against the Viatichi (for the second time); 6491 (983): against the Yotvingians; 6492 (984): against the Radimichi; 6493 (985): against the Bulgarians.

The two texts seem to be akin, and there can be little doubt242 that √PP listed the military achievements of Vladimir before his baptism, but that is all that can be said for sure. What kind of text was PP? As it has been said above, scholars supposed that √PP could be either the Oldest Tale (that is the earliest text-predecessor of PVL), or a set of brief notes, or a biography (encomium) of Vladimir. What are the advantages and the disadvantages of those hypotheses? The assumption that √PP was identical to the Oldest Tale implies that the Oldest Tale was written as early as soon after the consecration of the Desiatinnaia Church (in 996 or, rather, 995). The issue of dating of the Oldest Tale was discussed above.243 The date of c. 1000 has been suggested several times and cannot be totally rejected, but it seems much more probable that the Oldest Tale, as a coherent narration of the early history of Rus, appeared not in Vladimir’s lifetime, but in the time of Iaroslav the Wise (1016–54) or even later. The assumption that √PP was an encomium to Vladimir written in his lifetime requires a reconstruction of a text quite different from all other texts concerning Vladimir that are available to us now, and far from identical to PVL’s narrative on Vladimir. Otherwise, PVL’s section on Vladimir should have had some stylistic or linguistic specificity in comparison to previous sections—and this is not the case. Nadezhda Miliutenko, the author of this hypothesis, says 242 Aleksei Shakhmatov (Zhitiia kniazia Vladimira, 173–5) in this case was ready to suppose that PP’s list of raids is a corrupted synopsis of the relevant annals of PVL. Sergei Bakhrushin (“[K voprosu],” 18–9) allowed here the usage of two different sources. However, in other cases similar information of PP and PVL certainly goes back to the common source: √PP, and so in this case this also would be the simplest solution. 243 Subchapter 2.3.

140

chapter 2

that PVL’s narrative on Vladimir’s predecessors, Olga and Sviatoslav, is legendary, and the section on Vladimir is not.244 However, much within PVL’s accounts of Olga and Sviatoslav is confirmed by Byzantine sources,245 and much of the accounts of Vladimir are legendary. The third possibility is the most economic one: √PP was nothing more than a brief note on Vladimir’s reign. This note was then used by the scribe who introduced an annalistic framework to the previously non-annalistic text of the Oldest Tale. What do we know about the content of √PP? We know that it reported Vladimir’s victorious military campaigns of the pagan period, his baptism, his expeditions after the baptism, the foundation of the Desiatinnaia Church and a fortress, and the grant of the tithe to the church. It is quite probable that PP’s brief description of Vladimir’s accession to the throne also goes back to √PP. How can we define the genre of that historical note? Certainly, this was not a letopis’, annals, or a chronicle. It seems to have been too brief to be called a biography of Vladimir. I think that the closest analogy to such a text are royal inscriptions—a kind of written texts attested in many ancient societies at very early stages of the development of writing. A royal inscription reports one, or several, or many deeds (or achievements) of a ruler, such as successful military campaigns, offerings to gods, the building of temples, fortresses, canals, etc. For example, in ancient Sumer royal inscriptions were one of the first kinds of texts to appear when writing started to reproduce the sound of language, not only concepts, quantities, and names. At first, an inscription reported just one royal deed (e.g. a dedication of a building or an object to a god). From approximately the mid-3rd millennium BC inscriptions became more extended and started to include summaries of many events, and thus they already can be regarded as a primitive form of historical writing.246 Similar texts are known elsewhere: in other archaic societies of both the Old and New World.247 Urartu of the 9th–8th centuries BC can be mentioned as an example (certainly not 244 Miliutenko, Sviatoi ravnoapostol’nyi kniaz’ Vladimir, 80 245 See, for example, a detailed comparison of Byzantine and PVL’s evidence on the wars of Sviatoslav: Karyshkovskii, “O khronologii,” 127–38. 246 See: Jerrold S. Cooper, Sumerian and Akkadian Royal Inscriptions, vol. 1: Presargonic inscriptions (New Haven (Co.): Eisenbrauns, 1986); Piotr Michalowski, “Early Mesopotamia,” in The Oxford History of Historical Writing, vol. 1, ed. Andrew Feldherr and Grant Hardy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 6–14. 247 See, for example, on Ancient Mesoamerica: Dmitrii D. Beliaev, “Zarozhdenie istoriopisaniia v drevnei Mezoamerike,” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2013 (2016): 209–34. It is worth mentioning that a later Rus text, the ‘autobiography’ of Vladimir Monomakh, which also lists his deeds and achievements (but in first person; see on this text in subchapter 1.5), has already been compared with some texts from Ancient Near

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

141

unique) of a state where writing was imported (as to Rus), and where royal inscriptions (extant in considerable quantity) are the earliest attested use of writing.248 An original tradition of royal inscriptions (in Greek, and later in Old Slavonic) existed in the First Bulgarian Empire from the early 8th century. Inscriptions reporting military deeds, construction, etc. are known.249 Some of early Scandinavian runestones (namely the group of 6th–7th-century monuments from Blekinge, South-Western Sweden) can also be labeled as ‘royal inscriptions’ as they report deeds of certain chiefs (?) who are said to erect monuments themselves as well as to have secured a fertile year with sacrifices.250 Perhaps, the closest analogies are represented by inscriptions that report the very moment of Christianization. Those are runestones Jelling 2 from Denmark, stating that King Haraldr (c. 958–85) ‘won for himself all Denmark, and Norway, and made the Danes Christian’; the 11th-century Frösö stone from Jämtland (Sweden, formerly Norway), stating that a certain Austmaðr, ‘man from the east’, ‘had this stone raised and this bridge built and Christianized Jämtland’; the Kuli stone from Norway (the 1030s?), saying, after a routine memorial formula, that ‘twelve winters had Christianity been in Norway’.251 At least the two former inscriptions present an analogy to my vision of √PP: they state that a ruler (in the case of Frösö stone probably a local ruler) baptized the land—and also did something else: united two countries or, more modestly, built a bridge. Although those texts are much shorter than the hypothetical √PP, and although they all belong to the Scandinavian tradition of memorial runestones, the very fact that rulers in Scandinavia initiated a written fixation of their decision to adopt Christianity—again, alongside other achievements—seems to make my hypothesis about √PP a bit more plausible.

248 249 250

251

East, namely with Assyrian annals (extended royal inscriptions written from the first person) and other quasi-autobiographies, see: Ivanov, “Tipologiia.” Nikolai V. Arutiunian, Korpus urartskikh klinoobranykh nadpisei (Erevan: Gitutiun, 2001). See a corpus edition: Veselin Beshevliev, Prŭvobŭlgarski nadpisi, 2nd ed., rev. and suppl. (Sofiia: Izdatelstvo na Bŭlgarskata Akademiia na naukite, 1992). Tineke Looijenga, Texts & contexts of the oldest runic inscriptions (Leiden; Boston: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2003): 176–83, 186–9, 334; Elena A. Mel’nikova, “Istoricheskaia pamiat’ v germanskoi ustnoi traditsii i ee pis’mennaia fiksatsiia,” in Istoricheskaia pamiat’: Istoricheskaia kul’tura Evropy do nachala Novogo vremeni, ed. Lorina P. Repina (Moscow: Krug’, 2006), 190–3. Michael P. Barnes, Runes: A Handbook (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2012), 71–5; Anne-Sofie Gräslund and Linn Lager, “Runestones and the Christian Missions,” in The Viking World, ed. Stephan Brink in collaboration with Neil Price (Abingdon: Routledge, 2008), 629.

142

chapter 2

Another analogy is the Ballshi inscription reporting the baptism of Bulgaria by King Boris in 865/6.252 It seems that √PP was something of the same sort: a written statement of the achievements of the ruler, Vladimir, including his baptism and his grant to the church. This does not necessarily mean that it was an inscription on stone or the like. The text could be written down in an important service book (a Gospel-book?) belonging to the Desiatinnaia Church. No matter what the physical form of √PP was—in any case it seems to be a summary of Vladimir’s deeds ending with the grant of the tithe to the Desiatinnaia Church. This hypothesis about the ‘royal inscription’ of Vladimir fits well not only with those foreign analogies, but also with what we know about other uses of writing in Vladimir’s lifetime. This hypothetical text can be paralleled to the coinage of Vladimir, which appeared at some point soon after the baptism. Gold and silver coins were struck in the name of Vladimir, using Byzantine coins as an example. The coinage of Vladimir was continued by both Sviatopolk ‘the Accursed’ and, at least during the early period of his reign, Iaroslav the Wise (both struck only silver coins), but then stopped until the late 14th century.253 This provokes the idea that the Rus coinage of the late 10th and the early 11th centuries was more of a political than an economical phenomenon. It is assumed that the coinage was a manifestation of the equality of the newly baptized realm with other European states.254 Writing played a major role in this manifestation: the inscriptions on new coins together with the images demonstrated the glory of Vladimir, his Christian faith, and, simultaneously, his connection with such new and prestigious thing as writing. Contrary to Byzantine prototypes, Vladimir’s coins (especially later issues) speak more of Vladimir as a ruler than of Christianity.255 By the way, the scarceness of those who could read those inscriptions is demonstrated by the fact that even some of the die-cutters of those coins clearly did not understand what they were engraving.256

252 Beshevliev, Prŭvobŭlgarski nadpisi, 151–2, no. 15. 253 See: Gaidukov and Kalinin, “Drevneishie russkie monety”; Androshchuk, Images of Power, 57–88. The only exclusion are coins struck in Tmutarakan in the second half of the 11th century. 254 Marina P. Sotnikova and Ivan G. Spasskii, Tysiacheletie drevneishikh monet Rossii: Svodnyi katalog russkikh monet X–XI vekov (Leningrad: Iskusstvo, 1983), 5–6, 9; Gaidukov and Kalinin, “Drevneishie russkie monety,” 434–5. 255 Androshchuk, Images of Power, 58–64. 256 Gaidukov and Kalinin, “Drevneishie russkie monety,” 415, 417, 425.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

143

Some written documentation connected to Vladimir is mentioned in PVL, in the account of the grant of the tithe to the newly consecrated Desiatinnaia Church: … [Vladimir] said as follows: ‘I give to this church of the Virgin the tenth of part [of income] from my possessions and from my towns.’ And he placed in this church, having written, the oath, saying: ‘If anybody encroaches on this, be he damned.’ … рекъ сице: ‘Даю церкви сеи святѣи Богородици от имѣнья моего и от градъ моихъ десятую часть’. И положи написавъ клятву въ церкви сеи, рече: ‘Аще кто сего посудить, да будет проклятъ.’257 This sounds as if Vladimir issued a diploma (a charter of grant258)—but the earliest extant example of this kind of documents in Rus dates from c. 1130. Iaroslav Shchapov assumed that those words refer to the so-called Vladimir’s Statute (Устав Владимира), a law-code concerned with the tithe and the ecclesiastical court. This law-code is extant in much later recensions, but, as Shchapov shows, it is likely to have had a nucleus that was indeed issued by Vladimir and thus may be identical with the charter mentioned in PVL.259 Again, we see here Vladimir’s interest in writing as a means of demonstrating his power and ensuring his benefactions. My hypothesis about √PP as Vladimir’s royal inscription matches well with what we know about his coinage and his charter.260 As it has been said in the previous subchapter, brief annals were kept in Kiev during the first half of the 11th century. The first notes in PVL that can be attributed to those annals are obits s.a. 1000–11. Thus, the annals start almost exactly where √PP ended (995 or 996). The most economic hypothesis would be that the annals were the continuation of √PP. My hypothesis is that a summary of Vladimir’s deeds (or, rather, his royal inscription) was written soon after the 257 PSRL, 1, 124. 258 Russian: жалованная грамота. 259 Iaroslav N. Shchapov, Kniazheskie ustavy i tserkov’ v Drevnei Rusi XI–XIV vv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1972), 126–7. 260 Compare observations on the uses of writing, mutually beneficial for secular rulers and ecclesiastics, in the early medieval Kingdom of Dalriada in Northern Britain, in: Margaret R. Nieke, “Literacy and power: the introduction and use of writing in Early Historic Scotland,” in State and society: The emergertnce and development of social hierarchy and political centralization, ed. by John Gledhill et. al. (London etc.: Unwin Hyman, 1988), 237–51.

144

chapter 2

consecration of the Desiatinnaia Church, and then this short text was continued with brief annalistic notes. √PP together with its annalistic continuation were used both by the hagiographer who compiled PP (of the continuation he used only one note: on Vladimir’s death261), and by the scribe who introduced the annalistic framework into previously non-annalistic historical narration. 2.6

The Emergence of Rus Historical Writing in a Comparative Perspective

The argument presented in the three previous subchapters makes the following scenario of the emergence of Rus historical writing the most plausible (although, unfortunately, still hypothetical). 1. In or soon after 996 (or, rather, 995), when Rus had recently been baptized and the cathedral Desiatinnaia Church consecrated, a short overview of Vladimir’s deeds, a kind of royal inscription (√PP), was written and placed in the Desiatinnaia Church. 2. During the first half of the 11th century (at least up to 1043) clerics of the Desiatinnaia Church continued this historical note with brief annalistic records. At first time, mostly obits were recorded, but later records on political, military, and natural events appeared. 3. At some time in the 11th century, perhaps in the late years of Iaroslav the Wise, or even after his death (1054), somebody composed a coherent non-annalistic narration on the deeds of the princes of Rus from Rurik to Iaroslav, or even to his sons (the Oldest Tale). 4. In the second half of the 11th century the monks of the Kievan Cave Monastery united the two traditions: they took the bulk of the material from the Oldest Tale but placed it into an annalistic framework constructed partly on the base of (and probably prompted by) √PP and its annalistic continuation. Thus the genre of letopisi was born. A comparative look can neither confirm those conclusions nor resolve all the problems. However, it seems useful to try to find out how historical writing emerged elsewhere—to evaluate the likelihood of the suggested scenario and to provide an overview of the circle of possibilities. 261 So, I agree with Nazarenko (“Dostovernye godovye daty,” 630–2) saying that PP’s notes on Vladimir’s 28 years of life after the baptism and on his death in 6523 (1015) go back not to √PP, but to its continuation (according to Nazarenko, however, this was the ‘Tale of Iaroslav’ which continued the Oldest Tale of c. 996).

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

145

It seems intuitively obvious that primitive, brief forms of historical writing should have appeared earlier than extended and elaborated texts. This was the conviction of many 19th-century scholars,262 and this is the axiom for Olexiy Tolochko who prefers to speak of brief annals (‘elementary notations’263), additions to foreign chronicles, or pieces of hagiography as the earliest forms of historical writing in Rus, than of any extended texts-predecessors of PVL, such as the Oldest Tale. Tolochko believes that Narrative history telling, so easily accepted in modern practice as to appear naturally and spontaneously, is in fact the result of a long development. Such a literary convention presupposes a certain level of culture and highly sophisticated literary techniques not normally developed without external stimuli. It is hard to imagine how it could be invented without an engagement with traditions in which narrative history telling had been established for some time.264 Tolochko stresses that early Rus historical writers, unlike their colleagues in many other countries of Europe who wrote in Latin, had no easily accessible foreign models of historical writing. Slavonic translations of some of Byzantine chronicles existed,265 but ‘the basic structure’ of the Rus letopisi, i.e. their annalistic framework, was not typical for Byzantine historiography, and had been firmly established without any influence of those translations.266 Is this view correct? The long transition from brief records to more coherent narrations is exactly what we see in those ancient societies where writing developed spontaneously, and not under any influence from outside, such as Sumer or China. It could take hundreds or even thousands of years for primitive historical records to develop into elaborated historiography. In Sumer, in the Early Dynastic Period (c. 2700–2350 BC), the first form of recording events appeared: royal inscriptions. The earliest votive inscriptions only recorded the very fact of a certain ruler’s deed: building of a temple, dedication of a certain object (like statue or vessel) to a god, etc. In the mid-3rd millennium BC the inscriptions of the rulers of the First Dynasty of Lagash started to list (or even to describe in detail) several their deeds: construction of temples, digging of canals, military victories, etc. Those texts started to include 262 263 264 265 266

See references: Gimon, “K probleme,” 759–60. Tolochko, “Christian Chronology,” 214. Ibid., 213. See subchapter 1.3. Tolochko, “Christian Chronology,” 213.

146

chapter 2

detailed narrations of conflicts with neighboring rulers, as well as references to the events of previous reigns. Similar texts were produced for the rulers of the Old Akkad Dynasty and the Third Dynasty of Ur (the 24th–21st centuries BC).267 As it has been supposed in the previous subchapter, the earliest text on St. Vladimir (√PP) was probably something of a similar type. The next, more elaborated, form of historical writing in Sumer was the Sumerian King List extant in several versions, the archetype of which probably was written under the Third Dynasty of Ur. The text lists dynasties (mythical or real) that are represented as having sequentially ruled Mesopotamia, the names of all the rulers of those dynasties, and reports of the duration of their reigns. This is the first Sumerian text to give some coherent vision of history ‘from the beginning’ and to place the present state of things into some historical context.268 Some other, also short, forms of historical writing appeared towards the end of the 3rd millennium BC,269 but such texts as the elaborated ‘royal annals’ (detailed accounts of a ruler’s deeds) or ‘chronicles’ were a product of the much later Neo-Assyrian Empire (911–612 BC). And no coherent historical narratives were created in ancient Mesopotamia at all.270 In China the development was quicker and more successful, but the direction it took was the same: from king-lists and other brief texts to annals—records of contemporary events systematically kept on bamboo slips and other materials during rituals, then from the annals (deeply connected with the veneration of royal ancestors), to retrospective chronicles (more politically biased), which, in turn, appeared several centuries prior to the famous example of coherent history, the Records of the Grand Historian by Sima Qian (145 or 135–86 BC).271 All those examples demonstrate an evolution from the recording of contemporary events (mostly with religious purposes) to the description of the past (which is more connected with political purposes such as the legitimization of a dynasty). In this logic, the evolution of historical writing in Rus should have been from contemporary records such as early annals or √PP (if 267 See: Michalowski, “Early Mesopotamia,” 6–14; Cooper, Sumerian and Akkadian Royal Inscriptions. 268 See: Michalowski, “Early Mesopotamia,” 6–14. See editions and English translations: Jean-Jacques Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2005), 117–27; “The Sumerian king list,” ETCSL subcorpus, http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl .cgi?text=c.2.1*# (1.09.2018). 269 Michalowski, “Early Mesopotamia,” 11–26. 270 See: Mario Liverani, “Later Mesopotamia,” in The Oxford History of Historical Writing, vol. 1, ed. Andrew Feldherr and Grant Hardy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 29–52. 271 Mark Iu. Ul’ianov, “K kharakteristike protsessa sokhraneniia istoricheskoi pamiati v Drevnem Kitae perioda Chun’tsiu (771–453 gg. do n.e.),” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2013 (2016): 71–167.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

147

my hypothesis of its being an early royal inscription is correct) to extended retrospective accounts of the past, such as PVL. However, Rus was a society in which writing emerged not spontaneously, but under the influence from outside. After the conversion to Christianity the written culture of Rus developed quite rapidly. We know little more than nothing of written practices in Rus before the conversion, but c. 1000 and in the 11th century the use of writing increases. C. 1050 we see already some original literary compositions, as well as the tradition of birchbark correspondence, the written laws, numerous graffiti, etc.272 This implies that the historiographical tradition could emerge in Rus rather quickly, and not necessarily had to pass the same stages as in ancient Sumer or China. So, it is probably more appropriate to compare Rus not with those ancient societies but with the medieval societies of the European periphery (such as the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, and the countries of Scandinavia, Poland, Bohemia, Hungary, etc.) where writing emerged after the conversion (and because of the conversion), under a strong influence from the outside. Books and writing skills were imported together with ecclesiastical institutions, although some written practices could pre-exist the conversion.273 The very idea of a comparison of the early historical writing of those countries is not new,274 but nobody, as far as I know, tried to compare the very beginning of it, the earliest forms of historical records, including minor ones. In most of the countries listed there was an early coherent narrative of the ‘national’ history.275 In Anglo-Saxon England (namely in Northumbria276) this was the Ecclesiastical History of the English People by Venerable Bede 272 See subchapter 1.1. 273 This was especially the case of Scandinavia where runic writing had already existed for several centuries, although obviously with a very restricted sphere of usage. By the way, some early runic inscriptions starting from as early as the 4th–5th centuries AD can be regarded as an early form of historical writing, an analogy to ancient royal inscriptions (see above, note 250). Anglo-Saxons also used runic alphabet before the conversion but we have so few pre-Christian texts that it is hardly possible to speak even of its restricted functions. 274 See Elena Melnikova’s works cited in note 51 in the introduction. See also: Mortensen, “Sanctified Beginnings,” 247–73; Ildar H. Garipzanov, ed., Historical Narratives and Christian Identity on a European Periphery: Early History Writing in Northern, East-Central, and Eastern Europe (c. 1070–1200) (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011). 275 Texts of this type are sometimes labeled ‘Barbarian Histories’ and have already been compared, see: Walter Goffart, The Narrators of Barbarian History (A.D. 550–800): Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, Bede and Paul the Deacon (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988); Melnikova, The Eastern World, 117–9. 276 Bede wrote in Northumbria, for a Northumbrian king, and, no doubt, with a Northumbrian bias, but he, nonetheless, regarded all Anglo-Saxon kingdoms as a certain unity and tried to cover, as far as he was able, the history of all of them.

148

chapter 2

(finished in 731), in Poland this was the Chronicle of Gallus Anonymus (c. 1113), in Bohemia this was the Chronicle of Cosmas of Prague (c. 1125, having annalistic structure and thus the most similar to PVL), in Hungary this was Gesta hungarorum P. magistri (the early 13th century). Several early historical narratives were produced in the 12th and the early 13th centuries in Denmark, Norway, and Iceland.277 Those texts278 narrated both the political (dynastic) and ecclesiastical history of their countries but in different proportion. For example, Bede’s priority was the history of the conversion, the church, and the local saints, although he tended to present a coherent political history of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms as well. On the contrary, Gallus Anonymus and Cosmas of Prague were more interested in political history than in ecclesiastical one. Those coherent narrations of ‘national’ history could be written either by locals (Bede, Cosmas of Prague [?], Sæmundr the Wise, Ari the Wise, Sven Aggesen, Saxo Grammaticus, Snorri Sturluson), or by foreigners (Gallus Anonymus). They could write either in Latin (as Bede, Gallus Anonymus, Cosmas of Prague, Sæmundr the Wise [?], Sven Aggesen, Saxo), or in the vernacular (Ari the Wise and most of other early Icelandic and Norwegian historiographers). To my mind, the place of birth of the author, as well as the language in which he wrote, are not of crucial importance. As for the author, in any case he should have been a person of wide education, familiar with the foreign tradition of historical writing. In some cases (Cosmas, Sæmundr, Sven) the authors are known or supposed to have been educated abroad. Bede never was abroad but he had access to the rich library of Weamouth-Jarrow, and the list of Latin authors he cited in his works is remarkably long.279 As for the language, the early historiographers in Northumbria, Poland, Bohemia, Hungary had only one option: Latin.280 Only within Scandinavia could a historiographer choose between Latin and the vernacular. 277 See overviews: Sverre Bagge, “Scandinavian Historical Writing, 1100–1400,” in The Oxford History of Historical Writing, vol. 2, ed. Sarah Foot and Chase F. Robinson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 414–27; Elena A. Mel’nikova, “Genealogiia i nachala islandskonorvezhskogo istoriopisaniia,” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2013 (2016) 464–526. 278 One also can list ‘Barbarian histories’ written in Barbarian kingdoms built on the ruins of the Roman Empire, such as the works by Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, Paul the Deacon, but those wrote in a situation of more complicated tangle of cultural influences and historiographical traditions. 279 Max L.W. Laistner, “The Library of the Venerable Bede,” idem. Intellectual Heritage of the Early Middle Ages: Selected Essays (Ithaca, N.Y.: Octagon Books, 1957), 117–49; Lapidge, Library. 280 In Anglo-Saxon England vernacular writing existed parallel with Latin (both in runic and Roman letters), but by Bede’s time it had a very restricted sphere of use: inscriptions, laws,

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

149

The Oldest Tale (as we can imagine it) should have belonged to the same row of early attempts at writing ‘national’ history. It is possible to compare those texts with PVL (as we have it) as well. But PVL is a more eclectic work. It is based upon earlier texts (unless we deny the very possibility of its stratification), and so it cannot claim to be the first narration of the past of Rus. PVL seems to be a result of synthesis of the Oldest Tale and the annalistic tradition, the two beginnings of Rus historical writing. The writer of the Oldest Tale certainly was a local (otherwise there would have been at least some traces of author’s foreign origin in the language of PVL), but it is not impossible that the work was supervised by a Greek or a Slav (Bulgarian?) educated in Byzantium.281 Greeks certainly were numerous among the early Rus clergy, and the presence of a byzantinized Slav was also possible. In Rus, as in Northumbria or Poland, and in contrast to Scandinavia, a writer could not choose which language to use: Church Slavonic was the only option. But this does not mean that Byzantine examples of historical writing were not accessible: firstly, the translations appeared; secondly, the educated author was likely to be able to read Greek; thirdly, a Greek supervisor was likely to exist. So, Tolochko’s argument that the hypothetical author of the Oldest Tale had no access to foreign examples of historical writing is not valid. Thus, the comparative data support the theory of the Oldest Tale: it is typical for the states of the European periphery to obtain quite early a narration of ‘national’ history, which would present the origins of the state and dynasty, the conversion and the early history of the local church, the recent political and ecclesiastical history (albeit in different proportion). All those texts were largely based on local oral tradition282—just as the Oldest Tale is assumed to have been. The writing of those texts was not a result of a gradual augmentation of short records—on the contrary, in all cases it was a deliberate enterprise: to create a ‘national’ historical narrative, which had been lacking before. This is exactly what one can say about the hypothetical Oldest Tale. However, there is still the problem of chronology. In Northumbria, Poland, Bohemia, Hungary, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland, a hundred years or more passed between the conversion to Christianity and the writing of the first and glosses in Latin manuscripts. Only in the late 9th century, in King Alfred’s days, Old English became the language of literature and historiography. 281 Aleksei S. Shchavelev, “Eshche raz o mifoepicheskikh ustnykh istochnikakh srednevekovogo istoriopisaniia: rasskazy ob osnovateliakh dinastii u Galla Anonima i Snorri Sturlusona,” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2013 (2016): 584–5. 282 Even Venerable Bede, whose Ecclesiastical History was highly based upon literary models and written sources (if only they were available), obtained much of his knowledge from oral tradition (see below, subchapter 2.7).

150

chapter 2

‘national’ coherent history. This does not necessarily mean that in Rus a coherent history could not be written sooner. But it speaks in favor of a relatively late date of the Oldest Tale (as I have said above, it seems plausible that the Oldest Tale was written not in Vladimir’s lifetime, but, rather, about the middle of the 11th century). Scandinavian examples also show that there can be not just one single ‘early national history’ with no comparable successors (as in the case of Bede’s HE in Northumbria), but a set of historical works composed within a relatively short period: the Roskilde Chronicle, the works by Sven Aggesen and Saxo Grammaticus in Denmark; Historia Norwegie, the History by Theodoricus Monachus, Ágrip af Nóregskonungasögum in Norway; the works by Sæmundr and Ari, and the compendia of king sagas known as Morkinskinna, Fagrskinna, and Snorri Sturluson’s Heimskringla in Iceland). After the peak of this development (represented by the early 13th-century works of Saxo in Denmark and Snorri in Iceland), came a long period of historiographical decline.283 All this can be paralleled to the development of Rus historiography in the 11th and the early 12th centuries: the Oldest Tale, Nikon’s and the Initial compilations, and, finally, PVL form such an outburst of historiography, while later in the 12th century the annalistic writing became more routine.284 But the comparative observations not only support the hypothesis of the Oldest Tale. Although in the countries mentioned there was an early coherent narrative of the ‘national’ history, it was not necessarily the earliest form of recording events. On the one hand, there are clear examples in which coherent narratives of the ‘national’ history are preceded by hagiographical texts dedicated to local royal saints. Such were cases of Hungary, Denmark, and Norway, compared by Lars Boje Mortensen.285 It is very probable that an early form of writing down the past in 7th-century Kent was a series of hagiographic stories, later used by Bede.286 As for Rus, the existence of hagiographical texts (most probably, on St. Boris and Gleb killed in 1015) before the appearance of any more extended historical writing is by no means impossible. However, as it has 283 Bagge, “Scandinavian Historical Writing,” 421. 284 Compare also the outburst of Armenian historiography in the 5th century, very soon after the invention of the Armenian alphabet and the emergence of vernacular writing in Armenia [see with references: Theo Maarten van Lint, “From Reciting to Writing and Interpretation: Tendencies, Themes, and Demarcations of Armenian Historical Writing,” in The Oxford History of Historical Writing, vol. 2, ed. Sarah Foot and Chase F. Robinson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 180–200), and maybe even the outburst of historiography in Greece in the 6th–5th centuries BC. 285 Mortensen, “Sanctified Beginnings,” 257–8 et al. 286 Richard Shaw, The Gregorian Mission to Kent in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History: Methodology and Sources (London – New York: Routledge, 2018), 223–38.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

151

been already said, Savva Mikheev observes that all early pieces of hagiography available to us (except PP) are secondary in comparison to letopisi.287 It may be that the early source of PP (which I call √PP, or Vladimir’s royal inscription) was in fact a piece of hagiography dedicated to Vladimir. However, it seems to have been dedicated rather to listing and praising of Vladimir’s deeds as a glorious ruler, not as a saint; furthermore, it was written in Vladimir’s lifetime.288 After all, the conversion narrative in PVL is very much based upon oral tradition having sometimes little common with the genre of hagiography.289 On the other hand, coherent narrations of ‘national’ history could be preceded by such minor forms of writing down events as brief annals, lists of rulers, etc. For example, in Poland and Bohemia the tradition of keeping brief annals preceded the writing of extended historical works by Gallus Anonymus and Cosmas of Prague.290 Another clear example of minor texts that pre-date a coherent narrative can be found in Northumbria. One can be practically sure that Bede was the first author in Northumbria (as well as in Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in general) to write extended historical works. No such texts are attested among the sources of Bede or any later author. However, there are reasons to speak of minor forms of historical writing which pre-dated Bede’s work in the early 8th century.291 Firstly, Bede himself mentions in HE lists of kings of Northumbria when speaking of two apostates who inherited the two parts of Northumbria, Bernicia and Deira, after the death of Edwin (632 or 633), Northumbria’s baptizer (both the apostates soon were killed in battle by Brittonic king Cædwalla):

287 288 289 290 291

See note 86 above. See the discussion in 2.5. See below, subchapter 2.7. Nazarenko, “Dostovernye godovye daty,” 600–2 (with references). Charles Jones in 1947 was very optimistic when assumed that Bede’s dates of Anglo-Saxon events were based upon a variety of written sources such as paschal annals, liturgical calendars, king-lists, etc. (Charles W. Jones, Saints’ Lives and Chronicles in Early England (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1947), 31–50, 161–99). However, subsequent study has shown that Bede calculated many dates basing upon certain benchmarks such as dates from foreign sources, epistles, and inscriptions he used, durations of reigns, etc. See: David P. Kirby, “Bede and Northumbrian Chronology,” The English Historical Review 78, no. 308 (1963), 514–27; Molly Miller, “Bede’s Roman Dates,” Classica et Medievalia 31 (1970): 239–52; eadem, “The dates of Deira,” Anglo-Saxon England 8 (1979): 35–61; Kenneth Harrison, The Framework of Anglo-Saxon History to A.D. 900 (Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 76–98; Susan Wood, “Bede’s Northumbrian dates again,” The English Historical Review 98, no. 387 (1983): 280–96; Shaw, The Gregorian Mission, 20–8, 118–21, 161–4, 173, et al.

152

chapter 2

To this day that year is still held to have been ill-omened and hateful to all good men, not only on account of the apostasy of the English kings who cast aside the mysteries of their faith, but also because of the outrageous tyranny of the British king. So all those who compute the dates of kings (Unde cunctis placuit regum temora computantibus ut) have decided to abolish the memory of those perfidious kings and to assign this year to their successor Oswald, a man beloved of God (iii: 1).292 But, as we have explained previously, it was decided by the unanimous consent of all (unanimo omnium consensu firmatum est) that the name and memory of those apostates ought to be utterly blotted out from the list of Christian kings and that no year should be assigned to their reign (iii: 9).293 Those two fragments have been commented upon in different ways. Some scholars saw here a reference to early annals or similar texts,294 but it is much more probable that Bede mentions king-lists which indicated the durations of the reigns.295 It has been noted by Charles Plummer that the earliest extant Northumbrian king-list, the first part of the so-called Moore Memoranda on Northumbrian History placed after HE in one of its oldest manuscripts, indicates the length of the reigns and, exactly according to Bede’s words, does not mention the two kings-apostates and counts 9 years of Oswald’s reign instead of 8.296 Even though it is possible that the Moore Memoranda themselves were secondary in comparison to HE,297 this text gives us some idea of what kind of text Bede referred to. Bede certainly knew the lengths of different reigns 292 Colgrave and Mynors, eds., Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, 214–5. 293 Ibid., 240–1. 294 Charles Plummer, ed., Venerabilis Baedae Opera Historica, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896), 121 (cited via: Jones, Saints’ Lives and Chronicles, 117); Beda, Storia degli inglesi, 2, 492 (both, Plummer and Chiesa in the comments to HE suppose either a king-list, or a set of annals); Miller, “Bede’s Roman Dates,” 251 (the author assumes that, as Bede referred to cunctis, in plural, that should have been at least two authorities; Miller suggests a set of paschal annals by Deacon Jacob and a king-list by St. Aidan or somebody of his circle; both suggestions seem highly conjectural as those texts are not attested otherwise). 295 Plummer, ed. Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, vol. 2, cix–x; Peter Hunter Blair, “The Moore Memoranda on Northumbrian History,” in The Early Cultures of North-West Europe (H.M. Chadwick memorial studies), ed. Cyril Fox and Bruce Dickins (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950), 247–50, 257; Jones, Saints’ Lives and Chronicles, 42, 47, 176–7; Wood, “Bede’s Northumbrian dates,” 293–5. See also in the previous note. On Bede’s usage of a Kentish king-list see: Shaw, The Gregorian Mission, 179–80, 182, et al. 296 Plummer, ed. Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, vol. 2, cix–x. 297 This has been argued in: Harrison, The Framework, 87–8.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

153

and used those data to calculate other dates of Northumbrian history.298 Bede’s wordings (‘all those who compute the dates of kings’, ‘it was decided by the unanimous consent of all’) mean that those lists had some kind of general importance for the realm,299 and the decision to exclude the two kings from the lists looks like an act of official damnatio memoriae (condemnation of memory).300 Lists of rulers, often notifying length of reigns, are attested as an early form of historiography in many societies. I have already mentioned the Sumerian King List and king-lists from China.301 If one looks for a closer analogy, the Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans (Именник на българските ханове) would be an example: a brief and partly obscure text, extant only in a Church Slavonic translation (in 15th–16th-century Rus transcripts) but certainly being an early example of the historical writing of the First Bulgarian Empire. The text simply lists rulers giving on each of them some genealogical and chronological information, including the lengths of the reigns.302 A hypothesis will be put forth below303 that short but descriptive lists of princes and bishops were composed in Novgorod in the 1090s being there the earliest form of coherent written representation of the past. The existence of such texts in 11th-century Kiev has not yet been attested. However, there is no doubt that the sequence of Kievan princes and the durations of their reigns were a sort of general knowledge at the time. PP and PVL report durations of reigns many times, and maybe scribes used those figures to calculate absolute dates (and not vice versa). At least one plausible case has been described above: the date of the conversion of Rus (6496, i.e. 988) could be calculated from the length of Vladimir’s reign after the baptism (28 years). At least, PP reports those 28 years but does not report the absolute date of 298 См.: Kirby, “Bede and Northumbrian Chronology.” 515; Miller, “The dates of Deira,” 52, 57 et al.; Wood, “Bede’s Northumbrian dates.” 299 Cf.: Miller, “The dates of Deira,” 45. 300 Cf.: Hunter Blair, “The Moore Memoranda,” 248–9. 301 A list of seven Chinese rulers with brief panegyric assessments of their reigns was written in the 10th century BC on a vessel (see: Ul’ianov, “K kharakteristike,” 82, note 31). A Mesoamerican inscription of c. 1st century AD probably reports a triumph of a king and, on the other side of the monument, three his predecessors and their triumphs (Beliaev, “Zarozhdenie,” 223–5). 302 Ivan Bogdanov, ed., Imennik na Balgarskite hanove (Sofia: Izdatelstvo na otechestveniya front, 1981). The date of compilation of the Nominalia is obscure. It lists rulers up to the 760s, but it has been suggested both, that the work appeared earlier, in the late 7th century and then was updated, and that it was written as late as c. 900. The language of the original text could be Bulgar (Turkic) and/or Greek. 303 See subchapter 3.2.

154

chapter 2

the conversion. And there is a case very similar to the one described by Bede. PVL says that Iaroslav the Wise ruled for 40 years. This figure will be correct only if one counts from 1015 (the death of Vladimir) to 1054 (the death of Iaroslav), using the ‘inclusive’ way of counting. So, the years of the ‘bad’ reign of Sviatopolk I the Accursed (or, rather, two reigns as he seated in Kiev for two times between 1015 and 1018), are included into the ‘good’ reign of Iaroslav.304 Another kind of historical records which is likely to have pre-dated Bede’s work are the brief annals, maybe in Easter tables. Such a hypothesis is able to explain some trustworthy dates or unique details in Bede’s works as well as in some later sources.305 In several cases such an explanation seems plausible, although some scholars warn that in many cases this is no more than a conjecture.306 The existence of pre-Bedan annals in Northumbria is probable but far from certain. However, one can be sure that such records were made in the 7th century in another Anglo-Saxon Kingdom, Kent. Several Frankish manuscripts contain Easter tables with a series of notes on world and English history, mostly based on Bede’s works. However, a group of notes with precise dates (calends and days of week) concerns events in Kent from 620 to 686. Those notes report deaths of six Kentish kings and one archbishop of Canterbury. Although it is not impossible that those notes primarily had been based on a liturgical calendar or tomb inscriptions, they demonstrate that at least in the late 7th century a set of annalistic notes in an Easter table existed in Kent.307 Finally, liturgical calendars can be regarded as an early form of writing down events. Obits of some Anglo-Saxons (such as kings Edwin, Oswald, etc.) started to be included into the calendars quite early. Bede mentions in HE a calendar

304 Nazarenko, “Dostovernye godovye daty,” 630, note 139. 305 See: Wilhelm Levison, “Bede as historian,” in Bede: His Life, Times and Writings: Essays in commemoration of the twelfth centenary of his death, ed. A. Hamilton Thompson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1935), 135–7; idem, England and the Continent in the Eighth Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1946), 267; Charles W. Jones, “Bede as Early Medieval Historian,” Medievalia et Humanistica 4 (1946): 36; Peter Hunter Blair, “The Northumbrians and their southern frontier,” Archaeologia Aeliana, or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity 26 (1948): 105–12; idem, “The Moore Memoranda,” 257; Harrison, The Framework, 90, note 14; 93–4, 96–7; Miller, “Bede’s Roman Dates,” 244–52; eadem, “The dates of Deira,” 54; etc. 306 Kirby, “Bede and Northumbrian Chronology,” 514–5 et al. (the author insists that Bede could use an annalistic source only for the events after 685); Harrison, The Framework, 46, 96–7; Janet M. Bately, “Manuscript Layout and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 70, no. 1 (1988): 38, note 92. 307 See: Story, “The Frankish Annals,” 81–97, 108–9.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

155

in which one could find the day of the death of King Oswald.308 The calendar of Willibrord (d. 739), an Anglo-Saxon missionary on the Continent, contains several obits of Anglo-Saxons.309 So do the Anglo-Saxon calendars extant in manuscripts of the 9th–11th centuries.310 Of course, calendars do not belong to historical writing in pure sense, as they report events not in chronological sequence, but according to months and days in which they should be commemorated. However, together with lists of kings and brief annals, they can be regarded as one of the earliest forms of written representation of important events of the past (as well as of the organizing of time). Those three forms of records supplemented each other giving, respectively, durations of reigns, year-dates, and days of rulers’ deaths.311 Together they are likely to have helped Bede to create the chronological framework of his narrative on 7th-century Anglo-Saxon history.312 Therefore, the Anglo-Saxon example shows that, firstly, a coherent historical narrative can appear quite early and be one man’s enterprise, not a result of a gradual development. Secondly, this narrative is likely to have been preceded by brief, primitive forms of writing down events and chronological information. This picture is in accord with what was said above about the beginnings of historical writing in Rus. By the way, a tradition similar to Rus letopisi (that is, a synthesis of narrative history and brief annals) also appeared in Anglo-Saxon England, although respectively much later. The ‘common stock’ of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was composed in the 890s, that is, some 160 years after Bede’s HE had been written, in another kingdom (Wessex instead of Northumbria), and in another language (Old English instead of Latin). Also, the compiler of the ‘common stock’ used not the main body of Bede’s HE, but his ‘annals’, that is, the chronological summary made by Bede in v: 24.313 The ‘narrative’ component is present in the annals of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for later years, not for the times covered by HE.314 So, the direct comparison of the emergence of Rus letopisi tradition 308 Colgrave and Mynors, eds., Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, 380–1 (iv: 14). Bede says: ‘in annale suo’, certainly meaning a liturgical calendar. 309 Story, “The Frankish Annals,” 90–1. 310 Francis Wormald, ed., English Kalendars before A.D. 1100 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1988 [first published in 1934]). 311 Compare: Jones, “Bede as Early Medieval Historian,” 27–8. 312 On Bede’s usage of calendars see: Miller, “The dates of Deira.” 38–40, 59; Wood, “Bede’s Northumbrian dates,” 284; David P. Kirby, “Bede’s Native Sources for the Historia Ecclesiastica,” in Anglo-Saxon History: Basic Readings, ed. David A.E. Pelteret (New York – London: Routledge, 2000), 63 (first published in 1965–6). 313 See chapter 1, note 347. 314 On the structure and the style of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle see above, subchapter 1.6.

156

chapter 2

and of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is problematic. But the very beginnings of historical writing (primitive texts and, later, a coherent narration) are similar. My hypothesis about √PP as Vladimir’s royal inscription has not yet any support in Anglo-Saxon material. Nevertheless, as it has been said in the previous subchapter, such texts are well known in different ancient societies, and, if we look for closer analogies, one can point at some early Scandinavian and Bulgarian inscriptions. There is one form of historical writing, however, which is typical for many early written cultures, but is completely absent in early Rus: genealogy. Until the 15th century no purely genealogical texts written in Rus are known. Only c. 1423 the first pedigree of Rus princes was composed in Novgorod.315 This contrasts with the early material from many other countries. For example, the earliest Anglo-Saxon collection of royal pedigrees (labeled by David Dumville as the Anglian Collection) is extant in an early 9th-century manuscript, and was compiled probably in the 8th century.316 Bede included a pedigree of the kings of Kent into his HE,317 and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is full of genealogical excursuses as well as is preceded (in the oldest manuscript) by a genealogical list of the kings of Wessex. Genealogy was extremely important for early Scandinavia: early genealogical works such as Ynglingatal, a skaldic poem composed c. 900 (and belonging yet to the oral domain), are well known. The earliest coherent historical narratives of Scandinavia were largely built upon a genealogical framework.318 Genealogies were one of the earliest forms of historiography in Celtic world,319 as well as in many societies elsewhere. However, PVL or, rather, the hypothetical Oldest Tale is, to a certain extent, built upon a genealogical framework. It narrates, first of all, the story of the dynasty, generation by generation, and the knowledge of the Rurikids’ genealogy was probably the main basis upon which the 11th-century author of the Oldest Tale created his narrative.320 Elena Melnikova even shows that PVL’s narrations on the earliest princes of Rus can be regarded as a set of their ‘biographies’, which typically comprise the same elements (subjugation of Slavonic ‘tribes’, military expedition against Byzantium, death, etc.). Melnikova

315 See: Andrei S. Usachev, Stepennaia kniga i drevnerusskaia knizhnost’ vremeni mitropolita Makariia (Moscow – Saint-Petersburg: Al’ians-Arkheo, 2009), 310–1 ff. 316 Dumville, “The Anglian Collection.” 317 Colgrave and Mynors, eds., Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, 50–1, 150–1 (i: XV, ii: V). 318 Mel’nikova, “Genealogiia;” see also: Bagge, “Scandinavian Historical Writing,” 415. 319 Nina Iu. Zhivlova, “Genealogii i rannee istoriopisanie v Irlandii,” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2013 (2016): 324–64 (with many references). 320 Melnikova, The Eastern World, 111.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

157

compares in this respect PVL and Ynglingasaga in which the framework certainly was royal genealogy.321 In the earliest times (say, in the 11th century) the absence of written princely pedigrees in Rus can be explained by the fact that the dynasty traced its origin back to Rurik, to the so-called Call of the Varangians in 862, and not to some distant mythical ancestor (as the Anglo-Saxon rulers did, for example322). So, not so many generations had to be remembered (for instance, Iaroslav the Wise represented the fifth generation of the dynasty, if one was to count from Rurik). It is more difficult, however, to explain the absence of written pedigrees in later times, in the 12th century and later, when the genealogical factor played a significant role in the interrelations between numerous Rurikid princes. One can only guess whether written pedigrees existed but did not survive, or whether genealogy continued to belong to the oral domain. In summation, the key 11th-century Rus historiographical work, the hypothetical Oldest Tale, can be paralleled to early coherent historical narratives of other states of the periphery of Christian Europe, such as the works by Venerable Bede, Gallus Anonymus, Cosmas of Prague, etc. The hypothesis that such a text existed and that it was one man’s enterprise seems plausible in a comparative light. However, it does not seem plausible that such a text could be created immediately after the conversion in the late 10th century: probably much later. Also, it is typical that brief, even primitive, forms of recording events precede such a coherent narrative. In the case of Rus those were brief annals kept in the first half of the 11th century (their existence seems very well proved and, at the same time, plausible in a comparative light) and, more hypothetically, the royal inscription of Vladimir (√PP). The latter hypothesis belongs to me, but it seems to be strengthened not only by far analogies (such as those from Ancient East) but also by Scandinavian and Bulgarian material where early inscriptions commemorating rulers’ deeds, including even the conversion of the realm, are known. 2.7

Reporting the Pagan Past and the Conversion: Povest’ vremennykh let and Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica

Any historiographer in a recently converted state had two important tasks: to describe the very event of the conversion, and to deal somehow with the pagan past of the state and the dynasty. The treatment of those two themes by early writers of Northern, East-Central, and Eastern Europe recently became a 321 Mel’nikova, “Istoricheskaia pamiat’ v ustnoi i pis’mennoi traditsiiakh.” 322 See in the next subchapter.

158

chapter 2

focus of a collaborative study edited by Ildar Garipzanov,323 which showed a diversity of strategies early medieval scribes used to describe the past of their ‘nations’. This volume, being an extremely useful comparative study of early historical writing, however, does not contain a detailed analysis of the treatment of the pagan past and the conversion by the Rus annals. Its ‘Rus’ section comprises three contributions. The first one (by Olexiy Tolochko) is dedicated to some debatable questions of the origin of historical writing in Rus as well as to the role of the chronological framework in the annalistic perception of history.324 The second contribution (by Donald Ostrowski) contains observations on general structure of PVL as well as on its perception of pagans (mostly not of pagan ancestors, but of pagan neighbors).325 The third contribution (which is mine) is dedicated to the annals of Novgorod, which do not contain any original coherent narrative neither of the pagan period nor of the conversion (in what concerns conversion they only add local episodes to the Kievan narrative).326 In this subchapter I suggest a new attempt at comparative study of those questions. PVL will be compared with Venerable Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Historia ecclesiastica gentis anglorum, HE).327 Both are key texts for early historical writing of their countries, Kievan Rus and the Kingdom of Northumbria, respectively.328 At first sight, the two texts are more than different. Firstly, HE is written entirely by one author, Bede, in the early 8th century (finished in 731). PVL, 323 Garipzanov, ed., Historical Narratives. 324 Tolochko, “Christian Chronology,” 207–229. I have discussed this Tolochko’s paper above, in subchapter 2.6. 325 Donald Ostrowski, “Pagan Past and Christian Identity in the Primary Chronicle,” in Historical Narratives and Christian Identity on a European Periphery: Early History Writing in Northern, East-Central, and Eastern Europe (c. 1070–1200), ed. Ildar Garipzanov (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), 229–53. 326 Timofey V. Guimon, “Christian Identity in the Early Novgorodian Annalistic Writing,” in Historical Narratives and Christian Identity on a European Periphery: Early History Writing in Northern, East-Central, and Eastern Europe (c. 1070–1200), ed. Ildar Garipzanov (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), 255–75. 327 See on editions above, note 330 in chapter 1. 328 Some comparative observations concerning those two texts have already been made. Evgenii Vodolazkin (Vsemirnaia istoriia, 60) noted that early Rus historiographers, as Bede, perceived the early history of their country more in the categories of the Old Testament than in those of the New Testament. Vladimir Petrukhin [“Stanovlenie gosudarstv i vlast’ pravitelia v germano-skandinavskikh i slavianskikh traditsiiakh: Aspekty sravnitel’noistoricheskogo analiza,” in Obshchestvennaia mysl’ slavianskikh narodov v epokhu rannego Srednevekov’ia, ed. Boris N. Floria (Moscow: Rukopisnye pamiatniki Drevnei Rusi, 2009), 85–93] compared the story of the coming of the Anglo-Saxons to Britain in Bede and the tale of the call of the Varangians in PVL.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

159

on the contrary, is a result of a text-evolution and, thus, a mosaic of fragments originally written by several authors. Secondly, PVL (as we have it) is an example of letopisi, i.e. it is annalistic. Bede’s narrative, although full of dates, is nonannalistic, it is much more coherent. One could suggest comparing HE with the Oldest Tale (also a coherent, non-annalistic narrative), but the Oldest Tale did not survive, and we can speak of it only hypothetically. Thirdly, Venerable Bede aimed to write an ecclesiastical history: he traced systematically the story of the spread of Christianity in Britain and the emergence of the Anglo-Saxon church. He said much of political history too, but it was obviously not the first of his tasks. Bede paid especially little attention to the pre-Christian political history of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. On the contrary, PVL concentrates on political history, including that of the pagan period. PVL speaks much of the conversion but pays little attention to the establishment of ecclesiastical institutions. However, as I will try to show, when we start to compare the view of the two texts on the pagan past and on the conversion, we find a surprising similarity.329 The pagan past. Ildar Garipzanov, in the introduction to the collective volume already mentioned, tried to outline the circle of options an early historiographer had when he started to deal with the pagan past of his state: Some early Christian narratives written on the northeastern periphery of medieval Europe presented this dichotomy as divided by space or time— the glorious Christian present replacing the ignominious heathen past. Another strategy was to relegate the ‘pagan’ period to a level of no historical importance or to omit it altogether and focus on the converting efforts of the first Christian rulers and the time thereafter. ⟨…⟩ But even those authors who presented a particular ‘nation’ as the driving force of their narratives described them, first and foremost, as Christian ‘nations’. Furthermore, many early Christian narrators wrote their works close to the centers of political power as loyal servants of ruling dynasties, and dynastic loyalty led some writers to take a more positive view of a particular dynasty’s pagan past. Still, such narratives emphasized the Christian nature of ruling dynasties and their proximity to the Lord.330

329 The origin myths reflected by those texts, such as the stories of the calls of the Saxons and the Varangians, have already been compared, see for example: Melnikova, The Eastern World, 117–9. 330 Ildar H. Garipzanov, “History writing and Christian Identity on a European Periphery,” in Historical Narratives and Christian Identity on a European Periphery: Early History Writing in Northern, East-Central, and Eastern Europe (c. 1070–1200), ed. Ildar Garipzanov (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), 1–2.

160

chapter 2

This list of options can be supplemented. Even the contributions of the same volume show a variety of ways the early historians treated the pagan past.331 As Donald Ostrowski rightly says in his contribution, neither of the strategies ⟨…⟩ as described in the ‘Introduction’ to this volume ⟨…⟩ is adopted by either of the narrators of the Primary Chronicle. To be sure, they consider the Christian period of the Rus’ to be superior to its pagan period, as they do Christianity to paganism, but one finds little in the manner of denigration or demonizing of the pagan period.332 The attitude of PVL towards pagans has concerned many scholars. Two recent papers are dedicated specially to this topic: those by Aleksandr Shaikin and Donald Ostrowski. Both scholars pay more attention to the perception of pagan neighbors of Rus (such as the Cumans) or of remnant paganism of the 11th century. However, they both point out that the annalist’s tone in what concerns pre-988 Rurikid princes is generally neutral, that he emphasizes those princes’ achievements, and does not criticize them much for their paganism.333 Indeed, PVL as we have it pays much attention to the pagan period of the history of Rus. The paganism itself, however, is not the central topic for the annalist. He speaks a little of the customs of pagan ‘tribes’,334 sometimes mentions heathen rituals,335 describes in detail the ‘pagan reform’ of Vladimir, when he in 980, eight years prior to his baptism, erected idols of heathen gods in Kiev.336 Also, the annalist, explaining some events, specially notices that the princes or the people at the time in question were still pagan.337 But basically PVL’s text for the 9th and the 10th centuries is not dedicated to paganism: it narrates the history of the dynasty and the deeds of its princes. This narrative is based mostly on oral tradition, and never accuses the early princes of their paganism. In PVL this early period is an integral part of the political, or dynastic, history of Rus—a part of the annalist’s own history, in which, of course, the conversion had been a crucial point. Even more, s.a. PVL gives a general 331 See a review: Tatiana N. Dzhakson [Jackson], “Rannee istoriopisanie skandinavskih stran: K probleme formirovanija nacional’noj identichnosti,” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2013 (2016): 805–806, 832. 332 Ostrowski, “Pagan Past,” 230. 333 Aleksandr A. Shaikin, “‘Povest’ vremennykh let’ o iazychestve na Rusi,” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom) 55 (2004): 29–33; Ostrowski, “Pagan Past,” 230, 242–3. 334 PSRL, 1, 13–4. 335 Ibid., 32, 54, 56–57, 68, 82–83. 336 Ibid., 79. 337 Ibid., 21, 32, 63, 80.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

161

assessment of Vladimir’s reign. This annal terminates with the statement that the prince lived ‘according to the arrangements of his father and his grandfather’ (‘по устроенью отню и дѣдню’), that is, of two pagan princes: Sviatoslav and his father Igor.338 The same attitude towards the pagan past was characteristic (as far as one can judge) for the texts-predecessors of PVL. The annals of N1Y, at least, do not differ in this respect from those of PVL. Maybe, PVL is even more aware that Rus used to be pagan, contains more references to this, and, perhaps, tries to compensate it by saying that Apostle Andrew visited Kiev.339 The Oldest Tale, however a hypothetical text it was, certainly contained a narration of deeds of the early Rus princes based on oral tradition, and there is no reason to suppose that it treated their paganism in a way different from that of PVL. Metropolitan Ilarion’s Sermon on Law and Grace of the times of Iaroslav the Wise,340 although an entirely Christian text, demonstrates more or less the same view of the pagan past of the dynasty.341 The purpose of Ilarion was to place Rus and its conversion into the general picture of the story of the Salvation. In this piece of ‘historiosophy’ Ilarion does not hesitate to mention ‘Igor the Old’ (‘старааго Игоря’—Vladimir’s grandfather) and ‘Sviatoslav the Glorious’ (‘славнааго Святослава’—Vladimir’s father). The metropolitan mentions the military success and the glory of both—to show that Vladimir became a prince not in some little-known land, but in a realm which had already been ‘known and heard’ (‘вѣдома и слышима’) in all the four cardinal directions.342 Finally, the same kind of attitude towards the pagan past is visible in the historical notes of Iakov the Monk’s PP. As it has been said above,343 those notes probably are based on a very early peace of historical writing (√PP), a short overview of Vladimir’s deeds written in his lifetime, at the very end of the 10th century. Among other deeds of Vladimir PP lists his military enterprises of the pagan period—as an illustration to the idea that, ‘the Lord’s hand helping him, he defeated all his enemies’.344 So, both the author of the early text on Vladimir (√PP) and the hagiographer, treated the pagan period as a legitimate and glorious part of Vladimir’s reign. 338 Ibid., 127. See also in this annal: ‘as my grandfather and my father found gold and silver with the retinue’ (‘якоже дѣдъ мои и отець мои доискася дружиною злата и сребра’). This was emphasized by Shaikin (“‘Povest’ vremennykh let’,” 30). 339 See Timberlake, “Redactions,” 204–5. 340 See in subchapter 1.4. 341 Shaikin, “‘Povest’ vremennykh let’,” 29, note 2. 342 Moldovan, ed. “Slovo o zakone i blagodati”, 91–2. 343 Subchapter 2.5. 344 See the full fragment above, at the beginning of subchapter 2.5.

162

chapter 2

Let us now turn to Bede’s HE. At first sight, the pagan past of the Anglo-Saxons is not the topic of his interest. He speaks of the early history of Britain, of the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, of the sins of the Britons, and then turns to the conversion of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the late 6th–mid-7th centuries (from i: 23). As Natalia Gvozdetskaia recently wrote, Bede does not pay much attention to paganism. He almost does not mention the paganism of the Britons. He tries to pass over in silence the paganism of the Romans—much more important for Bede was the integration of Britain into pax Romana. Finally, the heathenism of the Anglo-Saxons is mentioned seldom—and always with sympathy to that people. The Saxons, although pagan, are in Bede’s view an instrument of divine revenge upon the wicked Britons. Their customs appear to be not so rude. For instance, Bede hates Brittonic king Cædwalla (a Christian) more than Anglo-Saxon king Penda (a pagan). In general, Bede regards pagans as a soil to be cultivated, not as enemies to be eliminated.345 Those conclusions can be supplemented with some observations concerning the narrative structure of HE. Although Bede (contrary to early Rus historical writers) chose not to describe the pagan period of the Anglo-Saxon history, some of his decisions show that he (like his Rus colleagues) regarded the pagan past as a legitimate part of the history of his ‘nation’. When Bede describes the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons to Britain (i: 15) he says that they, although pagan, would become the tool of the Lord’s revenge upon the Britons.346 In i: 22 Bede touches again the question of Anglo-Saxon paganism—and again because he wants to sting the Britons:347 To other unspeakable crimes, which Gildas their own historian describes in doleful words, was added this crime, that they never preached the faith to the Saxons or Angles who inhabited Britain with them. Nevertheless God in His goodness did not reject the people whom He foreknew, but He had appointed much worthier heralds to the truth to bring this people to the faith.348

345 Nataliia Iu. Gvozdetskaia, “Vospriiatie iazychestva i obraz iazychnika v ‘Tserkovnoi istorii naroda anglov’ Bedy Dostochtimogo,” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e 26 (2014): 59–64. 346 Colgrave and Mynors, eds., Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, 48–9. 347 On the nuances of Bede’s attitude towards the Britons, who are mostly compared (implicitly) to Jews, see: W. Trent Foley and Nicholas J. Higham, “Bede on the Britons,” Early Medieval Europe 17, no. 2 (2009): 154–85. 348 Colgrave and Mynors, eds., Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, 68–9.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

163

Those words work as a bridge from the history of the Britons to the story of the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons, the pagan past of the latter being left aside. Having described the conversion of Kent, the first of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms that adopted Christianity, Bede dedicated a short passage to King Æthelfrith of Northumbria (i: 34) with which the first book of HE terminates. This is an important point for all the structure of HE. It is significant for Bede to tell what was happening in his own realm, in Northumbria, when, in the South, Kent was baptized: At this time Æthelfrith, a very brave king and most eager for glory, was ruling over the kingdom of Northumbria. He ravaged the Britons more extensively than any other English ruler. He might indeed be compared with Saul who was once king of Israel, but with this exception, that Æthelfrith was ignorant of the divine religion. For no ruler or king had subjected more land to the English race or settled it, having first either exterminated or conquered the natives.349 Bede continues to describe Æthelfrith, but it is obvious already from the words quoted that Bede perceived him as an important and glorious figure in the Northumbrian history (although he was pagan).350 In ii: 2 Bede mentions Æthelfrith again speaking of his victory over the ‘wicked host’ (‘nefandae militiae copias’) of Brittonic monks, heretics, to Bede’s mind.351 In i: 15, when speaking of the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons to Britain, Bede gives a short pedigree of Hengist and Horsa, the founders of the royal dynasty of Kent, going back to Woden, originally a Germanic pagan god.352 In many Anglo-Saxon royal pedigrees he acts a progenitor. In ii: 5, when reporting the death of Æthelberht, the baptizer of Kent, Bede gives his ascending pedigree up to Hengist, i.e. lists pagan kings from the foundation of Kent to its conversion by Æthelberht.353 Combining the two pedigrees would give a list of Æthelberht’s pagan ancestors up to Woden. So, Bede regards this pre-Christian 349 Ibid., 116–7. 350 One must not forget, however, that Æthelfrith later persecuted and even wanted to kill Edwin, the king who baptized Northumbria. The comparison to Biblical king Saul implies that Bede anticipated Æthelfrith to Edwin: the former was paralleled to Saul, and the latter (implicitly) to David, see: Judith McClure, “Bede’s Old Testament kings,” in Ideal and reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon society: Studies presented to J.M. Wallace-Hadrille, ed. Patrick Wormald with Donald Bullough and Roger Collins (Oxford: Blackwell, 1983), 87, 90–92. 351 Colgrave and Mynors, eds., Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, 140–1. 352 Ibid., 50–1. 353 Ibid., 150–1.

164

chapter 2

genealogical tradition as legitimate and worth being included into his ecclesiastical history. In ii: 5 Bede lists the kings who at different times possessed the supreme power over the realms to the south of River Humber.354 Of those kings the two first were pagan, and the fourth, Rædwald of East Anglia, was baptized but kept two altars in a temple: one for Christian rituals and one for pagan ones (see ii: 15355). Here again the political history of England is not divided into the pagan and the Christian periods. In v: 24 Bede places his so-called annals: a chronological summary of the main events. Of the pre-Christian history of the Anglo-Saxon those annals mention: the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons to Britain (449), the beginning of the rule of Ida, ‘from whom the royal family trace their origin’ (547), and the battle at Degsastan (601).356 In the latter, as we learn from the main text of HE (i: 34), Æthelfrith, the last pagan king of Northumbria, defeated the Scots.357 Thus, unlike PVL, Bede did not narrate systematically the pagan past neither of Northumbria, nor of the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. However, exactly as the early Rus historiographers, Bede regarded the pagan past as a legitimate part of his country’s history and had no desire to criticize the early kings or their people for their paganism. And, as in Rus, in England one finds other texts that share with HE such an attitude towards the pagan past. The so-called Moore Memoranda on Northumbrian History, placed in one of the earliest manuscripts of HE and composed, perhaps, in 737, comprises a list of kings of Northumbria which names eight pagan rulers.358 The collection of lists, royal genealogies, and other materials in the early 9th-century manuscript London, BL, Cotton Vespasian B. vi comprises pedigrees of several Anglo-Saxon kingdoms with Woden, son of Frealaf, as the progenitor.359 One finds genealogies of the same sort in some later manuscripts, as well as in Historia brittonum composed in Wales in the 9th century. The archetype of those genealogies is supposed to have been composed in the second half of the 8th century.360 The common stock of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, written in Wessex in the late 9th century, also reports 354 355 356 357 358

Ibid., 148–51. Ibid., 190–1. Ibid., 562–3. Ibid., 116–7. Hunter Blair, “The Moore Memoranda,” 245–57 (text at p. 245). The traditional dating of the text to 737 has been challenged by David Dumville (Dumville, “The two earliest manuscripts,” 60–5). 359 See the texts: Dumville, “The Anglian collection,” 30–31; Keynes, “Between Bede and the Chronicle,” 47–67. 360 See: Dumville, “The Anglian collection,” 45–50.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

165

many events of the pagan period of the history of Wessex and other kingdoms. The Chronicle also contains several royal pedigrees that mention mythical and pagan ancestors. In summation, Anglo-Saxon and Rus early historical traditions both see the pagan past of the state and the dynasty as a legitimate and glorious part of their history. Both rely on local oral tradition and tend to link this past with the history of the world. In the case of Bede’s HE this tendency is mostly implicit, but it can be traced. In the case of other Anglo-Saxon texts such as collections of royal genealogies or the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as well as the basic Rus texts it is fully explicit. Such an attitude of early historians towards the pagan past was not the only option, but it was by no means unique. For example, Lars Boje Mortensen, when comparing the early historical writing of Hungary, Denmark, and Norway, points out that all the three traditions pay much attention to heathen pre-history of their polities. As Mortensen shows, in those three countries this was ‘a secondary development’, the earliest texts on local past having been dedicated to Christian matters only.361 This was, at the same time, the ‘shaping the myths of the pagan past’, an attempt ‘to sanctify the pagan past’.362 In England and Rus, however, this tendency was not secondary. In Northumbria, already in Bede’s HE we see an attempt at giving the pagan Anglo-Saxons a legitimate place in the history of salvation. In the case of Rus the heathen past was a valuable topic already for the Oldest Tale, for Vladimir’s royal inscription, and even for Ilarion in his Sermon. The conversion. PVL reports the conversion of just one realm: Kievan Rus under Vladimir. Bede wrote of the conversion of several Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, but only to two of them—Kent and Northumbria—he dedicated detailed narrations. Those two narrations are quite different. In the account of the conversion of Kent (i: 23–33) the central role belongs to the missionaries: to St. Augustine of Canterbury and his companions, as well as to Pope Gregory the Great who initiated the mission. Æthelberht, the king of Kent, the key figure of those events, is shown as if from the outside: as a friendly ruler who did not resist the mission and later agreed to be baptized himself. Nothing is said about his hesitations and motives.363 So, Bede’s account of the conversion of Kent has little in common with PVL’s account of the conversion of Rus in which Prince Vladimir is the central figure. The conversion of King Edwin of Northumbria is another case. Bede’s narration of his baptism (ii: 9–14)364 is much closer to PVL’s account of Vladimir’s 361 362 363 364

Mortensen, “Sanctified Beginnings,” 260 (quoted). Ibid., 267. Colgrave and Mynors, eds., Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, 68–117. Ibid., 162–89.

166

chapter 2

conversion. Although Bede pays much attention to the role of Bishop Paulinus, it is King Edwin who is the central figure of the narrative, and whose adventures, decisions, and hesitations are described. The reason for such a difference between the accounts of the conversion of Æthelberht and Edwin is obvious. When writing about Kent, Bede used mostly the materials sent to him by his correspondents in the South (letters which he quotes entirely, transcripts of inscriptions, hagiographic stories, etc.) as well as the documents of the papal chancery (Bede speaks of this directly in the preface to HE).365 When describing the conversion of Northumbria, Bede also quotes some letters, but mostly his account is based upon oral tradition.366 And, not surprisingly, the latter account has much in common with PVL’s account of Vladimir’s baptism (much more in common, I would say, than with Bede’s account of the conversion of Kent367). The common motives of the accounts of Edwin’s and Vladimir’s conversions are as follows. 1. Both rulers wish to consult wise people before adopting the new faith. According to Bede, Edwin did this three times (twice in ii: 9, and once in ii: 13).368 Vladimir, as it is reported in the end of the annal for 986, ‘said: “I will wait a little,” as he wanted to enquire about all the religions’ (‘рекъ: “пожду еще мало”, хотя испытати о всѣхъ вѣрахъ’).369 2. The participants of the council, gathered by the ruler to discuss the new faith, give advice that is smart and practical—but very far from theology. Bede in ii: 13 describes such a council and quotes the speech of Coifi, the pagan ‘chief of the priests’ (‘primus pontificum’). He said that he had worshiped pagan gods better than anybody, but was not the most successful man in the realm: ‘If the gods had any power they would have helped me more readily,’ the priest concluded. ‘Another of the king’s chief 365 Ibid., 2–5. See a detailed study of Bede’s sources for the conversion of Kent: Shaw, The Gregorian Mission. 366 As also it is said directly in the preface: Ibid., 6–7. On Bede’s possible oral sources see: Kirby, “Bede’s Native Sources,” 64. However, it is very probable that not all Bede’s information goes back to the reports of clerics of different religious houses, as Kirby tries to show. Bede says that he collected information ‘from common report’ (‘quae fama vulgante collegimus’), and this fama vulgans may mean the generally known oral tradition. See an analysis of this fragment: Roger D. Ray, “Bede’s vera lex historae,” Speculum 55, no. 1 (1980): 10–21. 367 However, the beginnings of the Kentish and the Northumbrian stories are similar: the wives of both, Æthelberht and Edwin, already were Christian, they were allowed to worship and even to have bishops at their courts (see i: 25, and ii: 9: Colgrave and Mynors, eds., Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, 74–5, 162–3). 368 Ibid., 162–3, 166–7, 182–3. 369 PSRL, 1, 106.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

3.

4.

5.

370 371 372 373 374 375 376

167

men’ pronounced the well-known speech about a bird flying though a feast hall, coming from and returning to mysterious wintry darkness. The speaker compared the feast hall with human life, and advised the king to accept the new faith if it was capable to clarify what happens before and after this life. Bede adds that other orators ‘continued in the same manner, being divinely prompted to do so.’370 According to PVL s.a. 987, when discussing the speeches of the missionaries of four religions (Islam, Judaism, ‘Latin’ and ‘Greek’ Christianity), the nobles said to Vladimir: ‘You know, Prince, that nobody scolds his own, but praises; if you want to investigate [the faiths] well, you, as you have men at your [disposal], having sent [them], try each of those services, and how they worship God’ (‘Вѣси, княже, як своего никтоже не хулить, но хвалить; аще хощеши испытати гораздо, то, имаши у собе мужи, пославъ, испытаи когождо их службу, и кто како служить Богу’).371 At the end of the same annal more advice from the nobles is quoted: ‘If the Greek creed had been bad, your grandmother Olga would not have adopted it, and she was the wisest of all people’ (‘Аще бы лихъ законъ гречьскии, то не бы баба твоя прияла Ольга, яже бѣ мудрѣиши всѣхъ человекъ’).372 The ruler promises to be baptized in the case of recovery from a disease and a victory over the enemies. Edwin, after being wounded with a poisoned sword, ‘promised that if God would grant him life, and victory over the king who sent the assassin who wounded him, he would renounce his idols and serve Christ’ (ii: 9).373 When Vladimir received a secret message from Anastas of Korsun, as how to stop the supply of water to the besieged city, he said, looking at the sky: ‘If this comes true, I will be baptized’ (‘Аще се ся сбудет, и сам ся крещю’).374 The ruler refuses to be baptized immediately after the condition is fulfilled. Edwin, having recovered and defeated the enemy, ‘was unwilling to accept the mysteries of the Christian faith at once and without consideration, even though he no longer worshipped idols’ (ii: 9).375 Vladimir, having seized Korsun, was not baptized immediately, but sent an ultimatum to the Byzantine emperors, demanding their sister as wife.376 The demolishing of pagan shrines is described in detail, and this description includes references to pre-Christian rituals, which now are turned Colgrave and Mynors, eds., Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, 182–5. PSRL, 1, 107. Ibid., 108. Colgrave and Mynors, eds., Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, 166–7. PSRL, 1, col. 109. Colgrave and Mynors, eds., Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, 166–7. Cf. ii: 12–3 (ibid., 180–3). PSRL, 1, 109–10.

168

6.

7.

chapter 2

against the pagan gods to humiliate them. Bede reports that the pagan chief priest (already mentioned) mounted a stallion and took arms, although ‘a high priest of their religion was not allowed to carry arms or to ride except on a mare.’ He profaned heathen shrines ‘by casting the spear’ into them, and ordered that all of them should be destroyed and burned.377 PVL describes the demolishing of the idol of Perun in Kiev: it was tied to a tail of a horse, dragged down the hill, thrown into the river, and, when floating down River Dnieper, pushed away if got near the bank.378 The latter description is partly based on literary sources,379 but this does not contradict the hypothesis of a reference to pagan rituals here.380 The account of the demolishing of idols includes a topographical reference to a place still known at historiographer’s time, and to a place-name referring to those events. Bede says, ‘the place where the idols once stood is still shown, not far from York, to the east, over the river Derwent. Today it is called Coodmanham (Godmunddingaham), the place where the high priest, through the inspiration of the true God, profaned and destroyed the altars which he himself consecrated’ (ii: 13).381 The idol of Perun floated from Kiev to the place which ‘because of that became known as Perun’s Shallow, as it is known until today’ (‘и оттолѣ прослу Перуняна Рѣнь, якоже и до сего дне словеть’).382 It is said that the ruler was baptized together with the nobles and the common people. Edwin is said to have done so in HE, ii: 14;383 Bede adds later in the same chapter that Bishop Paulinus ‘spent thirty-six days … occupied in the task of catechizing and baptizing’ crowds of people on

377 Colgrave and Mynors, eds., Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, 184–7. 378 PSRL, 1, col. 116–7. 379 Andreicheva, Obrazy, 51–80. Andreicheva sees here allusions to the martyrdoms of Christian saints of the Crimea, the methods of which, as a kind of revenge, now were used against a pagan idol. See also: Aleksei A. Gippius, “Nizverzhenie kumirov v nachal’nom i novgorodskom letopisanii: literaturnye istochniki i proiskhozhdenie teksta,” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 26 (2014): 72–4. 380 See: Gippius, “Nizverzhenie kumirov,” 73. There is a parallel narration of the demolishing of Perun’s idol in Novgorod (in N1Y: PSRL, 3, 160). It is very probable that this account was originally composed in Kiev, together with the account of the Kievan idol (Ibid., 70–4). 381 Colgrave and Mynors, eds., Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, 186–7. The latter words are ‘an echo of Virgil, Aeneid ii. 501–2’ (ibid., 186, note 1). 382 PSRL, 1, col. 117. On Perun’s Shallow see: Andreicheva, Obrazy, 72–7. 383 Colgrave and Mynors, eds., Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, 186–7.

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Kiev

169

River Glen.384 PVL reports the baptism of Vladimir and many of his retinue in Korsun,385 and later of the common people in Kiev.386 8. The members of the ruler’s family are listed in connection to the baptism. After mentioning Edwin’s death soon after his baptism, Bede lists his kinsmen who ‘believed and were baptized’ either in Edwin’s lifetime or later.387 PVL says: ‘Vladimir was enlightened, and his sons, and his land, as he had 12 sons’ (‘Володимеръ просвѣщенъ самъ, и сынове его, и земля его, бѣ бо у него сыновъ 12’), and then lists the sons and the towns Vladimir gave to each of them.388 9. The ruler erects a church after the baptism. Bede says that Edwin ‘set about building a greater and more magnificent church of stone’ for the bishopric of York (ii: 14).389 In PVL Vladimir constructs the Desiatinnaia Church and grants it the tithe (s.a. 991, 996). 10. It is said finally that the reign of the baptizer was extraordinarily successful, and the ruler was especially eager in his subjects’ welfare. In both cases legendary details of everyday life of the ruler and his subjects are given. Bede says in ii: 16: It is related that there was so great a peace in Britain, wherever the dominion of King Edwin reached, that, as the proverb still runs, a woman with a newborn child could walk throughout the island from sea to sea and take no harm. The king cared so much for the good of the people that, in various places where he had noticed clear springs near the highway, he caused stakes to be set up and bronze drinking cups to be hung on them for the refreshment of travelers. No one dared to lay hands on them except for their proper purpose because they feared the king greatly nor did they wish to, because they loved him dearly. So great was his majesty in his realm that not only were banners carried before him in battle, but even in time of peace, as he rode about among his cities, estates, and kingdoms with his thegns, he always used to be preceded by a standard-bearer. Further, when he walked anywhere along the roads, there used to be carried before him

384 385 386 387 388 389

Ibid., 188–9. PSRL, 1, 111. Ibid., 117. Colgrave and Mynors, eds., Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, 186–9. PSRL, 1, col. 121. Colgrave and Mynors, eds., Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, 186–7.

170

chapter 2

the type of standard which the Romans call a tufa and the English call a thuf.390 In PVL s.a. 996 also there is an overview of Vladimir’s ‘golden age.’ It is said that the prince gave help to the indigent and the wretched, for whom meals were organized in the prince’s court, and for those who could not come, bread, meat, fish, fruits, mead, and kvass were conveyed in wagons around the city. Vladimir also organized rich feasts for the nobles. Once the participants of a feast, having drunk, started to resent eating with wooden spoons instead of silver ones. Then the prince ordered to forge silver spoons, saying: ‘I cannot obtain retinue neither with silver, not with gold, but I will obtain silver and gold with the retinue …’ (‘Сребромь и златом не имам налѣсти дружины, а дружиною налѣзу сребро и злато …’).391 Vladimir, as PVL says, loved his retinue and asked its advice. Also, he lived in peace with the rulers of the Poles, the Hungarians, and the Czechs.392 The presence in the two texts of those ten common motives, of course, cannot be explained by an influence of HE on Rus historical writing: such an influence is hardly probable. It makes sense to look for literary sources of some of the motives,393 but they are not able to explain all the striking similarity of the two accounts. Furthermore, this is not a kind of similarity that requires a hypothesis of a common source. The two accounts have different plots, and similar episodes are reported in different ways and in different order. I think that the correspondence of the two narrations must be explained in terms of the typological similarity of local oral traditions, which—in similar conditions of early states, newly converted—produced similar conversion stories. So, however different texts HE and PVL are, they both represent the images of the pagan past and the conversion going back to the oral tradition, presumably that of the local elites. Those images were quite tolerant to the paganism of early rulers and perceived the conversion in terms of personal adventures and decisions of a great ruler, whose reign was remembered as the ‘golden age’ of the state. 390 391 392 393

Ibid., 192–3. See the continuation of those Vladimir’s words in note 338 above. PSRL, 1, 125–6. For example, the last motive (the prosperity of the realm under the baptizer) recalls the description of Solomon in the Bible (1 Kings 4: 21, 24–25). As for Bede this parallel was noticed in: McClure, “Bede’s Old Testament kings,” 88. However, the realization of the motive is absolutely different in the three cases (those of Solomon, Edwin, and Vladimir). Donald Ostrowski points at parallels to the motif of a battle which the ruler should win if baptized, and to the motif of blindness (Donald Ostrowski, “The Account of Volodimer’s Conversion in the Povest’ vremennykh let: A Chiasmus of Stories,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 28, no. 1–4 (2006): 579, notes 17–8).

chapter 3

Historical Writing in Novgorod Among the cities of Old Rus Novgorod is the best represented by written evidence. The most well known are the birchbark documents of the 11th–15th centuries. From 1951, when the first of them were discovered, to now 1,121 such documents have been excavated in Novgorod (Figure 1). In 2000 Novgorod saw another discovery: the Novgorodian Psalter, a triptych of wax tablets with psalms written on them dating to c. 1000, and thus the earliest known Rus book. Hundreds of lead seals of the 11th–15th centuries are also Novgorodian finds. As for more traditional texts, the Ostromir Gospel, the earliest surviving Slavonic book on parchment with a precise date of writing (1056–7), was commissioned by Ostromir, the posadnik of Novgorod, probably for the Novgorodian cathedral of St. Sophia, founded in 1045 (Figure 17). The two earliest surviving Rus charters on parchment (the grant by Prince Mstislav and his son Vsevolod to the Monastery of St. George, c. 1130 [Figure 4], and the donation by Varlaam to the Monastery in Khutyn’ he founded, 1192 × 1210) are also Novgorodian.1 Not surprisingly, the earliest surviving manuscript of Rus letopisi, the Synodal MS. (Syn.) of c. 1234–c. 1330, is a Novgorodian book (Figures 11–12, 13, 19–20). The historical writing of Novgorod can be studied on a much more solid basis than that of other cities, including Kiev. The text of Syn. as well as of some 15th-century manuscripts is not that far removed from the main core of the Novgorodian annalistic writing: the Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod.2 Although we do not possess their original manuscript, we are able to say much on them: not only on their content but also on the process of their keeping. This can be supplemented by some data on the earliest attempts at historical writing in the 11th-century Novgorod as well as on texts that were written in Novgorod aside from the Archiepiscopal Annals. A short note should be made here on Novgorod as a historical phenomenon. Scarce early evidence shows that in the 10th–11th centuries Novgorod was regarded as a kind of ‘Northern capital’ of the Rurikids: eldest sons of the 1 See also an overview of early Rus writing in subchapter 1.1. On various aspects of Novgorod’s archaeology see: Mark Brisbane and David Gaimster, ed., Novgorod: the Archaeology of a Russian Medieval City and its Hinterland (London: The British Museum, 2001). 2 Some idea of the Novgorodian annals can be got from: Robert Michell and Nevill Forbes, transl., The Chronicle of Novgorod, 1016–1471, with an intr. by C. Raymond Beazley and an account of the text by A.A. Shakhmatov (London: Offices of the Society, 1914) where all the text of Syn. and a large portion of N1Y are translated into English.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004335592_005

172

chapter 3

princes of Kiev are sometimes attested as ruling here. A Novgorodian tradition persistently ascribed Iaroslav the Wise granting some privileges to the city.3 Gradually, Novgorod transformed into a sort of ‘republic’ (this term is very often used in relation to Novgorod, but I would try to avoid it as an oversimplified one). From the 1130s (and sporadically earlier) ‘the Novgorodians’ (as a political body, a community4) often expelled Rurikid princes and invited new ones, so playing a role in the rivalry between different branches of the Rurik dynasty (and so there was no locally based branch, princes always were invited from the outside). From about the same time ‘the Novgorodians’ elected and deposed posadnik (посадник, literally: the one who is appointed, a ‘republican’ magistrate, previously being a governor appointed by prince). From the late 12th century we hear of another ‘republican’ magistrate: tysiatsky (тысяцкий, literally: the chief of the thousand). Posandniks and tysiatskys were representatives of the local aristocracy, and it is evident that there was a rivalry between several groups of nobles based in different parts of the city, sometimes with violent outbursts.5 Gatherings of the Novgorodians in which important decisions were made were called veche (вече), but, unfortunately, we have little evidence on its makeup and how it functioned.6 In the situation of the rapid turnover of princes, posadniks, and tysiatskys, the only more or less stable office was that of (arch)bishop.7 With the 3 See subchapter 3.11. 4 See: Timofey V. Guimon, “Community names in the First Novgorodian Chronicle and the territorial structure of the Novgorodian Land (1115–1272),” Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana 2 (2015): 135–9, http://slavica-petropolitana.spbu.ru/ru/arkhiv-nomerov/133 -studia-slavica-et-balcanica-petropolitana-2015–2/332-guimon-t-community-names-in-the -first-novgorodian-chronicle-and-the-territorial-structure-of-the-novgorodian-land-1115-1272 .html; Pavel V. Lukin, “Urban Community and Consensus: Brotherhood and Communalism in Medieval Novgorod,” in Imagined Communities on the Baltic Rim, from the Eleventh to Fifteenth Centuries, ed. Wojtek Jezierski and Lars Hermanson (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press), 2016, 279–307. 5 See: Valentin L. Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki, 2nd ed., revised and suppl. (Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2003); idem, Novgorodskie akty, 10–78; Leonid A. Bassalygo, “Novgorodskie tysiatskie,” Novgorodskii istoricheskii sbornik 11 (21) (2008): 33–67; 12 (22) (2011): 37–62; 13 (23) (2013): 115–50. 6 See: Jonas Granberg, Veche in the Chronicles of Medieval Rus: A Study of Functions and Terminology (Göteborg: Göteborg University, 2004); Vilkul, Liudi i kniaz’; Mikhail M. Krom, ed., Spory o novgorodskom veche: Mezhdistsiplinarnyi dialog: Mat-ly kruglogo stola, Evropeiskii un-t v Sankt-Peterburge, 20 sentiabria 2010 g. (Saint-Petersburg: Izd-vo EUSPb, 2012); Pavel V. Lukin, Novgorodskoe veche (Moscow: Indrik, 2014). 7 When the bishops of Novgorod became archbishops is a difficult question, as 12th-century sources use both titles speaking of the same persons. At least, Nifont (1130–56) was archbishop in 1148, but his successor Arkadii (1156–63) probably was not. It is not impossible that the archiepiscopal title was obtained by the bishops of Novgorod well before Nifont,

Historical Writing in Novgorod

173

exception of the early 13th century (the time of rivalry between two archbishops: Mitrofan and Antonii), archbishops commonly remained in office until their death. Their status was, at least from the 13th century, close to that of the head of the state.8 As Pavel Lukin rightly says of the Novgorodian archbishop, “in a sense, he was also one of the main symbols of the imagined community of the Novgorodian ‘people’, playing the role of a guardian of civic solidarity and patriotism”.9 The Mongols did not raid Novgorod, contrary to most of Rus, in the late 1230s, although Novgorod soon recognized their supreme rule. After the Mongolian invasion the princes of Novgorod were largely from the Northeast of Rus (Vladimir, Tver, Moscow, etc.). However, in its inner life Novgorod became more and more independent, gradually making its political system more sophisticated (for example, collegia of posadniks and tysiatskys were introduced in the mid-14th century instead of single magistrates).10 Most scholars believe that in its late centuries Novgorod became a kind of oligarchy, in which several families of local nobility played the most important role. Novgorod lost its independence and ‘republican’ institutions in 1478, when Great Prince Ivan III of Moscow annexed it. The city of Novgorod controlled a vast territory (known as the Novgorodian Land) that included both areas inhabited by Slavs and by Finnic-speaking and other non-Slavonic groups. The power of Novgorod gradually expanded to the North and to the East, towards the Arctic Ocean and Urals. From the early 13th century a permanent rivalry between Novgorod and its Western neigbours, Sweden and the Baltic crusaders, is well reflected in the written sources. There were several towns subordinate to Novgorod (Ladoga, Rusa, Torzhok, etc.),11 of which Pskov in the South-West was the most prominent and the most problematic: it is sporadically mentioned as a part of the Novgorodian Land up to the 14th century, but, at the same time, is known to have been largely independent already in the 12th century. although our data are too scarce. See: Aleksei A. Gippius, “K voprosu o vremeni uchrezhdeniia Novgorodskoi arkhiepiskopii,“ in Kompleksnyi podkhod v izuchenii Drevnei Rusi: Mat-ly X Mexhdunar. nauch. konf., 9–13 sentiabria 2019 goda, Moskva, Rossiia, ed. by Elena L. Koniavskaia (Moscow: Indrik, 2019), 57–9. 8 The earliest treaty of Novgorod with Gotland and German cities, extant in a parchment original (1262–63), has got three bullae: those of archbishop, of prince, and of ‘all Novgorod’. The archiepiscopal seal is the first one, though the archbishop is not mentioned in the text (GVNP, 56–7, no. 29). 9 Lukin, “Urban Community, 296. 10 See studies cited in note 5 above. 11 See: Guimon, “Community names,” 140–2.

174 3.1

chapter 3

The Text-Relationships of Extant Novgorodian letopisi

Above I have already given a brief description of the main witnesses of the early Novgorodian annalistic writing: the Synodal MS. (Syn.) of c. 1234–c. 1330,12 the two main manuscripts of the Younger Version of the First Novgorodian Chronicle (N1Y) of the mid-15th century,13 the Novgorodian-Sophian group of 15th-century chronicles (NS-group),14 and the late Tver Compilation (Tv.).15 Now I must speak of their text-relationships. The two main manuscripts of N1Y, Com. and Acad., are copies of a nonextant common exemplar (let us call it N1Y proper). The comparison of their texts with that of Syn. shows that in very many cases the scribes of both, Com. and Acad., amplified their exemplar, and did this in quite a similar manner: they added pretentious wordings, expressed the same things in a more verbose manner, and introduced old-fashioned Church Slavonic words and forms.16 The two manuscripts are even physically similar: they have the same size (inquarto) and similar, quite simple decoration (red year-numbers and initials; Figures 13–14). Com. was first written up to 1439, and later supplemented by another hand with the annals for 1440–6. Acad. used to end with the annal for 1443.17 The text for 1440–3 in Com. and Acad. is basically the same. This implies that the common exemplar of Com. and Acad. was updated from time to time, and at different times ended with the annals for 1439, 1443, and 1446. Com. and Acad. probably are copies of that chronicle made for particular Novgorodian monasteries or churches. More complicated are the text-relationships between Syn. and N1Y. Syn. now lacks its first 16 quires and starts abruptly with the annal for 1016. The annals for 1016–74 in Syn. and N1Y are quite different. The text for the 11th century will 12 13 14 15 16

17

See chapter 1, note 134. See chapter 1, note 149. See chapter 1, notes 150–1. See chapter 1, note 153. Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 1, 260. In earlier works Shakhmatov assumed that either Com. used Acad., or vice versa. But both manuscripts contain some clearly primary readings in comparison with the other, and so Shakhmatov realized that the simplest solution is the hypothesis of a common exemplar. Com. and Acad. are the only medieval manuscripts to contain Kratkaia Pravda, the earliest Rus lawcode (see also subchapters 3.11 and 4.6), placed in both s.a. 1016, and that is why the question is extremely important for the students of early law. Among them also there is a consensus that Com. and Acad. go back to a common exemplar. See with references: Aleksandr A. Zimin, Pravda Russkaia (Moscow: Drevlekhranilishche, 1999), 40–4. Now the last leaves are lost, but the original text of Acad. can be easily reconstructed from 18th-century copies.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

175

figure 11 The Synodal MS. of the First Novgorodian Chronicle (the first scribe, c. 1234), fol. 21r. Annals for 1140–1 reproduced from: PSRL, 3

176

chapter 3

figure 12 The Synodal MS. of the First Novgorodian Chronicle (the second scribe, c. 1330), fol. 166v. Annal for 1330 (the end of the portion written by the second scribe) reproduced from: PSRL, 3

Historical Writing in Novgorod

177

figure 13 The Commission MS. of the First Novgorodian Chronicle, mid-15th century, fol. 30r. Annals for 854 and 920 reproduced from: PSRL, 3

178

figure 14 The Academy MS. of the First Novgorodian Chronicle, mid-15th century, fol. 74r. Annals for 1108–13 reproduced from: PSRL, 3

chapter 3

Historical Writing in Novgorod

179

be discussed below,18 as well as three flyleaves in the end of Syn., which contain additions for 1331–52 made by various scribes and partly overlapping with the relevant fragments of N1Y.19 The text from 1075 up to 1330 in Syn. and N1Y is basically the same (excluding the annals for 1273–99: the relevant quire in Syn. is lost). A very important question is whether Syn. was the direct source of N1Y, or they both go back to a common exemplar. Both points of view have been expressed.20 I agree with those scholars who insist that N1Y does not go back to Syn., but they both go back to a common source.21 This can be very well demonstrated by the analysis of those differences between the texts in which it is obvious which variant is the primary one. A clear case of haplography (saut du même au même) where the variant of N1Y is primary and the variant of Syn. is secondary, one finds in the annal for 1232: a portion of text between the repeating words ‘Prince Sviatoslav’ is missed in Syn., but is present in N1Y.22 Another omission in Syn. is not a haplography in the strict sense, but a similar case: a short portion of text between two precise dates is absent in Syn., but present in N1Y s.a. 1243.23 S.a. 1301 a prayer is omitted in Syn., but present in N1Y: “and, o God, multiply the years of [life] of Great Prince Andrei with his men [the dwellers] of Suzdal, and Novgorod, and Ladoga” (“а князю великому Андрѣю умножи, Господи, много лѣт съ своими мужи съ суздалци и съ своими мужи с новгородци и с ладожаны”). Andrei in question died in 1303, and so the prayer 18 19 20 21 22

Below in this subvchapter and in subchapter 3.3. Subchapter 3.8. See references: Gippius, “K istorii,” 7, 12–9. Ibid., 12–9. Syn.: ‘съ князьмь Святославомь опять въ Русь’. Com.: ‘съ княземъ Святославомъ Трубечьскымъ на средоговѣние, и быша в Буици, селѣ святого Георгиа, оттолѣ въспятися назадъ князь Святославъ в Русь’. Valentin Ianin, who insisted that Syn. was the source of N1Y, pointed out that near those words in Syn. there are three red crosses in the margin. The crosses probably mean that the omission had been noticed, and Ianin supposes that a leaf could be inserted into the manuscript on which the omitted passage could be copied (Ianin, “K voprosu o roli,” 178). Such a possibility weakens this omission as a case for Syn. not being the source of N1Y. However, the text omitted was not so big to create a supply leaf: it could easier be written in a margin, if needed—but it is not. So, it seems that the omission had been noticed but was not compensated. Also, it is not impossible that this omission is not purely haplographic but politically biased, see: Aleksei A. Gippius, “Zagadki Mstislavovoi gramoty,” in Miscellanea Slavica: Sb. st. k 70-letiiu B.A. Uspenskogo, ed. Fedor B. Uspenskii (Moscow: Indrik, 2008), 125. But even if so, the text in Syn. is illogical and, no doubt, secondary in comparison to that of N1Y. 23 See the texts: Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “Redaktirovanie letopisei v XIII–XV vv.: Raznochteniia mezhdu spiskami Novgorodskoi 1 letopisi,” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 57 (2006): 117.

180

chapter 3

could not be a secondary amplification made after 1330, the time of the writing of this part of Syn. That was certainly the scribe of Syn. who omitted c. 1330 the prayer for the long life of an already dead prince, and N1Y goes back to Syn.’s exemplar in which this prayer was present. Those three cases show that it is improbable that Syn. was the exemplar of N1Y. Of course, the possibility exists that the scribe of N1Y used both, Syn. and its exemplar, but it would be better to avoid such over-complications. The conclusion that Syn. and N1Y go back to a common exemplar can be supported by another observation. In the annals for 1232–4 (fol. 115r–1 18v of Syn.), especially s.a. 1232, in fol. 116r–v, in very many cases N1Y’s text is more extensive than that of Syn. The latter lacks, in comparison with N1Y, many details, dates, uses less verbose wording, etc. On the same pages of Syn. we see that the scribe tried to use ‘narrow’ graphic variants instead of ‘broad’ ones (i.e. у or ꙋ instead of ѹ for sound [u], ѧ instead of ꙗ for [ja]), and abbreviated words (placing letters above the line) more intensively than before. The first, 13th-century part of Syn. (text written by its first scribe) ends at the bottom of fol. 118v. The last 11 lines of the annal for 1234 are in fol. 119r, written by the second scribe, who copied the text up to 1330, and thus worked about that time. All this has only one explanation: the first scribe of Syn., when approaching the end of his work, tried to save parchment. In fol. 115r–v he realized that he risks not being able to stow all the remaining material into the quire, and started to abbreviate the text he copied and to use more economic graphic variants. In fol. 116r–v he did so very intensively. Later he gradually came to the understanding that those attempts were in vain, and on the remaining pages abbreviation became less intensive. The scribe failed to fit into the quire the last 11 lines that were probably copied into a flyleaf, which was rewritten in the 14th century when the second Syn.’s scribe started his work. This implies that, firstly, the first part of Syn. was written when its exemplar ended with the annal for 1234, that is, probably not very much later than that year. Secondly, all this is explainable only if we assume that Syn. was not the direct source of N1Y, but they both had a common exemplar.24

24

Those observations and conclusions were made in our joint paper with Aleksei Gippius. Observations on the textual differences between Syn. and N1Y are mine; those on the graphic variants belong to Gippius. See: Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon] and Aleksei A. Gippius, “Novye dannye po istorii teksta Novgorodskoi pervoi letopisi,” Novgorodskii istoricheskii sbornik 7 (17) (1999): 31–41.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

181

There can be little doubt that the common exemplar of Syn. and N1Y was the main chronicle of Novgorod, the Archiepiscopal Annals, kept from the early 12th up to the 15th century. Those annals will be discussed in detail below.25 The simplest scheme one can imagine would be the following: the Archiepiscopal Annals were kept for centuries, Syn. is their copy made c. 1234, and updated c. 1330; N1Y (the common exemplar of Com. and Acad.) is another, later, 15th-century copy of the Archiepiscopal Annals. However, this would be an over-simplification. The detailed analysis of numerous differences between the three texts (Syn., Com., Acad.) and some related texts (namely NK, S1, N4, and Tv.) makes the stemma more sophisticated. Let us start with the analysis of haplographies (sauts du même au même) in N1Y in comparison with Syn. One finds 12 such cases. As for the NS-chronicles and Tv., they support in some cases the variant of Syn. (i.e. the primary one), and in some cases that of N1Y (i.e. the secondary one), as shown in Table 4. Thus, N1Y, Tv., and the NS-chronicles share some haplographic omissions; others are shared by N1Y and the NS-chronicles, but not by Tv.; some are characteristic for N1Y only.26 It is clear from this table that there were intermediate texts between the Archiepiscopal Annals and N1Y, at least two of them: the common exemplar of N1Y and the NS-chronicles (let us call it X), and the common exemplar of X and Tv. (let us call it Y). Besides the cases of haplography, there are a number of other readings shared by Tv., NS-chronicles, and N1Y, which are almost certainly secondary in comparison to Syn. Those are the corrections made by the scribe of Y. He introduced into the annals for the 13th century two non-annalistic narrations: the Life of Aleksandr Nevskii27 and the Martyrdom of Prince Mikhail of Chernigov and His Boyarin Fedor. The former was divided between four annals (those for 1240, 1242, 1246, and 1251), the latter is placed s.a. 1245. No doubt, those narrations were introduced into an already existing annalistic text; its primary condition (without those narrations) is represented by Syn. Tv. already has them, and thus their introduction must be attributed to Y. In some cases the scribe of Y changed more folksy words or their forms to more literary ones. Also, there 25 Subchapters 3.4–3.7. 26 S1 in two cases (1149, 1197) shares the haplographic omission with N1Y, NK, and N4; Tv. supporting the primary readings of Syn. In one case (1240) however, S1 shares the primary reading with Syn. and Tv. and differs from N1Y, NK, and N4. This is, of course, a puzzle. But if we speak of a single case of haplography, a coincidence is not impossible: two scribes could make the same saut du même au même independently. The case of 1240 quite well can be such a coincidence. 27 See on this text in subchapter 3.4.

182 table 4

chapter 3 Cases of haplography in Novgorodian annalsa

The Text of Syn. annal

1149

1197

1214

1214

1215 (1)

1215 (2)

идоша даньници новгородьстии въ малѣ; и учювъ Гюрги, оже въ мале шли, и посла по Ярослава. Иде Ярославъ съ Новаго Търгу Володимирю и бысть распря новгородьцемъ съ смолняны, и убиша новгородци смолнянина, а по князи не поидоша. Князь же Мьстиславъ въ вѣче поча звати, они же не поидоша; князь же чѣловавъ всѣхъ по търгу трупие, по улицямъ трупие, по полю трупие, не можаху пси изѣдати человѣкъ бяше же новгородьцевъ мало: ано тамо измано вячьшие мужи, а мьньшее они розидошася, а иное помьрло голодомь

Text of N1Y (Com.)

What variant is supported by

Tv.

S1

NK1 NK2 N4

идоша данньници новгородстѣи в малѣ, и посла

Syn.

N1Y –

–

N1Y

по Ярослава с Новаго Торгу в Володимирь

Syn.

N1Y N1Y –

N1Y

и бысть распря нового- N1Y – родцом [съ]b смолняны, а по князи

–

–

–

не поидоша. Князь же цѣловавъ всѣх

N1Y –

–

–

–

по торгу трупье, по ули- N1Y – цам трупье, и не можаху псы изъядати человѣкъ, нь и по полю лежахуc бяше бо новгородцовъ N1Y – мало: а меншии они разидошася, а иное помре гладомd

–

N1Y N1Y

–

–

–

a The words omitted in N1Y are in bold. I do not give translations, as it is important here to show the haplographic nature of the variants, not the sense of the text. b From Acad. c Here is a corrected haplography. The scribe omitted the words “по полю трупие’, but noticed that and rearranged the phrase. d This is not a haplography in strict sense, but a clearly mechanical omission.

183

Historical Writing in Novgorod table 4

Cases of haplography in Novgorodian annals (cont.)

The Text of Syn. annal

Text of N1Y (Com.)

What variant is supported by

Tv. 1216

1228 (1) 1228 (2)

1230

1240

1322

Иванка поповиця, Сьмьюна Петриловиця, тьрьскаго даньника оли и до Никулина дни не видѣхомъ свѣтла дни, ни сѣна и поиде въ борзѣхъ на Тържькъ, и приде на вьрьбницю въ Тържькъ, и ради быша людье вси. и Даньслава, и Борисовъ тысячьскаго, и Творимириць, иныхъ много дворовъ. А Водовикъ, то зло услышавъ, побеже съ Торжьку съ братьею, и Борис тысячьскыи и новотържьчи къ Михаилу въ Цьрниговъ. и зажгоша посадъ всь; и много зла бысть: и погорѣша церкы и честныя иконы и книгы и еуангелия; и много селъ попустиша около Пльскова. самъ убѣжа в малѣ и вбѣжа въ Пльсковъ

S1

NK1 NK2 N4

Иванка поповица, тѣрь- N1Y – скаго даньника

–

N1Y N1Y

даждь и до Николина дни ни сѣна

Syn.

–

–

–

N1Y

и поиде вборзѣхъ на Торжокъ, и ради быша люди все.

Syn.

–

–

–

Syn.

и Даньслаль, и Борисовъ тысячкои, и Новоторжькъ Михаиловъ Черниговъ.

Syn.

–

–

–

N1Y

и зажгоша посадъ весь Syn. и много селъ потратиша около Плескова.

Syn.

–

N1Y N1Y

самъ убѣжа въ Плесковъ –

N1Y N1Y –

N1Y

184

chapter 3 Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod

Syn., the 1st scribe

Y

Syn., the 2nd scribe X N1Y NS-chronicles

Com.

Acad.

Compilation of 1534 Tv. figure 15 A stemma of the Novgorodian annals

are some evidently secondary readings (results of slips of pen) shared by Tv., the NS-chronicles, and N1Y.28 The interrelationships of all of those texts can by depicted in a stemma in Figure 15. The dates of those intermediate texts (Y, X, N1Y) are not clear. Theoretically, they can be placed at any time between 1330 (the date of the second part of Syn.) and 1439 (the date of the bulk of Com.). Dating of the NS-chronicles itself is a problem (if we agree with Aleksandr Bobrov that the earliest layer of them was created in 1411,29 that will be the terminus ante quem for X). Aleksei Gippius suggested a case for 1397, as the date of Y.30 It is not the task of this book to 28 Lists of such changes see: Gimon, “Redaktirovanie,” 116–8. 29 Bobrov, Novgorodskie letopisi, 96–128. 30 Aleksei A. Gippius, “‘Do Aleksandra i Isakiia’: K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii mladshego izvoda Novgorodskoi pervoi letopisi,” Drevniaia Rus’: Voprosy medievistiki 1 (43) (2011): 18–30.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

185

resolve the problems of textual interrelations of 15th-century Novgorodian compilations. The exact dates of the intermediate texts seem not to be able to influence much our conclusions on the annalistic writing in Novgorod before 1400. Let us return to the interrelations of Syn. and N1Y (or, rather, Y, the earliest of the intermediate texts between the Archiepiscopal Annals and N1Y). When cataloguing differences between those texts I realized that certain groups of differences tend to be concentrated in the text for the 12th century, especially in the last decades, and never cross the edge of the annals for 1199 and 1200. Firstly, there are 17 additional notes (short items of text dedicated to separate events) present in Syn. only. The first two of them are s.a. 1144; the last three are s.a. 1195. Most of those notes are concentrated closer to the end of this chronological interval: 12 of 17 notes are s.a. 1184–95. The notes are dedicated to building of wooden churches, successions of abbots, births of princely children, and some other events (including two notes on Priest German Voiata, the probable annalist of Archbishop Ilia31). Those additional notes have been treated by scholars as additions to the Archiepiscopal Annals made in its local copy (in St. George’s Monastery or St. Jacob’s church),32 as results of the use of annalistic notes made at St. Jacob’s,33 or as omissions by N1Y.34 Secondly, in numerous cases Syn.’s readings are more verbose than those of N1Y. Such differences become more and more frequent towards the end of the 12th century, and almost stop after the end of the annal for 1199, as shown in diagram 3. In Diagram 3 (as well as in the next one) each bar represents two folios (four pages) of Syn. Annal-numbers are given in brackets after the folio-numbers. The length of a bar reflects the quantity of cases in which Syn.’s text is more verbose than that of N1Y. Dark grey means the cases in which Tv. supports the variant of N1Y, and that it goes back to Y at least. All other cases are in light grey. The diagram covers the annals from 1075 (where Syn. and N1Y start to be more or less identical) up to 1255 (where relevant text in Tv. comes to end). In Diagram 3 the boundary of 1199–1200 is clearly seen. The largest concentration of variant readings in question is in the annals for the 1170s–90s; however, they are quite numerous in the annals for the 1110s–60s as well. For an unbiased experiment I have not included into this diagram 17 notes on 31 See in subchapter 3.4. 32 Gippius, “Novye dannye,” 4–7, 21–34 (with references to previous discussion). 33 Boris M. Kloss, “Letopis’ Novgorodskaia prevaia,” in Slovar’ knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnei Rusi, ed. Dmitrii S. Likhachev, vol. 1: XI–pervavia polovina XIV v. (Leningrad: Nauka, 1987), 246. 34 Timberlake, “Older and Younger Recensions,” 13.

f. 5r‒6v (1073‒1103) f. 7r‒8v (1104‒1116) f. 9r‒10v (1116‒1124) f. 11r‒12v (1124‒1129) f. 13r‒14v (1130‒1134) f. 15r‒16v (1134‒1136) f. 17r‒18v (1136‒1137) f. 19r‒20v (1137‒1140) f. 21r‒22v (1140‒1142) f. 23r‒24v (1142‒1147) f. 25r‒26v (1147‒1150) f. 27r‒28v (1150‒1156) f. 29r‒30v (1156‒1158) f. 31r‒32v (1158‒1164) f. 33r‒34v (1164‒1167) f. 35r‒36v (1167‒1169) f. 37r‒38v (1169‒1173) f. 39r‒40v (1173‒1176) f. 41r‒42v (1176‒1179) f. 43r‒44v (1179‒1181) f. 45r‒46v (1181‒1186) f. 47r‒48v (1186‒1188) f. 49r‒50v (1188‒1191) f. 51r‒52v (1191‒1192) f. 53r‒54v (1193‒1194) f. 55r‒56v (1194‒1196) f. 57r‒58v (1196‒1197) f. 59r‒60v (1197‒1199) f. 61r‒62v (1199‒1200) f. 63r‒64v (1201‒1204) f. 65r‒66v (1204) f. 67r‒68v (1204) f. 69r‒70v (1204) f. 71r‒72v (1204‒1207) f. 73r‒74v (1207‒1209) f. 75r‒76v (1209‒1211) f. 77r‒78v (1211‒1214) f. 79r‒80v (1214‒1215) f. 81r‒82v (1215) f. 83r‒84v (1215‒1216) f. 85r‒86v (1216) f. 87r‒88v (1216‒1218) f. 89r‒90v (1218) f. 91r‒92v (1218‒1220) f. 93r‒94v (1220‒1223) f. 95r‒96v (1223‒1224) f. 97r‒98v (1224) f. 99v‒100r (1224) f. 101r‒102v (1224‒1227) f. 103r‒104v (1227‒1228) f. 105r‒106v (1228) f. 107r‒108v (1228‒1229) f. 109r‒110v (1229‒1230) f. 111r‒112v (1230) f. 113r‒114v (1230‒1231) f. 115r‒116v (1231‒1233) f. 117r‒118v (1233‒1234) f. 119r‒120v (1234‒1237) f. 121r‒122v (1237‒1238) f. 123r‒124v (1238) f. 125r‒126v (1238‒1240) f. 127r‒128v (1240‒1242) f. 129r‒130v (1242‒1243) f. 131r‒132v (1243‒1253) f. 133r‒134v (1253‒1255)

0

5

10

15

20

diagram 3 The distribution of the more verbose readings of Syn. in comparison to N1Y

187

Historical Writing in Novgorod f. 5r‒6v (1073‒1103) f. 7r‒8v (1104‒1116) f. 9r‒10v (1116‒1124) f. 11r‒12v (1124‒1129) f. 13r‒14v (1130‒1134) f. 15r‒16v (1134‒1136) f. 17r‒18v (1136‒1137) f. 19r‒20v (1137‒1140) f. 21r‒22v (1140‒1142) f. 23r‒24v (1142‒1147) f. 25r‒26v (1147‒1150) f. 27r‒28v (1150‒1156) f. 29r‒30v (1156‒1158) f. 31r‒32v (1158‒1164) f. 33r‒34v (1164‒1167) f. 35r‒36v (1167‒1169) f. 37r‒38v (1169‒1173) f. 39r‒40v (1173‒1176) f. 41r‒42v (1176‒1179) f. 43r‒44v (1179‒1181) f. 45r‒46v (1181‒1186) f. 47r‒48v (1186‒1188) f. 49r‒50v (1188‒1191) f. 51r‒52v (1191‒1192) f. 53r‒54v (1193‒1194) f. 55r‒56v (1194‒1196) f. 57r‒58v (1196‒1197) f. 59r‒60v (1197‒1199) f. 61r‒62v (1199‒1200)

0

5

10

diagram 4 The distribution of variant readings in dating formulas, where Syn. is more verbose in comparison to N1Y

separate events described above (by the way, all those notes are absent from Tv. and the NS-chronicles). But their distribution, which was described above, fits quite well with the diagram. Most typically Syn. is more verbose than N1Y in dating formulas. Very often Syn. gives, and N1Y omits references to the church calendar (typically Syn. gives month and day, and says what saint is commemorated on this day; N1Y gives month and day only), the word ‘мѣсяця’ (‘month’) before the name of the month,35 the word ‘день’ (‘day’) after the number of the day in the month, 35 The usage of ‘мѣсяця’ has already been an object of analysis of Alan Timberlake (Timberlake, “Older and Younger Recensions,” 17–9). To my mind, he pays too much

188

chapter 3

as well as some other chronological detail (i.e. number of the year in a 15-year indiction cycle, or sophisticated dating s.a. 1136 which was probably written by Kirik the Novgorodian36). Diagram 4 reflects the distribution of ‘chronological’ differences between Syn. and N1Y. I only included the text up to 1199, for after 1199 there are no such differences. Occurrences of ‘мѣсяця’ in Syn. only are in dark grey. Information on saints given by Syn. only is in middle grey. Other variant readings are in light grey. This diagram shows the same, but a more vivid picture as the previous one. Thirdly, in the annals for the 1190s there are a number of variant readings in which one of the texts (either Syn. or N1Y) gives additional factual information in comparison to the other. Syn. gives additional topographic detail when reporting the building of churches (s.a. 1191 [twice], 1192, 1192 [twice]), says that a church in 1195 was erected only ‘to the doors’ (‘до двьрии’), reports a name of a man who painted a church (s.a. 1196), and gives some other small details (s.a. 1191, 1193, 1196). N1Y alone says that a military raid was undertaken in boats (1191), gives a name of a newly appointed abbess (1192), adds a detailed description of the election of Archbishop Martirii and a big additional fragment in the description of an unsuccessful raid to Yugra (in Northern Urals) (both s.a. 1193), gives names of two commissioners of church building (1194, 1199), and of an architect of a church (1196), says that Dionisii was not simply the abbot of St. George’s but the archimandrite of Novgorod (1194).37 Similar variant readings occur sometimes in other part of the annals as well, but their concentration in the annals for the 1190s is remarkable. So, different groups of variant readings tend to concentrate in the same part of the text, and never cross the edge of the annals for 1199 and 1200. Can they be attributed to one scribe, or one editorial episode?38 As a total they cannot attention to this particular type of readings, although they are not the most reliable. It is enough to say that among ‘chronological’ differences only in six cases Tv. supports readings of Syn., not of N1Y, and all those six cases are using/omission of ‘мѣсяця’. It is clear thus that this word could be omitted or added by various scribes. 36 Quoted in appendix 1. See also subchapter 3.4. 37 See a list of those variant readings: Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Rubezh XII–XIII vv. v novgorodskom letopisani.” Slověne: International Journal of Slavic Studies 6, no. 2 (2017): 176, http://slovene.ru/2017_2_Guimon.pdf. 38 In existing theories different groups of variant readings are attributed to different editorial episodes. So, Aleksei Gippius argues that the 17 additional notes of Syn. are additions by scribes who kept in the 12th century √Syn., a copy of the Archiepiscopal Annals which was updated from time to time. Gippius attributes two insertions of N1Y s.a. 1193 to a scribe who redacted only the last leaves of the Archiepiscopal Annals c. 1199 (Gippius, “K istorii,” 24–7). In a joint paper Gippius and I attributed to the scribe of N1Y or, rather,

Historical Writing in Novgorod

189

be attributed to any scribe of the 14th or 15th century: such a scribe could omit the 17 notes and abbreviate the dating formulas, but he could not insert the factual information into the annals for the 1190s (and why precisely for the 1190s?). Also, they cannot be attributed to the scribe of Syn. or of any √Syn. (i.e. of a manuscript intermediate between the Archiepiscopal Annals and Syn.). Such a scribe would be able to add the 17 notes on churches, abbots, etc. He also could omit some details and add some other ones into the annals for the 1190s. It is very difficult, however, to attribute to such a scribe the amplification of dating formulas. He was able to add to Julian dates the information on church festivals or the words ‘мѣсяця’, but why did he amplify the date s.a. 1136 in such a sophisticated way, and did so with the date which exactly coincide with the date of writing of the earliest Rus tract on chronology?39 The only possible way to attribute all the three groups of variant readings to one scribe is to imagine an editorial episode near or soon after 1199. Aleksei Gippius has already postulated such an episode, so explaining the two insertions of N1Y s.a. 1193 as well as some phrasings of the annals for the 1190s that are likely to have been written after the death of Archbishop Martirii (1199).40 According to Gippius, only the last leaves of the Archiepiscopal Annals were replaced about that time. However, the three groups of variant readings I have described above lead to the conclusion that all the text from at least the annals for the 1110s was rewritten c. 1199. The scribe who did this abbreviated the text (he omitted 17 notes on events of local importance, some factual details, especially in the annals for the 1190s, reduced dating formulas, etc.). At the same time, he inserted some new information into the annals for the 1190s. If indeed there was such a reform of the Archiepiscopal Annals c. 1199, up to the annal for 1199 Syn. is a copy of the pre-reform text of the Archiepiscopal Annals. The first part of Syn. dates from c. 1234. Probably, the pre-reform, old text was more easily available for copying. When it ended, the scribe of Syn. started to copy the official manuscript of the Archiepiscopal Annals. This is also an explanation for the paleographical boundary in Syn. in fol. 62r, soon after the beginning of the annal for 1200. It long has been treated as a change of hand, but Gippius has shown that the same scribe had written the text before

39 40

of Y the abbreviation of the dating formulas and other cases where Syn. is more verbose than N1Y (Gimon and Gippius, “Novye dannye,” 42–5). Alan Timberlake argues that in all cases Syn.’s readings are primary, but attributes different groups of them to different editorial episodes of the 12th and the early 13th centuries (Timberlake, “Older and Younger Recensions,” 13–21). See subchapter 3.4. See above, note 38.

190

chapter 3

figure 16 The Synodal MS. of the First Novgorodian Chronicle (the first scribe, c. 1234), fol. 62r. Annals for 1199–1200 and palaeographical change in the 9th line from the top reproduced from: PSRL, 3

Historical Writing in Novgorod

191

and after this point (and up to 1234). In fact, here the script becomes larger, and the ink and pen change.41 Constantine Zuckerman argues that this paleographical change is due to a long break in the scribe’s work, which was the result of a long unavailability of the exemplar. Zuckerman thinks that Syn.’s scribe decided to change exemplar because he wanted to copy the account of the recent decades directly from the Archiepiscopal Annals.42 It seems that my hypothesis of the reform of the Annals c. 1199 (which supposes that Syn. up to 1199 is a copy of the pre-reform text which terminated there) explains this change even better. As I have already said, the texts of Syn. and N1Y start to be more or less identical from 1075. Annals from 1016 (where Syn. starts abruptly) up to 1074 are rather different in Syn. and N1Y, although some fragments of text are the same. The most convincing theory on the interrelations within those annals has been suggested by Aleksei Gippius (who, in turn, was partly basing on the conclusions of Aleksei Shakhmatov and Mark Aleshkovskii). According to Gippius, Syn. reflects an earlier stage of the text, and N1Y represents a later one. Syn.’s text for the 11th century is that of the Archiepiscopal Annals in their earliest form, as they were first created c. 1115. N1Y reflects the result of a revision of that text; an early brief account was supplemented and partly replaced with fragments of text taken from the Kievan Primary Chronicle (PVL) as well as with some original notes on mid 11th-century Novgorodian events (they will be discussed in the next subchapter). One of those new notes reads as follows: In the year 6557 [1049], in the month of March on the 4th, on Saturday, St. Sophia burned down. It had been constructed and decorated with honour, had 13 tops, and St. Sophia had stood here, at the end of the Bishop Street, where now Sodko has built the stone church of St. Boris and Gleb above [the River] Volkhov. В лето 6557. Месяца марта въ 4, въ день суботныи, сгоре святая Софья; беаше же честно устроена и украшена, 13 верхы имущи, а ту стояла святая Софея конець Пискупле улице, идеже ныне поставилъ Сотъке церковь камену святого Бориса и Глеба над Волховомъ.43 41 Aleksei A. Gippius, “Novye dannye o ponomare Timofee—novgorodskom knizhnike serediny XIII veka,” Informatsionnyi biulleten’ Mezhdunarodnoi assotsiatsii po izucheniiu i rasprostraneniiu slavianskikh kul’tur 25 (1992): 67–8. 42 Tsukerman, “Nabliudeniia,” 290. 43 PSRL, 3, 181.

192

chapter 3

The church of St. Boris and Gleb was founded in 1167, and it implies that the annals were revised after that date, but not very long after, as the word ‘нынѣ’ (‘now’) was used. This date coincides with the date of the composition of the lists of Kievan and Novgorodian princes (according to Shakhmatov, 1167; according to Gippius, 1167–70).44 Gippius dated the revision of the annals to 1167–70. According to Gippius, only text up to 1074 was revised; the quires containing annals from 1075 were not even rewritten.45 Tetiana Vilkul agrees that N1Y’s text for the 11th century is secondary in comparison to that of Syn. She explains in a more detailed way the strategies of the scribe who created this secondary text on the basis of previous Novgorodian annals and PVL. Vilkul, contrary to Gippius, dates that revision of the 11thcentury annals not to the 12th but to the 15th century. She suggests some case in support of this late dating.46 However, her attempt to eliminate ‘the argument of Sodko’ seems unconvincing. She argues that the wording ‘идеже нынѣ’ (‘where now [is]’) is characteristic either to PVL of the early 12th century, or to 15th-century compilations, the authors of which tended to imitate PVL. Vilkul finds no example even of ‘идеже’ in the 12th-century annals after PVL.47 It is not clear, however, why a late 12th-century Novgorodian compiler, who, by the way, extensively used PVL, could not imitate its characteristic wordings. Such an assumption would be much simpler than the hypothesis that a 15th-century scribe, tending to pretend a much earlier scribe, used the word ‘нынѣ’ (‘now’) about the church founded in 1167.48 Thus, I agree with Gippius that the annals for the 11th century now found in N1Y originated in the 12th century. The only question is whether the revision of the annals for the 11th century (presumably in the 1160s) and the revision of the annals for the 12th century (c. 1199) were in fact two different editorial episodes. Is not it impossible that the text for the 11th century also was revised c. 1199, and thus at that time all the manuscript of the Archiepiscopal Annals was renovated? The 1160s date is based, firstly, on the phrase about the church being founded in 1167, and, secondly, on the coincidence of that date with the time of the 44 45 46 47 48

See in subchapter 3.2. Gippius, “K istorii,” 64–5. Vilkul, “Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis’,” 9–30. Ibid., 24. As Dmitrii Petrov points out, the church of St. Boris and Gleb, after all, was rebuilt three times between the 12th and the 15th centuries. Thus, it is even more difficult to imagine a 15th-century compiler saying that the church had been built ‘now’ by Sodko, the commissioner of 1167: Dmitrii A. Petrov, Problemy istoricheskoi topografii Novgoroda (Moscow: Obshchestvo istorikov arkhitektury, 1999), 15.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

193

compilation (or updating) of the lists. However, the church only was founded in 1167. It was consecrated in 1173. In the phrase in question it is said: ‘where now Sodko has built’ (‘идеже нынѣ поставилъ Сотъке’). Such a phrase is more likely to have been written when the church had already been finished. The lists, however, are likely to have been composed not later than in 1167.49 Thus, the annals probably were revised later than the lists composed. If so, there is no necessity to date the editorial episode to the 1160s, it could in fact take place later, for example c. 1199. The wording ‘now … has built’ (‘нынѣ поставилъ’) means that the church had been erected not long ago, but some three decades seem not to be impossible. However, the very character of revising the annals for the 11th century is different from that for the 12th. In the annals for the 11th century brief earlier texts were replaced by much more extended ones, borrowing afresh from PVL and the local oral (?)50 tradition. The annals for the 12th century, on the contrary, were only rewritten and slightly abbreviated; small insertions were only made in last few annals. So, the question whether there were two editorial episodes or only one remains open. It is only clear that in both cases Syn. represents the earlier text, and N1Y represents the renovated one. Therefore, I am not sure that the editing of the 11th-century annals took place precisely in the 1160s, and not later. However, as I have no definite alternative dating, and to avoid confusion, I will refer in the rest of this book to the ‘editorial episode of the 1160s’, or the activity of the ‘chronicler of the 1160s’—as it has been referred to in the works by Gippius and in many of my own ones. In summation, generally speaking, Syn. and N1Y independently go back to a common exemplar: the Archiepiscopal Annals that were updated year by year. Those annals sometimes could be reformed, partly or completely: at least this can be traced for the annals for the 11th century (the editorial episode of the late 1160s or, perhaps, later time) and for most of the 12th century (the editorial episode of c. 1199 which can be in fact the same with the previous one). In both cases Syn. reflects a pre-reform text, and N1Y represents a post-reform one. From the annal for 1200 Syn. is a direct copy of the Archiepiscopal Annals (made in two stages: c. 1234 and c. 1330). N1Y goes back to the Archiepiscopal Annals via at least two intermediate copies, probably of the late 14th and the early 15th centuries. It is not impossible, by the way, that those were not copies in the common sense, but rather results of renovations of the main Novgorodian chronicle, similar to that of c. 1199.

49 50

See in subchapter 3.2. See also subchapter 3.3.

194 3.2

chapter 3

Lists of Officials

Some 15th-century and later manuscripts contain lists of lay and ecclesiastical officials: princes, metropolitans, archbishops, bishops, Novgorodian archimandrites, posadniks, and tysiatskys, as well as lists of episcopal sees and Rus towns. In most of the cases we deal not with single lists but with collections of them. Usually (though not always) such lists and collections are connected with letopisi (the annals). For example, they can be included into one of the annual entries. In N1Y, s.a. 989, after a short narration of the conversion of Novgorod (next year after that of Kiev), one finds the lists of Kievan princes, Novgorodian princes, Kievan metropolitans, Novgorodian archbishops, Rus sees, and Novgorodian posadniks. In NK1, s.a. 887, a chronicler placed lists of Rus princes, metropolitan and archiepiscopal sees under the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the episcopal sees of Rus. The lists can be situated not inside the annalistic text, but near it. For example, a list of Kievan princes forms a sort of introduction to Hyp.; only after it one reads the traditional beginning of PVL. In one of the manuscripts of N1Y, in mid-15th-century Com., a collection of lists is placed before the annals (in quires added in front of the already existing book; at the end of the same book quires with judicial texts were added).51 A late 15thcentury miscellany kept now in Poland is an exclusion: three lists (those of Rus metropolitans, Novgorodian archbishops, and Rus sees) are copied next to the Pilgrimage (Хождение, to Palestine) of Abbot Daniil and an excerpt from Pchela (i.e. Bee, a translated Byzantine collection of maxims), and there are no annals in that manuscript.52 In all cases, except the list of Kievan princes in Hyp., the lists are connected with Novgorod. Even for those not dedicated to local officials (archbishops, posadniks, etc.), but to the ones of all-Rus importance (metropolitans and princes of Kiev, etc.), the earliest witnesses are in Novgorodian manuscripts.53

51 Bobrov, Novgorodskie letopisi, 68–70. 52 The lists are printed and the book described in: Iaroslav N. Shchapov, Vostochnoslavianskie rukopisnye knigi v sobraniiakh Pol’skoi Narodnoi Respubliki (Moscow, 1976), part 1, 50–1; part 2, 139–140. 53 Although non-Novgorodian books can be among later witnesses of those texts. See, for example, an overview of the lists of Rus sees: Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “Novgorodskii perechen’ russkikh episkopii,” in Kniga kartiny zemli: Sb. st. v chest’ I.G. Konovalovoi, ed. Tat’iana N. Dzhakson [Jackson] and Aleksandr V. Podosinov [Podossinov] (Moscow: Indrik, 2014), 41–3.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

195

15th-century Novgorod was, therefore, a place where the production, revising, and updating54 of lists was a remarkable element of historical writing. Although all the lists survive in 15th-century (or later) manuscripts, there is a serious case for earlier dates of some of those texts. The last person mentioned by the Novgorodian list of Kievan princes is Rostislav Mstislavich (1159–67). In N1Y s.a. 989 it is immediately followed by the list of Novgorodian princes. The latter names the princes from the late 10th up to the early 15th century, but after Sviatoslav (the son of that same Rostislav), who ruled Novgorod in 1161–7, the formulaic of the list changes: it becomes more laconic and stops reporting durations of reigns. Aleksei Shakhmatov made a conclusion that both lists were composed in the 1160s.55 A case can be made for an even earlier layer in those two lists. Another change of formulaic in both of them seems to occur around 1095. The first sections of both lists look like short coherent narratives on the history of Kiev and Novgorod from the late 10th up to the late 11th century. From the latter time they become more like lists proper. In the case of the list of Novgorodian princes one important observation can be added. In N1 s.a. 1095 it is said that Davyd became the prince of Novgorod. Nothing is reported about the end of his rule, but s.a. 1097 Mstislav is mentioned as the Novgorodian prince. We know from PVL that Davyd was expelled from Novgorod already in 1095, and so his rule was very short. However, in the list of Novgorodian princes he is said to have ruled two years. This mistake shows that here the list was based upon the Novgorodian annals.56 The same sort of dependence can be traced later: 54

A good example of updating of a list is provided by the list of posadniks in Acad., s.a. 989. When this manuscript was written in the 1440s, a blank space was left after the list, and later, in the 1460s, 39 new names were added by another hand in the left space as well in the margins: BAN, 17.8.36, f. 38r; see also: PSRL, 3, 164–5, note 48; Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki, 29–32. In Com. the genealogical list of Rus princes was updated in the 16th century (SPbII RAN, 11, 240, f. 7r). In both manuscripts after some of the lists a blank space was left—certainly for later additions (Ibid., f. 7r–24v, 71r–v; BAN, 17.8.36, ff. 36v–38r). 55 Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 1, 144, 179. Aleksei Gippius (“K istorii,” 46–8) prefers a broader dating of the revision of the annals and the lists: 1167–1170, but Shakhmatov’s argument seems more convincing, see: Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “Sobytiia XI–nachala XII v. v novgorodskikh letopisiakh i perechniakh,” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2010 (2012): 597–8. Tetiana Vilkul and Oleksiy Tolochko suggested some case against this hypothesis and date both lists to the 15th century: Vilkul, “Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis’,” 34, note 128; Aleksei P. Tolochko, Kratkaia redaktsiia Pravdy Russkoi: Proiskhozhdenie teksta (Kiev: IIU NANU, 2009), 69–70, note 150. See objections to this skepsis: Gimon, “Sobytiia,” 598–602. See also in the previous subchapter. 56 This observation belongs to Tetiana Vilkul. She made, however, another conclusion from it: that the list was composed in the 15th century: Vilkul, “Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis’,” 34, note 128; eadem, Liudi i kniaz’, 158.

196

chapter 3

Mstislav is said in the list to have ruled 20 years, that is, from 1097 to 1117. As we have already seen, in fact he started to be the prince of Novgorod earlier, in 1095, and so, he ruled 22 years. However, in the pre-1095 section the list is independent from the Novgorodian annals (at least in the form we know them). All this leads to the conclusion that the first lists (or, rather, short overviews) of the Kievan and Novgorodian princes were composed in Novgorod c. 1095.57 In the list of Novgorodian (arch)bishops the same late 11th-century layer can be traced. The text of the list for the 11th century not only lists the bishops and mentions the duration of their rule, but also describes (although not in all cases) the circumstances of their death. This 11th-century section of the list is independent from N1;58 the next section, on the contrary, is based upon it. Although we cannot date precisely the composition of the earliest layer of the list, it seems very probable that it appeared together with the princely lists, that is c. 1095. If so, the first episcopal list ended with Bishop German, whose death is reported in the 15th-century annals s.a. 1095. Although that date had probably been calculated from the list in question, it looks not too far from the truth.59 It is probable that the episcopal list was updated between the late 11th and the 15th century. For example, it could be updated in the 1160s, together with the princely lists, although there seems to be no strong case for it. Another stage in the composition of the episcopal list can be postulated after 1325, because the last name in the archetype of all extant versions of the list was that of Archbishop Davyd who died in that year.60 The early sections of those three lists (of Kievan and Novgorodian princes, and of the bishops of Novgorod), up to c. 1095, will be quoted in full in the next subchapter. If my argument is correct, they jointly form one of the earliest attempts at historical writing in Novgorod—and the earliest example of a coherent overview of Novgorod’s past. 57 See: Gimon, “Sobytiia,” 595–606. For an idea that even two layers earlier than the 1160s can be traced in the lists: those of c. 1078–1079 and c. 1117, see: Mikheev, Kto pisal Povest’ vremennykh let?, 131–3 (see objections: Gimon, “Sobytiia,” 602–4). 58 It has been traditionally considered that the 11th-century portion of the list is based on the NS-chronicles. However, a much simpler explanation of their interrelations is that the 15th-century chronicler used the list (see: Gimon, “Sobytiia,” 655–7). The idea that a list of Novgorodian bishops could have been an independent and very early form of historical writing has already been expressed in: Aleshkovskii, “K tipologii,” 158–9; Bakhrushin, “[K voprosu],” 19–20. 59 See: Gimon, “Sobytiia,” 610, 657. 60 See: Aleksandr S. Khoroshev, “Letopisnye spiski novgorodskikh vladyk,” Novgorodskii istoricheskii sbornik 2 (12) (1984): 127–42.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

197

The list of Novgorodian posadniks61 for the 12th and 13th centuries is obviously based on the Novgorodian annals.62 However, near the beginning63 it reports consecutively eight names not known from the annals. Three of them were probably fathers of later posadniks (judging by the patronymics). One of those three, Giuriata, is mentioned as posadnik in an early 12th-century birchbark document (no. 907). Thus, the eight names probably are trustworthy and belong to real posadniks of the late 11th and early 12th centuries.64 This leads to the conclusion, that the list of posadniks also had an early layer, maybe that of the 1110s (the first posadnik, whose name could have been taken from the annals, died in 1117) or, rather, of the 1160s (as it was said above, at that time the lists of Kievan and Novgorodian princes were composed or updated—and the posadniks of c. 1100 could still be remembered then). The latter dating is supported by the fact that Iakun is mentioned twice in the list. He was posadnik three times, and the list mentions him in the place of his first (1137–41) and third (from 1167) offices—the latter just after the probable date of composition (or updating) of the princely lists.65 It is probable that the earliest list of Rus episcopal sees was also composed in the 1160s.66 One more list with a possible early layer is called ‘How long each one was prince’ (Колико кто княжилъ), which gives the names of princes and the durations of their rule: there seems to be a textual boundary in its account of the early 12th century.67 So, Novgorodian lists were a minor form of historical writing which coexisted with the annals and supplemented them, presenting what the annals lacked: systematic sequences of names. Both forms of historical writing were interconnected, as the lists were placed in the entry for 989 of the annals— from at least as early as the 1160s. 61 See a brilliant analysis of its versions and makeup: Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki, 23–63. 62 Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “K kharakteristike letopisnogo perechnia novgorodskikh posadnikov,” in Stolichnye i periferiinye goroda Rusi i Rossii v srednie veka i rannee novoe vremia (XI–XVIII vv.): Problemy kul’tury i kul’turnogo naslediia: Dokl. Tret’ei nauch. konf. (Murom, 17–20 maia 2000 g.), ed. Valentin L. Ianin (Moscow: Drevlekhranilishche, 2003, 128–36; Bassalygo, “Novgorodskie tysiatskie,” 11 (21): 40–2. 63 In the very beginning there are three names that are present in annalistic sources but also could be taken from an oral tradition (Gimon, “Sobytiia,” 613–4). 64 See: Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki, 59, 78–88. 65 Aleksei A. Gippius, “Petr i Iaksha: K identifikatsii personazhei novgorodskikh berestianykh gramot XII veka,” Novgorodskii istoricheskii sbornik 9 (19) 2003: 69, note. 6; Gimon, “Sobytiia,” 615. 66 See on the versions of this list and their dates: Gimon, “Novgorodskii perechen’,” 41–50. 67 See: Aleksei S. Shchavelev, “K datirovke protografa perechnia kniazei ‘Kto koliko kniazhil’,” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e 23 (2011): 332–7.

198 3.3

chapter 3

The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Novgorod: the 11th Century

It is generally assumed that the earliest historical records were made in Novgorod in the 11th century. However, quite different opinions have been expressed concerning their date and appearance. Some scholars of the 19th century paid attention to notes on 11th-century Novgorodian events in various extant chronicles, and especially to the words of the NS-chronicles s.a. 1030 concerning the death of Ioakim of Korsun, the first bishop of Novgorod (989–1030, according to the NS-chronicles): ‘and Efrem, who taught us, was his pupil’ (‘и бяше ученикъ его Ефремъ, иже ны учаше’).68 This is a clear indication of an 11th-century author.69 Also, the Russian 18th-century historian Vasilii Tatishchev cited a certain Ioakim’s Chronicle (Иоакимовская летопись), which he assumed to be connected to the same Ioakim. Some later scholars treated those references seriously,70 though now it is generally assumed that Ioakim’s Chronicle was either a 17thcentury work, or even an invention of Tatishchev himself.71 According to Aleksei Shakhmatov, the first Novgorodian chronicle was written as early as in 1016, and then continued in 1035. C. 1050 a Novgorodian ‘compilation’ was created on the base of this early chronicle and the Kievan ‘Oldest Compilation’ of the late 1030s. Later in the 11th century it was updated several times, and in the 12th century it became the Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod.72 Shakhmatov’s central idea of the Novgorodian mid-11th-century compilation was supported by many scholars, some of them suggested variations of this hypothesis: for example, it has been suggested to date the compilation not to 1050, but to 1054–60 (Boris Rybakov), 1052–4 (Aleksandr Zimin), the 1050s– 60s (Vladimir Kuchkin), or 1078 (Nadezhda Miliutenko).73 On the other hand, skeptical views on this compilation have been expressed.74 Also, an alternative view has been expressed: that the earliest historical records in Novgorod were not letopisi at all, but lists of princes and bishops (this idea was independently suggested by Sergei Bakhrushin and Mark Aleshkovskii).75

68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

PSRL, 42, 63. See references: Gimon, “Sobytiia,” 586, note 3. See references: Ibid., 586, note 3; 588. See: Anatolii A. Turilov, “Ioakimovskaia letopis’,” in DRSM, 339. Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 1, 128–82, 275–80, 328–53, 431–49. See references: Gimon, “Sobytiia,” 587–8. See references: ibid., 589. Aleshkovskii, “K tipologii,” 158–9; Bakhrushin, “[K voprosu],” 19–20.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

199

Let us analyze afresh the material: the notes on 11th-century Novgorod that are found in surviving letopisi as well as in the lists of princes and bishops. Different sources contain now different selections of notes on 11th-century Novgorodian events. It can be supposed that all go back to one lost source: Shakhmatov’s 11th-century Novgorodian compilation. However, also it can be that different groups of notes have different origin, and not necessarily all go back to 11th-century sources. It is also possible that some notes on Novgorod in fact were written down elsewhere (e.g. in Kiev). I will analyze here the material concerning 11th-century Novgorod in the following sources: Novgorodian lists of princes and bishops, PVL, Syn., N1Y, and the NS-chronicles. The Novgorodian lists of princes and bishops as it has been postulated in the previous subchapter, probably had a late 11th-century layer. Their information could not be derived from any known chronicle, and in some cases they report details otherwise unknown. For example, the list of Novgorodian princes is the only source to mention Iaroslav the Wise’s eldest son Ilia—whose reality is, nevertheless, highly probable.76 This was the composer of the lists (or at least of the episcopal list) who called himself the pupil of Efrem: from the lists this phrase came to the annal for 1030 of the NS-chronicles.77 As the 11th-century sections of the three lists appear to be early examples of historical writing in Novgorod, it would make sense to quote them here in full: And this is about the Kievan princely throne after the holy baptism.78 After the baptism, then, the first Christian prince was Vladimir; after his death Sviatopolk the Accursed [reigned], after his expulsion Iaroslav, brother of Boris and Gleb, son of Vladimir, [reigned]. And Iaroslav passed away, and there were 3 of his sons: the elder Iziaslav, the middle Sviatoslav, and the younger Vsevolod.79 And they divided the land, and the elder Iziaslav took Kiev, and Novgorod, and many other Kievan towns within the borders; and Sviatoslav [took] Chernigov and all the eastern country up to Murom; and Vsevolod [took] Pereyaslavl, Rostov, Suzdal, Beloozero, the Volga bassin. And Iziaslav was killed in battle, and his brother 76 See: Nazarenko, Drevniaia Rus’, 484–92. 77 Quoted above. Efrem did not necessarily teach the author in 1030, he could do it later. Also, the words ‘who taught us’ (‘иже ны учаше’) can be understood in a sense that Efrem was a prominent enlightener of Novgorod, not of the author personally. At least, those words were so understood by one 17th-century chronicler (see more in detail: Gimon, “Sobytiia,” 612–3). 78 Bold letters represent red ink of the manuscript. 79 The so-called Triumvirate of Iaroslav’s sons. For some two decades they acted together in many cases.

200

chapter 3

succeeded to Kiev. After Vsevolod’s passing away, Sviatopolk succeeded to the throne, his cousin, son of Iziaslav80 ⟨….⟩ And this is in Novgorod: the first prince after the baptism [was] Vysheslav, son of Vladimir; after him his brother Iaroslav [reigned], and he owned the land; and when going to Kiev, he seated in Novgorod Konstantin, son of Dobrynia.81 And Ilia, Iaroslav’s son, was born, and [Iaroslav] seated him in Novgorod, and [Ilia] died.82 And then Iaroslav was wroth with Konstantin, and imprisoned him; and seated his son Vladimir in Novgorod. And Iaroslav wrote a charter, saying as follows: ‘Go according to this charter’.83 And after Vladimir’s death in Novgorod,84 Iziaslav seated [here] his son Mstislav; and he was defeated on [the river] Cheriokha,85 and he fled to Kiev, and after the capture of the city the war stopped.86 And Sviatoslav seated [in Novgorod] his son Gleb, and he fled over the Volok,87 and was killed by the Chuds,88 and Sviatopolk succeeded to the throne, son of Iziaslav, and [he] went to Kiev. And Vsevolod sent [to Novgorod] his grandson Mstislav, son of Vladimir; and, having reigned for 5 years, [Mstislav] went to Rostov, and Davyd came to Novgorod to be prince89 ⟨…⟩ And these are the bishops of Novgorod. Ioakim of Korsun was bishop for 42 years, and Efrem was in his place, his pupil, who taught us. Luka Zhidiata was bishop for 23 years, [he] is buried behind St. Sophia in Novgorod, and he passed away when riding from Kiev, in Kopys’, in the 80 Sviatopolok II was prince of Kiev in 1093–1113. 81 Dobrynia was brother of Malusha, Vladimir’s mother. He was Vladimir’s companion in many affairs, and certainly became a hero of oral tradition. Dobrynia is one of the most prominent characters of later Russian bylinas. 82 See above, note 76. 83 See subchapter 3.11 on Iaroslav’s charter(s). 84 Vladimir died in 1052, in his father Iaroslav’s lifetime. Iziaslav’s appointment of his son could take place after 1054 in which Iaroslav died. Even more, we know from reliable sources (see below) that in 1056–7 Novgorod was ruled by Ostromir, also appointed by Iziaslav. Therefore, Mstislav became Novgorodian prince even later. 85 A right tributary of River Velikaia, to the southeast of Pskov. This battle is otherwise unknown. 86 The text is very unclear. Maybe it speaks of Vseslav’s capture of Novgorod in 1066, see below. 87 I.e. over the Portage, or Watershed, that is, presumably he went to the basin of the Northern Dvina. 88 The Chuds, ‘чюдь’, Finnic-speaking locals (this name was applied to different Finnic groups, most often to the inhabitants of what is now Estonia, but also of the basin of Northern Dvina). 89 Davyd, son of Sviatoslav, was prince of Novgorod for a short time in 1095.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

201

month of October, on the 15th. And Stefan was strangled by his slaves in Kiev; [he] was bishop for 8 years. And Feodor was bit by his dog, and he died because of this; [he was] bishop for 9 years. And German passed away in Kiev; [he] was bishop for 18 year … А се по святомъ крещении, о княжении киевьстѣмъ. По крещении пакы пръвыи князь крестияныи Володимиръ; по смерти же его Святополкъ оканныи; по изгонении его Ярославъ, брат Борисовъ и Глѣбовъ, сынъ Володимирь. И преставися Ярославъ, и осташася 3 сынове его: вятшии Изяславъ, а среднии Святославъ, меншии Всеволод. И раздѣлиша землю, и взя болшии Изяславъ Кыевъ и Новъгород и иныи городы многы киевьскыя во предѣлех; а Святославъ Черниговъ и всю страну въсточную и до Мурома; а Всеволод Переяславль, Ростовъ, Суздаль, Бѣлоозеро, Поволожье. И убиша Изяслава на рати; и сѣде брат его в Киевѣ. По преставлении же Всеволожи Святополкъ сѣде на столѣ, братанъ его, сынъ Изяславль ⟨…⟩ А се в Новѣгородѣ: пръвыи князь по крещении Вышеславъ, сынъ Володимирь; и по нем брат его Ярославъ, и володѣше землею; и идя къ Кыеву, и посади в Новѣгородѣ Коснятина Добрыница. И родися у Ярослава сынъ Илья, и посади в Новѣгородѣ, и умре. И потомъ разгнѣвася Ярославъ на Коснятина, и заточи и; а сына своего Володимира посади в Новѣгородѣ. И писа грамоту Ярославъ, рекъ тако: « по сеи грамотѣ ходите ». И по преставлении Володимеровѣ в Новѣгородѣ, Изяславъ посади сына своего Мьстислава; и побѣдиша на Черехи; бѣжа къ Кыеву, и по взятьи города преста рать. И посади Святославъ сына своего Глѣба, и выгнаша из города, и бѣжа за Волокъ, и убиша Чюдь; а Святополкъ сѣде на столѣ, сынъ Изяславль, иде Кыеву. И присла Всеволод внука своего Мьстислава, сына Володимиря; и княживъ 5 лѣт, иде к Ростову, а Давыдъ прииде к Новугороду княжить ⟨…⟩90 А се новъгороцкии епископи. Акимъ Корсунянинъ бѣ въ епископьи лѣт 42; и бѣ въ его мѣсто ученикъ его Ефрѣмъ, иже ны учаше. Лука Жидята бысть епископомъ лѣт 23; положенъ за святою Софиею в Новѣградѣ, а преставися, ѣдя ис Киева, на Копыси, октября месяца 15. А Стефана в Киевѣ свои холопи удавиша; бы въ епископьи 8 лѣтъ.

90

Lists of Kievan and Novgorodian princes are quoted from Com., s.a. 989 (PSRL, 3, 160–161) and checked with the manuscript (SPbII RAN, 11, 240, fol. 68v–69v).

202

chapter 3

А Федора свои песъ уяде, и с того умре; бы въ епископии 9 лѣт. А Гмерманъ пьреставися в Киевѣ; бѣ епископъмъ 18 лѣтъ. ⟨…⟩91 PVL, the Kievan text of the 1110s, contains numerous notes on Novgorodian events of the 11th century. Shakmatov believed that most of them go back to the Novgorodian mid-11th-century compilation.92 This was challenged by Vasilii Istrin and Dmitrii Likhachev who pointed out that nothing in those notes indicates their origin from a Novgorodian written source. It is possible, however, that a Kievan chronicler wrote down some oral accounts he had heard from a Novgorodian.93 Shakhmatov insisted that two 11th-century items in PVL are especially likely to have been borrowed from a Novgorodian chronicle: the note on a raid to the land of Häme (‘емь’, in Central Finland) s.a. 1042, and the note on the backward flow of River Volkhov s.a. 1063.94 However, in both cases in the next annal something is recorded about Vyshata (in 1043 he was a commander in Prince Vladimir’s expedition against Byzantium, and so he had taken part, perhaps, in the same prince’s raid against Häme in 1042; in 1064 Vyshata fled to Tmutarakan95 with Vladimir’s son Rostislav). Vyshata was the father of Ian Vyshatich,96 and the latter is said in PVL (s.a. 1106) to have been the annalist’s informant.97 Likachev, therefore, was right when attributing much of PVL’s ‘Novgorodian’ material to the oral tradition of Ian’s family.98 So, PVL gives no material for the reconstruction of the Novgorodian historical writing.

91 Quoted from the Novorossiysky MS. of N4 (PSRL, 4, part 1, 625) and checked with the manuscript (BAN, Tekushch. postupl., 1107, ff. 3v–4). According to Khoroshev (‘Letopisnye spiski,’, 127–8), this manuscript represents the earliest extant version of the list. 92 Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 1, 128–36. Even earlier a Novgorodian source of PVL had been postulated in: Bestuzhev-Riumin, O sostave, 49–58. 93 Istrin, “Zamechaniia,” 27: 54–55, 57–61; Dmitrii S. Likhachev, “‘Ustnye letopisi’ v sostave Povesti vremennykh let,” Istoricheskie zapiski 17 (1945): 201–207. 94 Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 1, 128–9. 95 A town in the Taman Peninsula, was the center of a remote Rus principality for much of the 11th century. 96 There is an opinion that s.a. 1043 and 1064 the annals speak of different Vyshatas. However, it seems more likely that Vyshata was one and the same, see: Gimon, “Ian’ Vyshatich,” 76–82. 97 See quotation above, in subchapter 2.2. 98 Likhachev (“ ‘Ustnye letopisi’,” 208–12, 224) argued that Vyshata was the informant of Nikon, the probable Kievan chronicler of the 1060s–70s. However, simpler is the hypothesis that all the family stories were told to the annalist of the 1090s by Vyshata’s son Ian (see: Gimon, “Ian’ Vyshatich,” 107; see also subchapter 2.2).

Historical Writing in Novgorod

203

Syn.’s text for the 11th century reflects the text of the Archiepiscopal Annals before their late 12th-century reform (it was discussed in the previous subchapter if it took place in the 1160s or later). The text, except the first annal for 1016 that starts abruptly, is outstandingly brief: it consists of very short notes as well as many ‘empty years’. The bulk of those brief annals consist of no more than a synopsis of the relevant annals of PVL (or, rather, of an earlier Kievan chronicle). However, Syn. contains some notes that are not present in PVL, and most of them are dedicated to Novgorod. Those original Novgorodian notes of Syn. form two groups: in the annals for 1045–79, and in those for 1095–1113. The annal for 1115 is the last one in Syn. to use the Kievan source. From this point Syn. reflects how the Archiepiscopal Annals started to be kept on a yearly basis at about that time. Notes on late 11th and early 12th-century Novgorodian events are likely to have been written from memory in the moment of the start of the Archiepiscopal Annals c. 1115: the annalist described the previous two decades relying on a Kievan source but supplemented its information with notes on Novgorodian events he could recall. Those notes are dedicated to four kinds of events: military expeditions (4 notes), fires (4 notes, always in the same annual entries with the notes on military events), building of churches (3 notes), and, finally, the change of bishops (2 notes, s.a. 1108 and 1110). Only in the latter are precise dates present. Before that, s.a. 1095, Davyd’s accession to the throne of Novgorod is reported (in a note not taken from the Kievan source), but nothing is said about the end of his reign (which, as we learn from PVL) happened in the same year. It would be strange if a Novgorodian annalist, working in the time of the next prince, Mstislav (1095–1117), had not mentioned his accession to the throne. Based upon this evidence, I tentatively have supposed that c. 1115 the Novgorodian annals were not created for the first time, but were only updated with brief entries for the late 1090s to the early 1110s, and so the text appeared in 1095, in the short reign of Prince Davyd. Or, maybe, the compilation was created c. 1093 (as there are no Kievan notes in Syn. for 1094), and the note on Davyd was its first continuation.99 If this argument is correct, the compilation can be dated to about the same time as the earliest Novgorodian lists. 99 See more in detail: Gimon, “Sobytiia,” 625–31. More traditional (and still possible) view is that the Novgorodian Annals (later known as Archiepiscopal) started in 1115 or, maybe, 1117, as from 1115 the usage of the Kievan source stops, and the Novgorodian notes seem to become more systematic, see: Gippius, “Novgorodskaia vladychnaia letopis’,” 208–9; idem, “K probleme. I,” 41, note 16. Constantine Zuckerman suggested 1126 (Tsukerman, “Nabliudeniia,” 259–65).

204

chapter 3

The Novgorodian annalistic compilation, which was later being updated as the Archiepiscopal Annals, and the text of which we read now in Syn. more or less intact, was quite strange. 16 quires are lost at the beginning of Syn., and so it used to contain in its pre-1016 section approximately the same amount of text we find in N1Y. What remains now of the annal for 1016 also tells us that the initial part of Syn. was an extended chronicle, and not a brief synopsis that we see from the annal for 1017, and up to the early 12th century. Why was the structure of the Novgorodian compilation of the late 11th or the early 12th century so strange and asymmetric? As Dmitrii Likhachev argued, the Novgorodians believed that the foundation of their political independence and traditions had been laid by Iaroslav the Wise, who had rewarded the Novgorodians for their help in his struggle for Kiev in the 1010s.100 That is why the compiler treated the events of the 9th to the early 11th centuries as the common history of Kiev and Novgorod. On the contrary, after the events of the 1010s Novgorod had to have its own, independent history. While the copying of the Kievan source was suitable when dealing with the events up to the early 11th century, it became unacceptable after 1016.101 The annals up to 1016 narrated the origins of Rus and Novgorod, the early history of the Rurik dynasty, the conversion of Rus, and the martyrdom of its first princely saints, Boris and Gleb. The annal for 1016 ends in Syn. with the description of Iaroslav’s reward to the Novgorodians. And exactly after this point Syn. becomes extremely brief. This brevity tells us that there was no extended written source on Novgorodian 11th-centrury history in the hands of the compiler. However, Syn. contains six notes on Novgorodian events of 1045–79, not found in PVL. Here they are: In the year 6553 [1045] St. Sophia burnt down, on Saturday, after the Matins, in the 3rd hour, in the month of March, on the 15th. In that same year St. Sophia was founded102 in Novgorod by Prince Vladimir.103 ⟨…⟩ In the year 6560 [1052] Vladimir passed away, son of Iaroslav,104 in the month of October, on the 4th. ⟨…⟩

100 On the Novgorodian tradition about Iaroslav the Wise see subchapter 3.11. 101 Dmitrii S. Likhachev, “Sofiiskii vremennik i novgorodskii politicheskii perevorot 1136 g.,” Istoricheskie zapiski 25 (1948): 263–4. 102 An early wooden church burnt down, and the stone building that still survives was founded. 103 Son of Iaroslav the Wise, who was the prince of Novgorod and who died in his father’s lifetime. 104 The text in italic is common with PVL. Only the date is unique for Syn.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

205

In the year 6574 [1066] Vseslav105 came and captured Novgorod, with wives and children, and he removed the bells from St. Sophia. Oh, great was the disaster in that hour! And he removed the chandeliers. ⟨…⟩ In the year 6577 [1069] ⟨…⟩ In that same year, in the autumn, in the month of October, on the 23rd, at [the day of] St. Jacob, the Lord’s brother, on Friday, in the 6th hour of the day, Vseslav came again to Novgorod. And the Novgorodians deployed the troop against them near Zverinets106 on [the river] Gzen. And God helped to Prince Gleb107 with the Novgorodians. Oh, great was the slaughter for the Votians,108 and countless quantity of them died! And the prince109 himself was released for God’s sake. And on the morrow the holy cross of Vladimir was found at St. Sophia in Novgorod, under Bishop Feodor. ⟨…⟩ In the year 6585 [1077] Feodor passed away, the Archbishop110 of Novgorod. ⟨…⟩ In the year 6577 [1079] Prince Gleb111 was killed over the Volok,112 in the month of May, on the 30th. ⟨…⟩ Въ лѣто 6553 съгорѣ святая София, въ суботу, по заутрьнии, въ час 3, мѣсяця марта въ 15. Въ то же лѣто заложена бысть святая София Новѣгородѣ Володимиромь князѣмь. ⟨…⟩ Вь лѣто 6560 прѣставися Володимиръ, сынъ Ярославль, въ Новѣгородѣ,113 мѣсяця октября въ 4. ⟨…⟩ Въ лѣто 6574 приде Всѣславъ и възя Новъгородъ, съ женами и съ дѣтми; и колоколы съима у святыя Софие. О, велика бяше бѣда въ час тыи; и понекадила съима. ⟨…⟩ Въ лѣто 6577 ⟨…⟩ Въ то же лѣто, осень, мѣсяця октября въ 23, на святого Якова брата господня, въ пятничи, въ чяс 6 дни, опять приде Все… къ Новугороду; новгородци же поставиша пълъкъ противу ихъ, у Звѣринця на Къземли; и пособи богъ Глѣбу князю съ новгородци. О, 105 106 107 108

109 110 111 112 113

Prince of Polotsk. A locality in the southern suburb of Novgorod, the name meaning ‘menagerie’. Gleb, son of Sviatoslav, grandson of Iaroslav the Wise. Votians (‘вожане’), or Vod’ (‘водь’), Vodes, Vods, is a Finnic-speaking people living near the southeastern bank of the Gulf of Finland. In the 12th century they are mentioned as subordinate to Novgorod. S.a. 1069 they appear for the first time in a written source. Perhaps, they supported Vseslav’s intervention. I.e. Vseslav. Most of scholars would say he was in fact bishop, see above, note 7. See above note 107. See above, note 87. See above, note 104.

206

chapter 3

велика бяше сѣця Вожяномъ, и паде ихъ бещисльное число; а самого князя отпустишя Бога дѣля. А на заутрие обрѣтеся крѣст честныи Володимирь у святѣи Софие Новѣгородѣ, при епископѣ Федоре. ⟨…⟩ Въ лѣто 6585 прѣставися Феодоръ, архепископъ новгородьскыи. ⟨…⟩ Въ лѣто 6587 убиша за Волокомь князя Глѣба, мѣсяця маия въ 30. ⟨…⟩114 There can be little doubt that those notes (with so detailed datings) are contemporary 11th-century records. The connection of almost all of them with the cathedral of St. Sophia (Figure 17),115 as well as the fact that the first note is about its foundation, prompts where those records could have been made. According to Shakhmatov those notes go back to the mid-11th-century Novgorodian compilation and its continuations.116 However, nothing in those notes tells us that they have been extracted from a larger chronicle. This view could be supported only if we found another text containing the same notes but reflecting the supposed 11th-century chronicle in a more complete way. Such a text is unknown. Other sources that give us some information of 11thcentury Novgorod do not contain exactly those notes.117 So, the simplest solution would be to suppose that Syn. reflects here brief annalistic records made at St. Sophia Cathedral in the 11th century. It is possible that more than six records had once been made, and that the later Novgorodian compiler copied only six of them, but it would be no more than a speculation. So, it is safer to speak of those six notes as the earliest (as far as we know) Novgorodian attempts in writing down historical events. It is very probable, as it has already been said, that brief annals were kept in Kiev during the first half of the 11th century. It may well have been, that a manuscript with those annals came to Novgorod when the stone Cathedral of St. Sophia had been built. And the six Novgorodian records could be a local continuation of the Kievan early annals.118

114 PSRL, 3, 16–8. 115 It is directly mentioned s.a. 1045, 1066, and 1069. Notes s.a. 1052 and 1077 report deaths of people buried in the cathedral. Gleb, however, was buried in Chernigov. 116 Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 1, 348–50. 117 Some of them are found in NS-chronicles (see on minor differences: Gimon, “Sobytiia,” 653–4), but they could either find their way there via Syn., or be taken directly from the St. Sophia’s book containing 11th-century notes. 118 Syn.’s brief Kievan entries for 1017–44 can go back to them (see subchapter 2.4).

Historical Writing in Novgorod

207

N1Y, as it has been said in the previous subchapter, contains between 1016 and 1075 a text quite different from that of Syn. Those annals in N1Y are much more extended than in Syn., and they reflect a result of the reform of Archiepiscopal Annals which was undertaken either in the late 1160s, or later, maybe c. 1199, but in any case after the construction the church of St. Boris and Gleb founded in 1167. N1Y contains several notes on mid-11th-century events absent from both, Syn. and PVL. Here they are (in the translation italic means that the same is already found in Syn.): 1044: Iaroslav went against the Lithuanians; and in spring Vladimir119 founded Novgorod120 and built it. 1045: Vladimir founded St. Sophia in Novgorod. 1049: In the month of March on the 4th, on Saturday, St. Sophia burned down. It had been constructed and decorated with honour, had 13 tops, and St. Sophia had stood here, in the end of the Bishop Street, where now Sodko has built the stone church of St. Boris and Gleb above [the River] Volkhov. 1050: St. Sophia was finished in Novgorod, ordered by Prince Iaroslav, and his son Vladimir, and Archbishop Luka. 1052: In the month of October, on the 4th, on Sunday, Vladimir passed away, the eldest son of Iaroslav, in Novgorod, and he was buried in Novgorod in St. Sophia that he had built himself. 1055: In that same year there was a calumny against Bishop Luka from his slave Dudika, and [Luka] went out from Novgorod, and went to Kiev, and Metropolitan Efrem condemned him, and [Luka] spent there 3 years. 1058: In this year Archbishop Luka returned to his throne in Novgorod, and his diocese. And for Dudika outcomes: his nose and both hands were cut, and he fled to the Germans. 1060: And after that Isiaslav made a raid on the Sosols and enjoined them to pay a tribute of 2000 grivnas. And they, having guaranteed to do so, expelled the collectors of the tribute. And in spring, having come, they raided villages near Yuriev, and burnt the town and the houses, and did much harm, and reached Pskov fighting. And the Pskovians and the Novgorodians set out against them for a battle, and 1000 of the Rus fell, and countless Sosols. 119 Son of Iaroslav the Wise, prince of Novgorod. 120 I.e. wooden city walls.

208

chapter 3

1044: Ходи Ярославъ на литву; а на весну же Володимиръ заложи Новъгород и сдѣла его. 1045: Заложи Володимиръ святую Софѣю в Новѣгородѣ. 1049: Месяца марта въ 4, въ день суботныи, сгорѣ святая Софья; бѣаше же честно устроена и украшена, 13 верхы имущи, а ту стояла святая Софѣя конець Пискуплѣ улице, идеже нынѣ поставилъ Сотъке церковь камену святого Бориса и Глеба над Волховомъ. 1050: Свершена бысть святая Софѣа в Новѣгородѣ, повелѣниемь князя Ярослава и сына его Володимира и архиепископа Лукы. 1052: Месяца октября въ 4 день, в неделю, преставися Володимиръ, сынъ Ярославль, стареишии в Новѣгородѣ; положиша и в Новѣгородѣ въ святеи Софѣи, юже бѣ создалъ самъ. 1055: В семъ же лѣтѣ клевета бысть на епископа Луку от своего холопа Дудикы, и изиде изъ Новагорода и иде Кыеву, и осуди митрополит Ефримъ, и пребысть тамо 3 лѣта. 1058: Сем же лѣтѣ архиепископъ Лука прия свои столъ в Новѣгородѣ и свою область. Дудицѣ же холопу оскомины: урѣзаша ему носа и обе руцѣ, и бѣжа в Нѣмци. 1060: Потом же ходи Изяславъ на Сосолы и дань заповѣда даяти по 2000 гривенъ; они же поручьшеся и изгнаша даньникы; на весну же, пришедше, повоеваша села о Юрьеве, и город и хоромы пожгоша, и много зло створиша, и Плескова доидоша воююще. И изидоша противу имъ плесковицѣ и новгородци на сѣчю, и паде Руси 1000, а Сосолъ бещисла.121 Where did the annalist of the late 12th century take those notes from? The question cannot be answered with a complete certainty. However, evidence in those fragments points towards an origin from an oral tradition or even an artificial invention, not an 11th-century written source. Central for this part of the annals are the notes on the construction of St. Sophia. N1Y suggests a version that contradicts the information of Syn. According to Syn. (which reflects a genuine mid-11th-century record) the wooden cathedral burnt down, and only after that the stone one was founded. In N1Y, to the contrary, the wooden cathedral burnt down later, when the stone church had already been under construction for four years. It is especially important for N1Y’s version to specify the place where the wooden cathedral used to stand. As Valentin Ianin has shown, that place in the 11th century was outside the city walls, and it is improbable that the cathedral church stood 121 PSRL, 3, 181–3.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

209

there. The remains of such a church have not been discovered archaeologically. Ianin rightly concludes that the aim of the annalist was to glorify the place of the later church of St. Boris and Gleb, to present it as the most sacred place of Novgorod.122 It is also stressed in N1Y that the wooden church had 13 tops. As Svetlana Sivak points out, St. Sophia of Kiev also had 13 tops, but the 15th-century list of Rus towns says that St. Sophia of Kiev had only 12 tops— and the idea of the Novgorodian compiler probably was, thus, to say that the older St. Sophia had one top more.123 Ianin dated the version of N1Y to between the late 13th and the mid-15th centuries,124 Sivak and Vilkul date it to the 15th century.125 However, as it has already been said, the revision of the Archiepiscopal Annals should be dated to the 12th century, or, the latest, c. 1199. One can also guess where the compiler took the date of the end of the construction (1050). In PVL (as well as in N1Y) this is the year of the death of Iaroslav the Wise’s wife. It can be demonstrated that oral tradition in Novgorod remembered that the princess died ‘in the year of the construction of St. Sophia’.126 It seems very probable that the late 12th-century annalist was basing upon that knowledge when creating his version of the building of the main Novgorodian church. The note on the war against the Sosols (some group of the Chuds of what is now Estonia) in 1060 also seems to go back to oral tradition. It contains suspiciously large and round figures (2000 grivnas of tribute, 1000 killed in battle), but more important is its correspondence with another note on an Estonian war about the same time, which is found in the NS-chronicles s.a. 1057.127 It can be demonstrated that both notes speak of the same set of events, refltecting different versions of those events in oral tradition.128 The construction of the city walls of Novgorod by Vladimir, as well as the calumny against Bishop Luka (again one of the founders of St. Sophia), are also events quite likely to have been remembered via oral tradition. So, it is not necessary to suppose a written source behind N1Y’s notes on mid-11th-century events in Novgorod. Rather, the late 12th century compiler used oral tradition and, maybe, partly constructed the story himself. 122 Valentin L. Ianin, Ocherki kompleksnogo istochnikovedeniia: Srednevekovyi Novgorod (Moscow: Vysshaia shkola, 1977), 124–30. 123 Svetlana I. Sivak, “O dereviannoi Sofii v Novgorode,” Russia mediaevalis 7, no. 1 (1992): 11–2. 124 Ianin, Ocherki, 129–30. 125 Sivak, “O dereviannoi Sofii,” 13; Vilkul, “Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis’,” 22–4. 126 See subchapter 3.11. 127 See the text below. 128 See: Timofey V. Guimon, “Estonia during the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries in the Novgorodian Chronicles.” Forschungen zur baltischen Geschichte 10 (2015): 36–40.

210

chapter 3

The NS-chronicles, at first glance, contain a great deal of material on 11thcentury Novgorod. However, a good deal of this material is notes on 11thcentury bishops that are based upon the episcopal list. In the NS-chronicles the information of the list is divided into separate notes placed in different annals. It is much easier to suppose that the 15th-century compiler used the list, than the opposite. First of all, even if one does not agree with my hypothesis of a late 11th-century layer in the list,129 it was Aleksandr Khoroshev who showed that the archetype of all surviving versions of the list ended with Archbishop Davyd who died in 1325.130 The earliest layer of the NS-chronicles must be dated to the early 15th century,131 when the list in any case already existed. Secondly, the NS-chronicles contain no details on the 11th-century bishops that could not be found in the list. All the dates of 11th-century episcopal successions in the NS-chronicles could be calculated from the durations of reigns reported by the list. Thirdly, one can note the uniformity of those notes in the NS-chronicles, as well as the fact that in three cases the NS-chronicles report a death of a bishop in one year, and a succession of a new one in the next year. It would be difficult to explain those features within the hypothesis of contemporary annalistic records.132 Besides the notes on bishops, the NS-chronicles contain five notes on Novgorodian events of the 1020s–50s, which are as follows (I always quote from NK1): 1020:133 Konstantin134 was then in Novgorod, and Iaroslav was wroth with him, and imprisoned him in Rostov; and in the 3rd year ordered to kill him in Murom, on the River Oka. 1030 (after the description of Iaroslav the Wise’s raid to Estonia): And he came to Novgorod, and gathered 300 children of aldermen and priests to be taught books (then the death of Bishop Ioakim is reported, based on the episcopal list). 1032: And then Uleb135 went from Novgorod to the Iron Gates,136 and few of them came back.

129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136

Subchapter 3.2. Khoroshev, “Letopisnye spiski,” 128, 130–32. See references in chapter 1, note 151. See more in detail: Gimon, “Sobytiia,” 655–7. 1019 in S1. Son of Dobrynia, see above, note 81. This man, bearing a Scandinavian name, is otherwise unknown. One can only speculate where those were.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

211

1036137 (inside the text common to PVL, after the words: ‘And Iaroslav went to Novgorod, and seated his son Vladimir in Novgorod, and appointed Zhiriata138 as bishop’, and instead of a note on the birth of one of Iaroslav’s sons): … and wrote to people a charter, saying: ‘Pay tribute according to this charter’. And he was limping, but there was good intellect in him, and he was brave in war, and Christian, because he read books himself. 1054 (after the account of the death of Iaroslav the Wise, common to PVL): And after this Smolensk was divided into three parts.139 And Iziaslav140 came to Novgorod and appointed Ostromir to Novgorod. And Ostromir with the Novgorodians made a raid on the Chuds,141 and the Chuds killed him, and a lot of Novgorodians fell with him. And after that Iziaslav made a raid on the Chuds, and seized the stronghold Kedipiv, that is, the Hand of the Sun.142 1020: Коснятин же бѣше тогда въ Новѣградѣ, и разгнѣвася на нь Ярославъ, заточи и в Ростовѣ; на 3-е лѣто повелѣ убити и в Муромѣ на рѣцѣ Оцѣ. 1030: И приде к Новуграду. И събра от старостъ и от попов дѣтии 300 учити книгам. 1032: И тогда же Улѣбь иде из Новаграда на Желѣзная Врата, и опять мало их приде. 1036: … и людемь написа грамоту, рекъ: « По сеи грамотѣ даите дань ». И бяше хромоног, но умъ бяше добръ в немъ, и храбръ на рати, и христьанъ, понеже чтяше самъ книгы. Ярославу сущу в Новѣгородѣ, прииде ему вѣсть … 1054: И по сем раздѣлишя Смоленскь на три части. И приде Изяслав къ Новуграду и посади Остромира в Новѣградѣ. И иде Остромиръ с новгородци на чюдь, и убиша и чюдь, и много паде новгородцев 137 1034 in S1. 138 Bishop Luka, in other sources known as Luka Zhidiata. 139 A division of Smolensk between the three sons of Iaroslav, the Triumvirate, could take place in 1060, when Igor of Smolensk died, see: Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 1, 349. 140 The eldest of those Iaroslav’s sons who outlived the father, he was his successor to both Kiev and Novgorod. 141 I.e. Eesti. 142 Identified with the hillfort of Keava, now in the county of Raplamaa, to the south of Tallinn, Estonia. ‘The Hand of the Sun’ is a translation of the Estonian place-name. 15th-century sources know in that locality a village Kedenpe and a manor Kedenpäh, place-names with that very meaning. See: Ain Mäesalu, “Could Kedipiv in East Slavonic Chronicles be Keava hill fort?” Estonian Journal of Archaeology, suppl. 1 (2012): 195–200.

212

chapter 3

с ним. И пакы Изяславъ иде на чюдь, и взя осекь Кедипив, сирѣчь Солнца рука.143 Two of those five notes (s.a. 1020 and 1036) find parallels in the list of Novgorodian princes. However (contrary to the case with the bishops and in spite of some correspondence in wording), the notes of the NS-chronicles are not derivatives of those of the lists, nor vice versa: both sources contain additional detail in comparison with one another. So, although the usage of the list is quite possible, most of the information in those five notes must have had some other source. The five notes in question lack precise dates. Even more, in two of them (s.a. 1020 and 1054) events of more than one year are reported.144 Three of those five notes (s.a. 1030, 1036, and 1054) are well connected with the surrounding text dedicated to events in the South of Rus. In some of the accounts of southern events of the 1020s–40s, the NS-chronicles contain additional details in comparison to ‘classical’ PVL. Although in most of the cases it is hardly possible to define which of the variants is the primary one (the less extended text of PVL, or the more detailed one found in the NS-chronicles), some case can be presented in favor of the priority of the latter. Therefore, very probably, this section of the NS-chronicles reflects a Kievan text earlier than ‘classical’ PVL (I think, the Initial Compilation of the 1090s).145 If so, the most economic solution would be that the five notes on Novgorodian events of 1020–54 also go back to that Kievan source.146 This is not paradoxical: it is quite evident from the text of PVL that it pays much attention to Novgorod, and that the Kievan historiographer (not the compiler of PVL, but one—or more than one—of his predecessors) had Novgorodian informants as well as some idea of the importance of Novgorod in the history of Rus. In summation, there is no need in the hypothesis of the Novgorodian 11thcentury compilation. Many of the notes on 11th-century Novgorodian events (in PVL, N1Y, and the NS-chronicles) either go back to the annals of Kiev, or were written in later times, on the base of oral tradition or the chronicler’s own reflections. Before the 1090s, the only form of historical writing attested in Novgorod are six brief annalistic notes (for 1045–79) made by clerics of St. 143 PSRL, 42, 62–5. 144 Konstantin was killed ‘in the 3rd year’. Ostromir could not be killed within the year 1054, as in 1057 (when the Ostromir Gospel was finished) he was still alive (Stoliarova, Svod, 15–6). 145 The alternative opinion is that this is a much earlier text, of c. 1060 (Gippius, “K rekonstruktsii”). 146 See: Gimon, “Sobytiia,” 657–76.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

213

Sophia, quite probably as a continuation of Kievan brief annals which were brought to Novgorod after the construction of the cathedral. If my argument is correct, in the 1090s two other forms of historical writing appeared in Novgorod: three lists (or, rather, overviews: those of Kievan and Novgorodian princes, and of Novgorodian bishops), and the ‘asymmetric’ annalistic compilation, which up to 1016 contained the full text of the Kievan source, and for the rest of the 11th century consisted only of brief excerpts from it, supplemented with the above-mentioned earlier Novgorodian records. C. 1115 those annals were updated (again with extracts from the Kievan annals supplemented with local notes), and from that time they started to be kept on a regular basis. They became the official annals of Novgorod, to which we will turn in the next subchapter. 3.4

The Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod and Their Authors

There is a consensus among the scholars that the main annals of Novgorod were kept at St. Sophia Cathedral (Figure 17) under the patronage of the (arch)bishops.147 Mikhail Pogodin expressed this view for the first time in the middle of the 19th century.148 Aleksei Shakhmatov was first to call the non-extant official annals of Novgorod ‘Новгородская владычная летопись’,149 i.e. the Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod. I will use this name here. The connection of those annals with the archbishops is quite obvious both from their content and from what we know of the role of archbishops in the Novgorodian state.150 However, the best confirmation of this connection was obtained in the 1990s by Aleksei Gippius. He mapped many features of the language and style of the annals (as well as some palaeographic features of Syn.) and came to the conclusion that there are a number of boundaries in the annalistic text that probably reflect changes of annalists (in the exemplar of Syn., not in Syn. itself which is no more than a copy by two scribes). Most of those boundaries coincide (strictly or approximately) with the changes of (arch)bishops of Novgorod. This means 147 On their title see above, note 7. 148 Mikhail P. Pogodin, “Novgorodskie letopisi.” Izvestiia po russkomu iazyku i slovesnosti 1, no. 3 (1857): 228–31. 149 Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 1, 138; vol. 2, 150; idem, “An account of the text of the Novgorod Chronicle,” in The Chronicle of Novgorod, 1016–1471, transl. Robert Michell and Nevill Forbes, with an intr. by C. Raymond Beazley and an account of the text by A.A. Shakhmatov (London: Offices of the Society, 1914), xxxvii. 150 See at the beginning of this chapter.

214

chapter 3

figure 17 St. Sophia Cathedral of Novgorod (founded in 1045) photo by the author

that a new (arch)bishop usually entrusted the business of keeping annals to a new person.151 This person was typically a cleric of one of Novgorodian religious houses (not necessarily of the cathedral of St. Sophia) who functioned as archiepiscopal secretary, as the example of Sexton (пономарь) Timofei of St. Jacob’s shows. Timofei, as Gippius argues, not only mentioned himself in the annals (s.a. 1230, in a prayer: ‘и мнѣ грѣшному Тимофѣю понаманарю’, ‘and to me, sinful Sexton Timofei’), but also copied liturgical books (in one book there is his colophon, two others are written by the same hand; in one of them Timofei probably acted not only as a copyist but as a compiler), and official documents (three treaties between Novgorod and Prince Iaroslav Iaroslavich of the 1260s are written by the same hand). It becomes obvious, firstly, that 13th-century Novgorod did not yet know the division between bookish and chancery

151 See: Gippius, “Novgorodskaia vladychnaia letopis’,” 114–251.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

215

writing, and, secondly, that a cleric of a parish church (even of such a low rank as that of sexton) could act as an archiepiscopal secretary.152 Two other persons, who were probably annalists in the 12th century, could be archiepiscopal secretaries as well. The first one is Kirik the Novgorodian (born 1110), deacon and domestic (head of choir), later hieromonk of Antonii’s Monastery near Novgorod (dedicated to the Nativity of the Virgin and founded in 1117 by St. Antonii Rimlianin, i.e. ‘of Rome’), best known as Russia’s first mathematician. He was the author of two tracts: on chronology and computus (1136, Uchenie), and on canonical questions, in the form of a dialog with Archbishop Nifont and other hierarchs (the 1140s–50s, Voproshanie). The hypothesis, first expressed by Aleksei Shakhmatov, that Kirik was also an annalist is based on the fact that N1 gives an extraordinarily sophisticated dating of Prince Sviatoslav Olgovich’s arrival at Novgorod on July 19th, 1136.153 Kirik’s tract on chronology was written at the same time, after Sviatoslav’s enthronement on the 19th of July, and before the 1st of September of the same year. This is unlikely to be a mere coincidence.154 Some doubts have been expressed based on differences in Kirik’s and the annalist’s way of reckoning time,155 but they can be explained in terms of the difference of genres between the annals and Kirik’s tract. As Dmitrii Likhachev noticed, the annalist in Kirik’s time was interested in canonical questions: he recorded that Archbishop Nifont forbad his subordinate priests to hold Sviatoslav’s wedding in 1136, as well as funeral service when two priests had drowned in 1145.156 According to Gippius, Nifont’s annalist wrote the annals from 1132 to 1156, and he probably was Kirik.157 The dates of the two known works of Kirik (1136, the 1140–50s) fit this interval well. However, of course, it is possible that the annalist was not Kirik himself, but another person from the same circle and with similar interests. The other probable annalist was Priest German Voyata of St. Jacob’s Church (the same one in which Sexton Timofei later served). Dmitrii Prozorovskii in 1852 noticed that s.a. 1144 the annalist says: 152 Gippius, “Novye dannye o ponomare Timofee,” 59–86; Gippius, “K istorii,” 8–11. 153 Quoted in Appednix 1. 154 Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 1, 137–8. 155 See refenences: Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “Kirik (1110–после 1158 (?)), ierom.,” in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, ed. Patriarch Kirill, vol. 34 (Moscow: Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, 2014), 167–70. 156 Likhachev, “Sofiiskii vremennik,” 261–2. See additional argument: Anna F. Litvina and Fedor B. Uspenskii, Traektorii traditsii: Glavy iz istorii dinastii i tserkvi na Rusi kontsa XI– nachala XIII veka (Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury), 2010, 44. 157 Aleksei A. Gippius, Lingvo-tekstologicheskoe issledovanie Sinodal’nogo spiska Novgorodskoĭ pervoĭ letopisi: Avtoref. dis…. kand. filol. nauk (Moscow, 1996), 22–3.

216

chapter 3

In that same year I was ordained as a priest by Saint Archbishop Nifont. Въ то же лѣто постави мя попомь архепископъ святыи Нифонътъ.158 S.a. 1188 the death of Priest German Voiata is reported. In a short obituary it is said, that German had served at St. Jacob’s for 45 years. Using ‘inclusive’ way of counting years we can conclude that German became priest in 1144, and so there can be little doubt that he was an annalist.159 What exactly his role was in annalistic writing is another question. Gippius’s opinion that he was an archiepiscopal annalist in 1164–86, during Ilia’s archiepiscopacy, seems the most simple and convincing.160 All other archiepiscopal annalists remain anonymous. In some cases there is no linguistic boundary coinciding with a change of archbishops. In such cases Gippius suggests to speak of an annalist who continued his work with a new archbishop. Timofei is again an example: he updated the annals under Spiridon, and then under Dalmat. The first two linguistic boundaries identified by Gippius (in the middle of the annals for 1115 and 1132) have, according to him, other meanings. The boundary s.a. 1115 reflects the start of the regular keeping of annals in Novgorod (and the end of the usage of the Kievan source). The boundary s.a. 1132 indicates the transfer of the annals from the patronage of Prince Vsevolod Mstislavich, who was in conflict with the city at the time, to Archbishop Nifont.161 The change of bishops (the abdication of Ioann I and the consecration of Nifont) took place a little earlier: in 1130; Nifont came to Novgorod after consecration on the 1st of January 1131. So, it is also probable that the author of the annals for 1115–32 was affiliated with Bishop Ioann, and just continued to keep the chronicle for two years after the change of bishops. Only in a situation like that of the political conflict of 1132 did Nifont entrust the keeping of the chronicle to another person, quite probably to famous Kirik. This alternative explanation seems plausible, as we do not know anything of the keeping annals at princely courts outside of the religious houses. If a prince sponsored or influenced annalistic writing, the very work was in any case done by clerics.162 158 PSRL, 3, 27. 159 Dmitrii I. Prozorovskii, “Kto byl pervym pisatelem pervoi Novgorodskoi letopisi?,” Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia 75, July, part 2 (1852): 1–28. 160 Gippius, Lingvo-tekstologicheskoe issledovanie, 22–3; idem, “K istorii,” 11. The autobiographical note s.a. 1144 is in any case retrospective: it is hardly possible that anyone could call Nifont (d. 1156) ‘saint’ in his lifetime. 161 Gippius, “K istorii,” 40–2; idem, “Novgorodskaia vladychnaia letopis’,” 209–10. 162 See subchapter 4.2.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

217

This is the list of annalists and segments of text written by them, according to Gippius:163 annalist of Prince Vsevolod (1117–32) annalist of Archbishop Nifont (Kirik the Novgorodian?) (1132–56) annalist of Bishop Arkadii (1157–63) annalist of Archbishop Ilia [Ioann II] (Priest German Voiata) (1164–86) annalist of archbishops Gavriil and Martirii (1187–99) annalist of Archbishop Mitrofan (1200–11) annalist of Archbishop Antonii (1211–26) annalist of archbishops Spiridon and Dalmat (Sexton Timofei) (1226–74) annalist of Archbihop Kliment (1275–98) annalist of archbishops Feoktist and Davyd (1299–1310) annalist of Archbishop Davyd (1311–24) annalist of Archbishop Moisei (1325–30) Gippius has not presented such a segmentation for the text after 1330 (extant only in N1Y). There can be little doubt, however, that the archbishops continued to be the patrons of annalistic writing. Some observations can be made that support this view. Here is the list of Novgorodian archbishops from 1330 to 1421: Vasilii Kalika (i.e. the Pilgrim) (1330–52) Moisei (for the second time) (1352–9) Aleksii (1359–88) Ioann III (1388–1415) Simeon (1415–21) At least the following features are characteristic only for the annals of particular archbishops: – dating of events according to church festivals, without month and day, is typical for the annals from 1331 to 1348 (i.e. under Vasilii), and from 1389 to 1413 (i.e. under Ioann III);164 – annals for 1352–8 are especially brief and contain no precise dates; there is no annal for 1351 and, on the contrary, two annals for 1354 and two for 1355; this zone approximately corresponds with the second office of Moisei: 1352–9; 163 Gippius, “Novgorodskaia vladychnaia letopis’,” 215. 164 Between 1348 and 1389 there is only one such date (1373), they are absent long after 1413.

218

chapter 3

– only from 1356 to 1358 (i.e. under Moisei) and from 1390 to 1419 (i.e. under Ioann III and Simeon) is the construction of wooden churches reported; on the contrary between 1303 and 1356, and between 1358 and 1390 only stone building is mentioned; – only up to 1345 and from 1359 to 1383 (i.e. under Vasilii and Aleksii) the annals report the foundation of churches as a separate event; – between 1365 and 1389 (i.e. under Aleksii, but not from the beginning of his office) commissioners of the construction of churches are never mentioned; up to 1365 and from 1389 they are named regularly; – between 1367 and 1392 there are no precise dates in the notes on construction of churches (this interval is very close to the previous one); – rhetoric and moralizing passages are characteristic in the annals for 1371–88 (again a very close interval), seldomly they are present in later text (s.a. 1397, 1399, 1417); – quantity of people who died in city fires is indicated several times from 1385 to 1414 (i.e. in the end of Aleksii’s office and under Ioann III); – mentioning of books and icons destroyed in fires is characteristic for the annals from 1390 to 1413 (i.e. for the time of Ioann III); – between 1388 and 1418 (i.e. under Ioann III) no inner conflicts in Novgorod are described; – notes on deaths of posadniks occur from 1392 to 1421 (i.e. under Ioann III and Simeon); – notes on icon miracles occur from 1396 to 1418 (i.e. under Ioann III and Simeon);165 – from 1415 to 1421 (i.e. under Simeon) annals are full of sophisticated datings (month and day + church festival + day of week, and the like). Thus, it is obvious that in the 14th and the early 15th century, exactly as earlier, changes of archbishops led to changes of annalists. It also can be tentatively argued that one more change of annalists occurred in the middle of Aleksii’s archiepiscopate, at some moment between 1367 and 1371. As Aleksandr Bobrov has shown, during much of the 15th century a connection of archbishops’ successions with annalistic writing also can be traced.166 However, Bobrov argues that in the last years of the Novgorod’s independence, in the 1470s, the annalistic writing was patronized not by archbishops but by city magistrates.167 165 Six notes within those dates, and only three before: s.a. 1208, 1243, and 1339. 166 Bobrov, Novgorodskie letopisi, 80–91, 180; idem, “Letopisets novgorodskogo vladyki Evfimiia serediny XV veka,” Letopisi i khroniki 2008 (2008): 124–51. 167 Bobrov, Novgorodskie letopisi, 238–40.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

3.5

219

How Did the Archiepiscopal Annalists Work?

It seems quite obvious that a text like the Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod could not be created in one sitting. Almost any of its annual entries are comprised of notes on different events, often with no visible connection to each other. The annals are full of precise dates (according to month and day, church festivals, and/or days of the week). From the 19th century on scholars who studied this text have been having no doubts that it originated as a chronicle kept year by year.168 The most important confirmation of this is the abovementioned observation by Gippius that the scribes changed with the archbishops. Such regularity is explicable only if we suppose that the annals were updated gradually, year by year. How often were new entries added to those annals? This is a kind of question which cannot be answered with complete certainty, as the original manuscript of the annals is not extant, and it is not possible to observe the variations of script and ink, as in some Western ‘living chronicles’,169 or in the 14th-century additions to Syn.170 Nevertheless, it seems possible to come to some conclusions based on indirect data. Firstly, one can study the distribution of precise dates. In some groups of annals many events are dated precisely, in others precise dates are seldom or completely absent. The concentration of precise dates depended on the preferences of particular annalists, but it also can be uneven inside the portion of text attributed to one author. In those cases, the groups of annals in which precise dates are absent or rare can be supposed to have been written in one sitting, after a certain break in keeping annals. Secondly, chronological mistakes and shifts (which can be detected via comparison with other sources or some other observations) also can indicate that certain portions of text were written not strictly contemporarily with the events they describe. Thirdly, one can analyze the order in which events are described within an annal. If the order is chronological (as in most cases) this provides no information. If, on the contrary, it can be observed that some kinds of events are typically recorded at the beginning of an annal, others at the end, and so on, it can be supposed that the updating took place no more often than once a year.

168 See e.g.: Pogodin, “Novgorodskie letopisi,” 230; Shakhmatov, “An account,” xxxviii; Gippius, “K kharakteristike,” 345–64. 169 See subchapter 3.7. 170 See subchapter 3.8.

220

chapter 3

Fourthly, paragraphing in Syn. can be significant. As it has already been said, Syn. reflects many features of its exemplar (the Archiepiscopal Annals). One such feature is paragraphing. It can be demonstrated that the manner of the division of annals into paragraphs is different in the sections of text attributed to different annalists. For some sections (but not for all of them) it can be supposed that a new paragraph reflects a fresh start. Those methods, together with some other observations, give us some idea of the process of updating the annals. Here I will summarize the results, which are presented in my Russian-language papers more in detail.171 There was no common pattern for all of the archiepiscopal annalists. They could either make records immediately after the events took place, or update the chronicle only once for a certain amount of time: one year, several years, in one case even for twelve years (1246–57).172 The manner of keeping annals could differ even within the work of one particular annalist, but, at the same time, we can speak of individual manners of some of the authors. One of the clearest examples is the section attributed to the annalist of Archbishop Nifont (annals for 1132–56). For most of his career this annalist tried to write events down soon after they happened, and to not forget their precise dates. Such an interest in dating is well in accord with the identification of this annalist with Kirik, the author of the tract on chronology (1136).173 In the annals for 1132–42 the annalist introduced precise dates 24 times, and they are distributed more or less evenly. It is telling that all the notes on the events in Southern Rus (s.a. 1134, 1135 [3 times], 1138) lack precise dates: the annalist in Novgorod simply did not know them. However, the same annalist wrote the annals for 1142–7 retrospectively, in one sitting. This is evident from the fact that there is no one precise date in those annals. On the contrary, the annalist used formula of approximate dating: ‘from the Dormition of St. Mary to the Korochun’174 (‘от Госпожина дни до Корочюна’), ‘between Christmas and Epiphany’ (‘межи Рожествомь и Крещениемь’), ‘before the harvest’ (‘переже жатвы’), ‘in the month of July’ (‘мѣсяця июля’), ‘and in autumn’ (‘а на осень’), ‘in the winter’ (‘зимѣ’), and 171 Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “Kak velas’ novgorodskaia pogodnaia letopis’ v XII veke?,” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoj Evropy 2004 (2005): 316–52; idem, “Novgorodskoe letopisanie pervoi chetverti XIII veka: Khronologiia i protsess popolneniia letopisi,” Srednevekovaja Rus’ 6 (2006): 80–118; idem, Novgorodskoe letopisanie XI–serediny XIV v. kak sotsiokul’turnoe iavlenie, Doct. Sc. thesis (Moscow: Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2014), 187–253. 172 Gimon, Novgorodskoe letopisanie XI–serediny XIV v., 234–53. 173 See subchapter 3.4. 174 A relict pagan festival, probably midwinter.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

221

the like.175 It is especially notable that some events certainly happened on a particular day, but the annalist could not recall the date, and thus wrote that a prince married ‘between Christmas and Epiphany’, or a posadnik died ‘in the winter’. In 1142–8 Prince Sviatopolk Mstislavich ruled Novgorod. The annalist certainly was hostile to him: he wrote s.a. 1148 that Sviatopolk was recalled by his father from Novgorod ‘because of his malignance’.176 All this looks as if there was a conflict between the prince and the annalist (or, rather, the archbishop), because of which during Sviatopolk’s reign the annals were not updated.177 In the remaining annals by Nifont’s annalist (those for 1148–56) precise dates appear again, although they are not so numerous as they were before 1141. Another outstanding section of the annals is the time of Archbishop Martirii (1193–9). The same annalist wrote the annals of Gavriil (1187–93) and Martirii. However, Gavriil’s annals are rather scarce, and sometimes lack precise dates (none of them, for example, are cited in the annals for 1189 [except the very beginning of the annal]–1191); the annal for 1192 contains three precise dates but all the three are not in month-and-day format but refer to church festivals (which are easier to remember). S.a. 1192 events are not reported in chronological order: an event dated to the Transfiguration (the 6th of August) is reported between two events dated to St. Peter’s Day (the 29th of June). It seems thus, that all the text for 1189 (again, except the first note)–1192 was written in one sitting, in 1193, when Gavriil died and Martirii was elected. The annals for the time of Martirii are quite different. Although some of the passages in those annals certainly were not written immediately after the events,178 and sometimes the chronological order of events is not followed, it seems that at least in some years the annals were updated in autumn. Martirii’s archiepiscopate was a period marked by very active building of churches (which became in those years, perhaps, the main topic of the annals), and autumn was a time when 175 176 177 178

PSRL, 3, 26–7. See a more extended quotation in subchapter 4.8, on p. 357. On some other specific features of the annals for 1142–8 see: Gimon, “Kak velas’,” 334–6. For example, the account of the unsuccessful expedition to Yugra (in Northeastern periphery of Novgorod’s lands) in 1193 could not be written before the next year, 1194, when, as the annalist says after reporting summer fires, ‘the rest of those alive came back from Yugra’ (‘придоша избытъкъ живыхъ изъ Югры’). On the contrary, s.a. 1193 the annalist says: ‘And there was no news in Novgorod about them during all the winter, neither that they were alive, nor dead, and in Novgorod the prince, and the archbishop, and all Novgorod, were sad’ (‘И не бяше вести чересь всю зиму въ Новегородѣ на не, ни на живы, ни на мьртвы; и печяловахуся въ Новегородѣ князь и владыка и вьсь Новгородъ’, PSRL, 3, 41).

222

chapter 3

one could sum up what had been built during the year. A good example is the annal for 1195, in which it is said: In that same autumn Bishop Martirii founded the stone church of Saint Resurrection in the monastery, and they erected it up to the doors by autumn.179 Тои же осени заложи церковь святого Въскресения камяну въ манастыри владыка Мартурии, и възделаша до двьрии около до осени.180 The end of the works and the consecration of this church (on the 13th of September) are reported in the next annal (for 1196). My tentative reconstruction of the moments at which the annals were updated by the annalist of archbishops Gavriil and Martirii is as follows: 1. (?) After the 31st of May, 1187; 2. After the 20th of November, 1187; 3. After the 4th of June, 1189; 4. After the 16th of January, 1194;181 5. After the 29th of January, 1195;182 6. In the late autumn of 1195; 7. In the autumn of 1196; 8. Between the 15th of August and the early September of 1198; 9. In the autumn of 1199; 10. After the 1st of January, 1200.183 So, the annalist started to write down events quite often, then abandoned the annals for several years, and then tended to update the annals yearly, most often in autumn, but not in purely systematic way.184 Perhaps, updating the annals once a year (or more seldomly) was practiced by the annalist of Bishop Arkadii (entries for 1157–63). Those annals are too

179 The words in italic are present in Syn. only. I think that they belonged to the original record and were omitted by the editor of c. 1199 the result of whose work is reflected in N1Y. See subchapter 3.1, and Gimon, “Rubezh XII–XIII vv.” The general sense of this passage is, of course, that the church was founded in autumn, and it had been erected only up to the doors when winter started. 180 PSRL, 3, 42. 181 Still 6701 (1193) year, as the annals use the March beginning of the year. 182 Still 6702 (1194) March year. 183 Still 6707 (1199) March year. 184 See more in detail: Gimon, “Kak velas’,” 343–51.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

223

scarce to speak with certainty, but it seems possible to detect regularity in the order in which events are reported within one annal: 1157: prince, Kiev, abbot, weather; 1158: prince, pestilence, bishop, Kiev, abbot; 1159: Kiev, metropolitan; 1160: abbot, posadnik, prince, Kiev; 1161: prince, posadnik, weather; 1162: abbot, abbot; 1163: bishop. It can be observed that notes on political events are generally placed at the beginning of an annal. Changes of posadniks are reported after events with princes.185 Notes on events in the South (in Kiev) and on ecclesiastical events are placed after the previous two categories, although their mutual order can be different. Finally, notes on the weather always are at the end of an annal. The section analyzed is too short to be sure that such a regularity really exists, but it seems that it does, and this implies that an entry for one year always was composed in one sitting. The rarity of precise dates in Arkadii’s annals (there are only five of them) supports this conclusion.186 In the careers of some of the annalists there were periods of more or less systematic keeping the annals, as well as long breaks in it. This was the case of annalists of Ilia (1164–86), Mitrofan (1200–11), Antonii (1211–26), as well as probably the first section of the Annals (1115–32), and its later sections (those for the mid-13th–the 14th centuries).187 Clear examples of long breaks in keeping annals exist in the section written by Sexton Timofei (annals for 1226–74). As Aleksei Gippius noticed, s.a. 1228, speaking of high bread prices, the annalist says: ‘and it was so for three years’ (‘и тако ста по 3 лѣта’). Therefore, the annal was not written until 1230. The annal for 1230 is, by the way, the one in which the annalist names himself Sexton Timofei. And, at the same time, in 1230 Archishop Spiridon came to Novgorod after consecration. So, it would be reasonable to think that the annals were not updated between 1226 and 1230, and in 1230 the new archbishop entrusted them to Timofei who, in this year, described the events of 1226–30.188 185 The annal for 1160 breaks this regularity. However, this only means that the annalist reported here a set of closely interrelated events in their chronological order. 186 Gimon, “Kak velas’,” 336–8. 187 Ibid., 326–30, 339–43; Gimon, “Novgorodskoe letopisanie pervoj chetverti XIII veka;” idem, Novgorodskoe letopisanie XI–serediny XIV v., 187–253. 188 Gippius, “K istorii,” 10; idem, Lingvo-tekstologicheskoe issledovanie, 21–2.

224

chapter 3

The other clear example is the text for 1246–50 which consists only of very brief (and even one ‘empty’) annals: In the year 6754 [1246] Prince Aleksandr went to the Tatars.189 In the year 6755 [1247] God’s slave Konstantin, son of Viacheslav, his monastic name being Ankudin, passed away; and he was buried with honour at Saint Savour in Khutyn. In the year 6756. In the year 6757 [1249] Archbishop Spiridon of Novgorod died, and he was buried with honour in Saint Sophia. In the year 6758 [1250] Prince Aleksandr came back from the Horde, and there was a great joy in Novgorod. В лѣто 6754 поѣха князь Олександръ в Татары. В лѣто 6755 преставися рабъ божии Костянтинъ Вячеслаличь, а чернечьское имя Анкюдинъ; и положенъ бысть честно у святого Спаса на Хутинѣ. Лѣта 6756. В лѣто 6757 преставися архиепископъ новгородьскыи Спиридонъ, и положенъ бысть честно въ святои Софьи. В лѣто 6758 приѣха князь Олександръ изъ Орды, и бысть радость велика в Новѣгородѣ.190 As this fragment is surrounded by much more elaborated annals, Gippius supposed a break in Timofei’s work, and that those short notes belong to another person.191 Gippius also assumed that Timofei accompanied Prince Aleksandr Nevskii in his long trip to the Tatars, and did not keep the annals because of this.192 However, such brief notes can be found in Timofei’s annals before and after those years as well, and so it is quite possible that Timofei, having returned from the Tatars, made only short notes on several of the most significant events. Also, in the following annals, those for 1251–8, there are no precise dates. Several notes on deaths lack precise dates: not only those quoted above (s.a. 1247 and 1249), but also three times s.a. 1257. Only from 1257 do approximate dates start to appear. In most of his other annals Timofei reports the precise dates of deaths. No precise date accompanies even the note on the 189 190 191 192

That is, to the political center of the Mongolian Empire. PSRL, 3, 79–80. Gippius, “Novgorodskaia vladychnaia letopis’,” 214. I refer to oral communication.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

225

consecration of Archbishop Dalmat in 1251—which, by the way, for the first time took place in Novgorod, the metropolitan and the bishop of Rostov having specially come to Novgorod because of this occasion. Therefore, it is very probable that Timofei’s break in keeping of the annals was longer: from 1246 to 1258. Thus, the patterns of keeping the Archiepiscopal Annals were far from strict. But the very fact that the annals were updated for several centuries, under each archbishop and, generally speaking, year by year, is the most significant. The archiepiscopal annalists mostly updated the Annals with original records, and did not borrow material from other chronicles. Only in some cases they can be shown to have used a material taken from written sources. Most of those cases belong to a very short period: the early 13th century.193 Also the additions to Syn. for 1337 and 1345 are likely to have been used by the annalist of archbishop Vasilii,194 and an annalist of the late 14th century borrowed from a Moscow source the narration of the Battle of Kulikovo (1380).195 Many other hypotheses have been expressed concerning possible written sources used by the archiepiscopal annalists, but in most of the cases they are not convincing, as there can be shown no verbatim similarity between the entries of the Novgorodian and other annals.196 One can imagine that the manuscript of the Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod contained a number of various alterations. It is not impossible that narrations of the capture of Constantinople by the crusaders (s.a. 1204), of the crime of Prince Gleb of Riazan (s.a. 1218), and of the Battle of Kalka (s.a. 1224) appeared in the Novgorodian annals not in the course of their regular updating, but as inserts into already existing text: they either could be entered on supply leaves, or the last sections of the annals could be rewritten to include them.197 Hypothetically, one can suspect that some fragments of the text originated as glosses in the original manuscript,198 or that original year-dates were altered soon after the text had been written (to use the ultra-March style instead of the March one, or the opposite).199 193 Gippius, “K istorii,” 13–5; Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 504–6. 194 See subchapter 3.8. 195 See: Vladimir A. Kuchkin, ed., Pamiatniki Kulikovskogo tsikla, gen. ed. Boris A. Rybakov (Saint-Petersburg: Blits, 1998), 23–7. 196 See: Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 506 (with references). 197 Gippius, “K istorii,” 13–4; Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 529–30. 198 Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 530–31. 199 Gimon, “Novgorodskoe letopisanie pervoi chetverti XIII veka,” 114–7; Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 530–1. Year-dates were altered several times in MS. A of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, see: ASC, 3, xcviii–xcix; David N. Dumville, Wessex and England from Alfred to Edgar: Six Essays on Political, Cultural, and Intellectual Revival (Rochester – New York: The

226

chapter 3

Another important question concerns the possibility of revisions of already written text. Gippius have argued that there is no evidence that prior to the late 14th century all the text of the Archiepiscopal Annals ever was a subject to such a revision. Only some of its quires could be revised and replaced at some occasions. Gippius have argued that such partial revisions were undertaken in the 1160s (the first quires of the manuscript, comprising the annals up to 1074, were replaced), c. 1199, and probably one or two times in the early 13th century (at those times the last quires were revised and replaced).200 Alan Timberlake suggested a more sophisticated theory according to which such revisions of the most recent sections of the Annals were a more regular practice, and the old variants of those replaced quires (‘detritus’ text) gradually formed another copy of the Annals.201 The analysis of the distribution of differences between Syn. and N1Y led me to the conclusion that c. 1199 not only the last few annals but most of the text for the 12th century was rewritten. Syn.’s text up to 1199 is a copy of the ‘pre-reform’ text, and N1Y goes back to the reformed version of the Archiepiscopal Annals.202 It is not impossible that the editorial episode of ‘the 1160s’ was in fact the same as that of c. 1199, and if so, it is not impossible that all the manuscript was renovated. Whatever the case, it is clear that the manuscript of the Archiepiscopal Annals was carefully kept and updated over several centuries—even if it was completely renovated c. 1199. 3.6

The Circle of Events Reported by the Archiepiscopal Annals

What was the content of the chronicle kept so carefully and so long? The Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod were, in general, quite descriptive and laconic. But their style was not even. One finds in the Annals a lot of extended narrations, mostly on political and military events, which are often surrounded with laconic notes on other kinds of occurrences. The Annals are full of precise dates, personal names, and topographic detail. The style of individual annalists differed much. The annals for the 12th, the early and the late 13th, and much of the 14th centuries are more or less concise. The sections written by the annalists of Archbishop Antonii (1211–26) Boydell Press, 1992), 99–102; Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 343–5. On the ultra-March style see appendix 1. 200 Gippius, “K istorii;” idem, “K kharakteristike,” 345–64; idem, “Arkhiepiskop Antonii, novgorodskoe letopisanie i kul’t svjatoi Sofii,” in Khoroshie dni … Pamjati A.S. Khorosheva, ed. Aleksandr E. Musin (Saint-Petersburg: Leopart, 2010), 181–98. 201 Timberlake, “Older and Younger Recensions,” 1–35. 202 See subchapter 3.1.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

227

and archbishops Spiridon and Dalmat (1226–74, Sexton Timofei) are, on the contrary, full of extended narrations and emotional comments, though they include many laconic notes as well. Like many medieval annalists, Novgorodian ones basically ‘reserve judgement; they do not indicate the causes for events and do not make causal connections between different events’.203 However, this rule is not strict. There are several cases in which the annalists express their opinion or provide explanations for events. For example, s.a. 1196 an annalist says that, when Prince Iaroslav, son of Vladimir, was expelled from Novgorod, ‘the good were sorry about him in Novgorod, and the wicked were glad’ (‘жяляху по немь въ Новегородѣ добрии, а злии радовахуся’). In the annals for 1209–16 the annalist quite definitely supports Prince Mstislav Mstislavich and does not support the members of the Suzdal branch of the Rurik dynasty. S.a. 1227 another annalist speaks of the execution of four volkhvs (sorceres): In that same year 4 volkhvs were burnt. They were said to have performed sorcery, but God knows. And they were burnt at Iaroslav’s Court. Того же лѣта ижгоша вълхвы 4, творяхуть е потворы дѣюще, а Богь вѣсть; и съжгоша ихъ на Ярослали дворе.204 Here, as s.a. 1196, the annalist dissociates himself from the official position of Novgorod. There are some other cases in which the annalists explicitly express their position, but in general they do not do so and prefer simply to describe events. Certainly, we must keep in mind the possibility that the annalists could choose what to describe and what to omit, but the lack of parallel sources makes the task of tracing this extremely difficult.205 What we can do is to follow what kinds of events the Novgorodian annalists reported.206 The Archiepiscopal Annals contained notes on different kinds of events: political, military, ecclesiastical, natural, etc. I will try to tabulate the content of the annals for 1115–1414 (i.e. for three hundred years from the start of the continuous annalistic writing up to the end of the office of Ioann III, the last archbishop who started to rule in the 14th century). 203 Roy Flechner, “The Chronicle of Ireland: then and now,” Early Medieval Europe 21, no. 4 (2013), 424. 204 PSRL, 3, 65. 205 See, nevertheless, an analysis of narrations of different chronicles on the same conflicts in: Vilkul, Liudi i kniaz’, 113–225. 206 See on this method in general, and references to some previous attempts in its usage, in subchapter 4.3.

228

chapter 3

In total, I counted 1111 items, or notes, in those annals.207 Each item (whether it be brief note or extended narration) describes an event, and is usually separated from other entries of the same annal by wordings ‘In this same year’, ‘In the same winter’, and the like. Although sometimes the division of an annal into such items is a delicate and conventional operation, in most of the cases it can be done more or less easily: annalistic text is quite atomic.208 The majority of items (898, i.e. 80.8%) are dedicated to events in Novgorod or to ones in which the Novgorodians (for example, as a military unit), or Novgorodian princes, or archbishops, etc., took part. Only 72 (6.5%) report events in areas dependent on Novgorod (such as Pskov, Rusa, the land of Karelians, etc.).209 It is interesting that only 9 of those events can be qualified as ‘political’ (so, the Archiepiscopal Annals basically were not interested in the inner political life of those areas). The others include the construction of churches (10 notes—of course, not all churches erected in those areas for three centuries), of fortresses (7), fires (8), pestilences (5), and something else. More items (99, i.e. 8.9%) are dedicated to the events inside Rus, but outside Novgorod and the Novgorodian Land. Of those 37 are in the annals for the 12th century, and 45 are in the annals for the 14th and the early 15th centuries (in the 12th century, up to 1174, the main group are the successions of Kievan great princes; in the 14th century many notes are dedicated to events in Moscow and the Northeast). One can observe that in many cases the Novgorodian annalists report events in those regions of Rus, from which the princes, who were sitting in Novgorod, had arrived. Here are two examples. S.a. 1186 the Novgorodian annals report an uprising in Smolensk against Prince Davyd (perhaps, this is the only note on the internal events in this city), and Davyd’s son Mstislav was the current Novgorodian prince. S.a. 1205 the Novgorodian annals report the death of the wife of Vsevolod of Suzdal (Vsevolod the ‘Big Nest’), but they do not report his own death in 1212. In 1205 Vsevolod’s son Konstantin was

207 These are the items of Syn. from the linguistic boundary s.a. 1115 up to 1330, supplemented with the items of N1Y for 1273–99 and 1331–1414. 208 See also subchapter 1.2. 209 I included here events in which somebody from Novgorod took part, if the event itself was local (e.g. a Novgorodian archbishop consecrating a church in Pskov). It also should be stressed that Pskov was not a Novgorodian dependency during much of the period studied: rather, in the late 13th and the 14th it was politically independent. However, Pskov was still a part of the Novgorodian diocese, which is important for a student of the Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

229

the Novgorodian prince, and in 1212 Mstislav Mstislavich, a representative of another branch of the Rurik dynasty, already occupied the throne.210 27 (2.4%) notes are ‘territorially neutral’: referring to the metropolitans of Rus and celestial events. 15 (1.4%) notes are dedicated to events outside Rus (mostly in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Golden Horde, the two powers closely connected to the Rus lands in the 13th–15th centuries). Thus, in general, the Archiepiscopal Annals were interested in events in Novgorod, or concerning Novgorod, or important to Novgorod due to the political connections of the moment. We must treat those annals as a local chronicle, dedicated mainly to Novgorod, with no attempt to follow systematically what happened neither in other regions of Rus, nor outside it, nor in the periphery of Novgorodian Land. Let us now tabulate the kinds of events recorded by Novgorodian annalists from 1115 to 1414 (including those on events outside Novgorod). Political and military events: 558 (50.2%) Of which: General political history (changes of princes, relations between the city and the princes, rebellions, wars between princes): 317 Wars with foreigners: 140 Changes and deaths of city magistrates (posadniks and tysiatskys): 65 Deaths of princes (as separate notes): 24 Deaths of Novgorodians (not princes, church hierarchs, or magistrates): 6 Murders of Novgorodians: 6 Building, renewal, and painting of churches and other ecclesiastical buildings, foundation of monasteries: 191 (17.2%) Natural phenomena, omens, and disasters: 161 (14.5%) Changes of ecclesiastical hierarchs: 85 (7.7%) Of which: Metropolitans of Rus: 11 (Arch)bishops of Novgorod: 53 Abbots of monasteries around Novgorod: 21 Journeys and interrelations of church hierarchs: 33 (3%) 210 See: Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “Novgorodskoe letopisanie XII–XIII vv.: Problema otbora sobytii dlia fiksatsii,” in Obrazy proshlogo i kollektivnaia identichnost’ v Evrope do nachala novogo vremeni, ed. Lorina P. Repina (Moscow: Krug’, 2003), 341–4.

230

chapter 3

Construction of fortifications and bridges: 30 (2.7%) Trade conflicts, negotiations, and treaties with Scandinavians and Germans of Livonia: 19 (1.7%) Events in princely family: 15 (1.4%) Of which: Marriages: 6 Births: 4 Postrigi (cutting hair of boys): 1 Deaths of women and girls: 4 Other: 19 (1.7%) Total: 1,111 The most striking fact is that the Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod demonstrate a high degree of consistency in choosing which events to report. If we try to follow the most important kinds of events (such as general political history, wars with foreigners, changes of the archbishops of Novgorod, building of churches, natural phenomena), we will see that they are reported by all or almost by all the annalists from 1115 to 1414. There are, nevertheless, some changes in the circle of events described. Some of them occur around 1132, and thus coincide with the linguistic boundary reflecting, according to Gippius, the transfer of the annals from prince to archbishop.211 The notes on posadniks change. S.a. 1134 there is, for the first time, a complete note of a succession of posadniks (the old one is dismissed, the new one elected). Before that point only deaths of posandniks, and sometimes their appointments are reported—always as separate events, not forming pares. S.a. 1133 the annals report for the first time a construction of two wooden churches (previously only stone churches have been described). Finally, from 1132 the annals start to record the official accusations brought by Novgorod against its princes.212 Those three observations support Gippius’s view at the year 1132 as a turning point in the history of the annals.213 C. 1200 the annalists stop to report changes of abbots of any monasteries except the Monastery of St. George, the abbot of which obtained in the late 12th century the title of the Archimandrite of Novgorod, that is, the head of all monastic communities around the city.214 In the 12th century the annals follow 211 See subchapter 3.4. 212 See subchapter 4.8. 213 Some of those changes were first noticed in: Kvirkveliia, “Metodika,” 85, 87, 94–5. 214 Ianin, Ocherki, 136–49.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

231

the successions of abbots of Antonii’s Monastery (the home institution of Kirik who probably was the annalist of Archbishop Nifont in 1132–56, and maybe of some other annalists215). Successions in other, smaller religious houses are reported only from 1162 to 1195 (i.e. by three annalists: those of Arkadii, Ilia, and Gavriil and Martirii), and, it seems, not very carefully. Only one monastery is mentioned twice in that period: the nunnery of St. Barbara. S.a. 1167 it is said that Abbess Anna died and Abbess Maremiana succeeded. In 1195 Khristina died and Varvara succeeded. So, at least one succession in this nunnery between those two was missed by the annals. In the 13th and 14th centuries only successions in St. George’s are mentioned, though again not systematically, especially after 1270.216 From 1219 annalists start to mention not only changes of posadniks, but also those of other city magistrates, tysiatskys (but even after that date the successions of posadniks are reported more or less regularly, and those of tysiatskys with many lacunas). After 1286 a change of tysiatskys is reported only once: s.a. 1354. In all cases changes of tysiatskys are mentioned together with those of posadniks, and never independently. After 1290 the succession of posadniks starts to be reported with lacunas too. In the first half of the 14th century, up to 1350 successions of posadniks are reported quite unsystematically. Between 1350 and 1392 posadniks are mentioned only in narrations on the internal conflicts within Novgorod. From 1392 to 1421 (i.e. in the annals of archbishops Ioann III and Simeon) deaths of posadniks are reported regularly, but only once, s.a. 1394, do the annals say who was the successor. It should be stressed that the very institution of posadniks changed with time: in the 12th–13th centuries there was no determined duration of office. The election of a certain person to the office in most cases reflected the predominance of one of the fractions (the territorial group) of the aristocracy he represented. According to Valentin Ianin, from c. 1300 all posadniks held their office only for one year, and were elected from a very narrow circle of persons that included representatives of all the main territorial groups.217 This Ianin’s thesis has met objections.218 In any case, however, it is obvious from what we know (not only from the annals but from documentary sources as well) 215 Guimon, “Christian Identity,” 271–2. 216 Only s.a. 1338 is a succession reported, and s.a. 1377 the Annals report a death of a ‘Novgorodian archimandrite’ (without mentioning the monastery itself). 217 Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki, 236–44, 251–69; idem, Novgorodskie akty, 18–25. 218 Dzhon [John] Lind, “K voprosu o posadnicheskoi reforme Novgoroda okolo 1300 g. i datirovke novgorodskikh aktov,” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 1995 (1997): 263–70.

232

chapter 3

that in the first half of the 14th century posadniks changed often, and in most cases peacefully. So, in that period changes of posadniks became more routine events, not culmination points of political rivalry, as it had been earlier. From about the 1360s, according to Ianin, the office of posadnik became a collective one: six posadniks existed at the same time, being representatives (for life) of different territorial groups.219 This makes it understandable why the annals after 1350 stopped reporting changes of posadniks, and only their deaths were regarded (after 1392) as events worth recording. Notes on events in the princely family (marriages, births, deaths of women etc.) are extremely rare in the Novgorodian annals (in comparison to other Rus chronicles220), and the latest such note is s.a. 1244. This reflects the decrease of the role of princes in the inner life of Novgorod, as well as the fact that in the late 13th and the 14th centuries many princes did not live permanently in Gorodishche near Novgorod, but were for long periods represented by vicars. Some kinds of notes, on the contrary, start to occur in the annals of the 14th century. During that time they follow more systematically than earlier the successions of the metropolitans of Rus (now based in Vladimir, and later in Moscow). The journeys of church hierarchs are mentioned much more in the annals for the 14th and the early 15th centuries than earlier: Novgorodian archbishops visited Vladimir, Moscow and Pskov; metropolitans of Rus, legates of patriarchs of Constantinople, as well as three metropolitans from the Near East221 visited Novgorod; metropolitans of Rus visited Constantinople, the Golden Horde, and Lithuania. All those journeys, of course, are reported because of their importance for ecclesiastical, as well as general, politics. From 1300 up to the early 15th century the Archiepiscopal Annals often report fires in towns and cities other than Novgorod: both inside the Novgorodian Land and outside it (in Moscow, Tver, Toropets, Yuriev in Livonia [Tartu], etc.). From 1396 to 1416 the Annals six times report icon miracles. So, one can follow a number of changes in the circle of events reported by archiepiscopal annalists. Some of those changes are clearly connected with the changes in the life of Novgorod (for example, the reforms of the institution of posadniks influenced the patterns of recording of their successions by the annalists). However, the most important conclusion is that the Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod exhibit a high degree of uniformity in content 219 See: Ianin, Novgorodskie akty, 25–30. 220 See subchapters 4.3 and 4.10. 221 In 1376 the metropolitans of Sinai and Jerusalem visited Novgorod ‘for donations’ (‘милостиня ради’), in 1407 so did the metropolitan of Trebizond.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

233

throughout all the period studied here. This, together with the consistency of the very process of keeping records, and with their archiepiscopal status, makes a strong case for the Annals as an important document for Novgorod as a polity. 3.7

The Archiepiscopal Annals and the ‘Living Chronicles’ of Western Europe

The Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod were a good example of a ‘living chronicle’.222 We can imagine a manuscript written by many hands, with even more changes of ink and pen, with replaced and inserted leaves and quires, glosses and erasures. It can be compared to extant examples of such ‘living chronicles’ outside Rus. Let us consider some examples from the British Isles. As it has been said above,223 the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is a close analogy to Rus letopisi as a family of interrelated texts, being updated and revised for several centuries. Some extant manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are ‘living’ ones, reflecting the process of updating and revising the text, with numerous changes and variations of hand, ink, pen, layout, style of annal-numbers, etc. MS. A was first created c. 900, then updated unsystematically during the 10th century, and later, in the early 12th century, it was supplemented with brief annals for 1002–70, written by several hands, and at the same time the previous section of text was intensively glossed and amended.224 MS. C covered events up to 1044, and then was continued by several scribes up to 1066.225 MS. E was originally written up to 1121, then updated year by year by the same scribe up to 1131; another scribe wrote annals for 1132–54 in one sitting.226 MS. H is a fragment (one leaf) of the text for 1113–4 in which several paleographical changes are observed.227 Finally, it has been supposed that paleographical 222 Gransden, Historical Writing, 29–30. 223 Subchapter 1.6. 224 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 173. See the diplomatic edition: ASC, 3, and facismiles: Robin Flower and Hugh Smith, ed., The Parker Chronicle and Laws (Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS. 173): A facsimile (London: Oxford University Press, 1941); https://parker .stanford.edu/parker/catalog/K6A5QGIS (2.08.2018). 225 London, BL, Cotton Tiberius B. i. See the latest edition: ASC, 5. See also an online facsimile: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Cotton_MS_Tiberius_B_I&index=7 (2.08.2018). 226 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud Misc. 636. See the latest edition: ASC, 7. 227 London, BL, Cotton Domitian A. ix, f. 9v–9. See: Julius Zupitza, “Fragment einer englischen Chronik aus den Jahren 1113 und 1114,” Anglia: Zeitschrift für englische Philologie 1

234

chapter 3

boundaries traced in MS. D from the 1050s also reflect the gradual updating of the annals. I agree with those scholars who think that D was written in one sitting after 1079, but it is probable that paleographical changes in it reflect changes of exemplars or even the paleographical unevenness of the exemplars themselves.228 The analysis of palaeographic features of A, C, E, and H shows a diversity of manners of updating the annals.229 This diversity can be roughly deduced to the following models: 1. Updating the annals once a year. This model is well represented by C’s annals for 1045–51. The entries for 1045–8 were written by one scribe, the same one who wrote the previous, retrospective text. Each time at the edges of the annals one can observe slight variations of script, as well as changes of ink and pen. However, at least once in this period the annals were updated in the course of year: a similar change occurs in the middle of the entry for 1045.230 The next scribe, who wrote the annals for 1049– 51, also made new records every year: there are similar palaeographical changes at the edges of the annals for 1049/50 (here the change is the least certain), 1050/1, and 1051/2. However, three scribes, of whom the first was the scribe of the entries for 1049–51, entered the text for 1052–6 as one block.231 The updating of annals every year is well observable in MS. E’s annals for the 1120s. The scribe who wrote the retrospective part of the manuscript (up to 1121), then continued to update it, so that variations of script, changes of ink, pen and some scribal practices are seen at the edges of annals for 1121/2, 1122/3, 1123/4, and 1124/5. However, later updating became less regular: palaeographic boudaries are situated in the middle of the annal for 1126, and at the edge of 1127/8. In his last stint this scribe wrote the annals for 1128–31. In or after 1154 another scribe wrote the later text (for 1132–54) in one sitting.232 (1878), 195–7; Plummer, ed., Two of the Saxon Chronicles, vol. 1, 243–5. On palaeography see below, p. 235. 228 London, BL, Cotton Tiberius B. iv. See: Timofey V. Guimon, “The Writing of Annals in Eleventh-Century England: Palaeography and Textual History”, in Writing and Texts in Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Alexander R. Rumble (Woodbridge: D.S. Brewer, 2006), 141–5. 229 My analysis of C from this point of view is published in English, see: Guimon, “The Writing,” 138–41. On A see: Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 338–75, and below, note 237. A description of variations of hand in E see: ASC, 7, xviii–xix. On H see below, note 234. 230 See: Guimon, “The Writing,” 138–9. 231 Ibid., 139–40. 232 See: Ker, Catalogue, 425; ASC, 7, xviii–xix; Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 486–9.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

235

2.

Updating of the annals more often than once a year. MS. H is one leaf remaining from some otherwise lost annals. It reports the events of 1113 and 1114. Paleographical boundaries can be traced at the edge of the annals, and at least two times inside the annal for 1114. It seems that in 1114 in different stints the annalist described: (1) Christmas233 and appointments the king made to ecclesiastical and lay posts at Christmas; (2) events from the 17th of February to the Pentecost (the 17th of May in 1114); (3) events from the midsummer to at least the 14th of September.234 3. The addition of blocks of several annals. This can be observed in C (annals for 1052–6, written by three scribes, and annals for 1065–6, written by at least two scribes)235 and in E (annals for 1128–31, written by the same scribe who kept the annals previously, see above). 4. Unsystematic updating that does not imply a keeping of consistent chronicle. A good example of this is the text of MS. A for 924–1001. This text occupies 10 pages in the manuscript, contains many ‘empty years’, and is stylistically very diverse. The annals for 924–46 were entered as a block, by one hand, copied from another chronicle. The next annalistic stints were probably as follows: 951, 955, 958–64,236 973–1001. As for the latter two blocks, scholars reconstruct the process of their writing differently, and one cannot rule out possibility that they were in fact written in more than one stint.237 More or less the same models can be observed in two exemplary ‘living chronicles’ of the British Isles: the Irish Annals of Inisfallen, and the Scottish Chronicle of Melrose.

233 The year started at Christmas, and thus it is reported in the new annal, that for 1114. 234 Neil R. Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957), 188; Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 478–86 (I argue that there are two more palaeographical changes within the annal for 1114 than it was described by Ker, and I tentatively suppose in which moments those annals were updated). 235 Guimon, “The Writing,” 140–1. 236 Of which only four annals are not ‘empty’: those for 958 and 962–4. 237 See: ASC, 3, xxxiv–xxxvii; Dumville, Wessex and England, 58–64, 128; Cyril Hart, Learning and Culture in Late Anglo-Saxon England and the Influence of Ramsey Abbey on the Major English Monastic Schools: The New Curriculum of Monastic Schools, vol. 1 (Lewiston (N.Y.) etc.: E. Mellen Press, 2003), 189–96; Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 356–64.

236

chapter 3

The Annals of Inisfallen238 are the original of the annals continued from 1092 (where their retrospective section ends) to 1321239 by 38 or 39 scribes, not to count some later additions.240 From the mid-12th century the manuscript was kept in Inisfallen, a monastery in Southern Ireland (County Kerry), and before that probably in Lismore.241 A detailed study of the manuscript’s hands by Richard Irvine Best242 as well as a study of the process of keeping the annals by Seán MacAirt243 has shown that the practices varied a lot. Hands change most often in the annals for 1092–1121: those entries are written by 17 scribes. According to MacAirt, the annals for 1092–1214 and for 1258–85 are contemporary records,244 but the scribes keeping those records worked in different manners. During some periods, especially in the 1090s–1110s, scribes tended to write down events as they happened (although often not one but two or more events were recorded in one stint);245 scribes 8 and 9 (annals for 1103–5) recorded almost each event in a separate stint.246 Some annalists tended to update the annals once a year (the annals for 1100–2,247 1170–1,248 probably, 1325–6),249 as well as to add new material in blocks which could be equal to one year, but could be longer or shorter as well (the annals for the 1120s,250 1190s,251 1258–72,252 etc.). Sometimes sequences of entries, e.g. those for 1175–93, look as if they were inserted in one sitting, but this can be a result of a later retouching 238 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson B 503 (I have not worked with the manuscript de visu). See editions: Richard Irvine Best and Eóin MacNeille, ed., The Annals of Inisfallen reproduced in facsimile from the original manuscript (Rawlinson B 503) in the Bodleian Library, with a descriptive introduction (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 1933); Seán MacAirt, ed., Annals of Inisfallen (MS Rawlinson B 503) (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1951) (a diplomatic edition and an English translation). See also electronic facsimile: https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/inquire/p/0be07fac-a18e-4816-b33c-10aa506b2bf9 (30.07.2018). 239 Annals for 1130–59, 1215, 1274–7, 1285–95, and 1321–4 are absent in the manuscript, some due to the loss of quires (MacAirt, ed., Annals of Inisfallen, xiii). 240 Ibid., xxviii. 241 Ibid., xxviii–xxix, xxxiv, xxxvii. 242 Best and MacNeille, ed., The Annals of Inisfallen, 9–19 et al. 243 MacAirt, ed., Annals of Inisfallen, xxi–xlvi. The study is much complicated by retouching and retracing of the text by two 14th-century scribes (ibid., xiii, xxviii, xxxi et al.). 244 Ibid., xxxi. 245 Ibid., xxxii–xxxvi. 246 Ibid., xxxiii. 247 Ibid., xxxii. 248 Ibid., xxxv. 249 Ibid., xl. 250 Ibid., xxxiv. 251 Ibid., xxxv–xxxvi. 252 Ibid., xxxviii.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

237

and retracing, while ‘some entries would appear to have been set down shortly after the occurrence of the event.’253 The situation with the annals after 1214 is even more complicated: fragments recorded contemporarily interchange with material added many years after. For example, scribe 39 wrote annals for 1216, 1252, 1299, and 1301–11, and so worked as late as in the early 14th century. Scribe 31 entered annals for 1252–7 as a single block, but then, up to the 1270s, added materials more or less contemporarily with the events.254 The Chronicle of Melrose255 was kept in the 12th and 13th centuries in the Cistercian abbey of Melrose in Southern Scotland. According to Dauit Broun, the text of the Chronicle is comprised of some 50 strata, that is, of fragments written at different occasions.256 The retrospective part of the Chronicle was created in 1173–4 (covering events up to 1171), then it was updated many times. The keeping of the Chronicle was very unsystematic. 44 scribes who took part in this process worked in quite different manners.257 There were two stints adding material to the annal for 1171, but the text from the end of this annal up to 1197 was entered as a single block, not earlier than in 1199. Then, up to 1239 the Chronicle was updated with blocks comprising typically a few annals. There was no systematic keeping of the Chronicle in the 1240s–50s, but at different times those years were filled with copies of papal and emperor’s letters concerning the Holy Land. Annals for 1246–58 and 1259–63 were entered as two blocks. Then again, some unsystematic notes were made, and the last attempt to systematically update the Chronicle was undertaken beween 1286 and 1291 when the annals for 1260–70 were written as a single block. Some additions were made even later.258 So, in regards to the process of keeping the annals, the Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod did not differ very much from their Western analogies: the diversity of manners in how these annals were updated (including retrospective 253 Ibid., xxxv. 254 Ibid., xxxvi–xl. 255 Now two items: London, BL, Cotton Faustina B. ix. F. 2r–75v (annals for 731–1270), and Cotton Julius B. xiii. F. 41r–47v (annals for 1–249 AD). I have not worked with the manuscripts de visu. See: Broun and Harrison, ed., The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey (a detailed study, supplemented with a disc of facsimile). See also an online facsimile: http:// www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Cotton_MS_Faustina_B_IX&index=167 (2.08.2018). 256 Broun and Harrison, ed., The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, 8–9 et al.; Dauit Broun, “Creating and Maintaining a Year-by-Year Chronicle: The Evidence of the Chronicle of Melrose,” The Medieval Chronicle 6 (2009): 141–52. 257 Broun, “Creating,” 147, 149. 258 Broun and Harrison, ed., The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, 9, 125–169; Broun, “Creating,” 146–9.

238

chapter 3

entering of a big amount of material at one sitting) was a typical, rather than atypical, feature of those texts.259 When updating those ‘living chronicles’ sometimes scribes used portions of text borrowed from other annals kept parallel in another place. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle demonstrates it very well, as we have a chance not only to study the palaeography of particular manuscripts, but also to compare the texts of different manuscripts, which are often akin in some sections and independent in other. This can be supplemented by the study of some Latin chronicles, first of all of the Chronicle of John of Worcester, which was largely based upon a non-extant manuscript of Old English annals. Such an analysis shows that some of A’s entries for the 10th century (shared by other manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle) were copied from a chronicle of all-England importance, maybe a royal one.260 The scribes of C updated their annals both with independent records (annals for 1045–8, and 1050–1) and with texts borrowed from another chronicle (entries 1049, 1052–6, and 1065–6, which find verbatim parallels in MS. D and the Chronicle of John of Worcester).261 In the contemporary section of E at least one account (s.a. 1130) is borrowed from another chronicle as it corresponds with an account of the Chronicle of John of Worcester.262 As for the Annals of Inisfallen and the Chronicle of Melrose, such borrowing is not attested, if not to count the usage of some chronicle when retrospectively filling lacunas in the 14th century in the former.263 As we have seen, borrowing material from other chronicles was not a characteristic of the Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod, except in the earliest annalistic stint (annals for 1095–1115 consist mostly of excerpts from the Kievan annals), the early 13th century (when a series of short notes as well as two long narrations were introduced into the Archiepiscopal Annals), and the late 14th century (when the Annals of Novgorod borrowed the account of the Battle of 259 In pespective, it would make sense to compare the practices of Rus annalistic writing with those of monastic annalists of later medieval England. For example, many observations of this sort have been made on the material of the 13th-century annals of the abbey of Bury St Edmunds and some other monastic chronicles similar to them or even textually interconnected with them, see: Antonia Gransden, Legends, traditions and history in Medieval England (London – Rio Grande: Hambledon Press, 1992), 224–38. 260 Brooks, Nicholas. “Why is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle about kings?” Anglo-Saxon England 39 (2011), 50–1. 261 See: Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 415–77, and a summary of the interrelations of the texts in: Guimon, “The Writing,” 138. 262 ASC, 8, lxxxvii–lxxxviii. 263 MacAirt, ed., Annals of Inisfallen, xxxix. On the interchange between annalistic traditions in Ireland see: Nicholas Evans, The present and the past in medieval Irish chronicles (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2010), 232–3.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

239

Kulikovo of 1380). However, this is a difference in proportion: the Novgorodian annalists, exactly as their Anglo-Saxon colleagues, practiced both, making original records and using borrowed fragments. And what about the content? Some general statistics of notes dedicated to different themes in the medieval annals of Ireland, England, and Rus will be presented below,264 based upon our joint paper with Zoia Metlitskaia. It would be interesting to compare the circle of events reported by the Archiepiscopal Annals and by their closest analogies: the long-kept Annals of Inisfallen and Chronicle of Melrose. However, I am not competent enough in the history of medieval Ireland and Scotland to undertake such a study. I will do two things. Firstly, I will compare the content of the Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod with that of those sections of the manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that were written year by year. Secondly, I will do the same with the so-called Chronicle of Ireland—a reconstructed annalistic text for which Roy Flechner has already undertaken such a statistical study. As for the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, let us choose here three sections which, no doubt, are originals of the annalistic records made contemporarily: MS. C for 1045–51, MS. H for 1113–4, and MS. E for 1122–31.265 The circle of events reported by those three sections is shown in Table 5. This can be compared with the same statistics for the Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod in Table 6. The English material for comparison is scarce, as the three fragments are short. What is seen here are a smaller focus on political and military events and a much greater weight given towards the changes of church hierarchs. The latter can be explained by the more centralized political system in England in the 11th and the early 12th centuries, than in Rus in the time in question. Because of this, annalists based in different religious houses reported changes of archbishops (there were two of them in England: in Canterbury and in York) and bishops of many sees. As C and E were monastic annals, they also reported changes of the abbots of their home monasteries. Only H reports changes of abbots of different houses (C mentions a change of abbots outside its own house, Abingdon, only once). The place where H was kept is unknown, but based on this observation one can suppose that it was kept either at the king’s court or at one of the two archiepiscopal sees.266 The Archiepiscopal Annals of 264 Table 14 in subchapter 4.3. 265 Let us leave aside MS. A’s text for the 10th century for its keeping was too far from systematic and continuous. The same can be said of MS. C’s annals for 1052–65. 266 Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 485–6. I didn’t know yet that Nicholas Brooks (“Why is the AngloSaxon Chronicle about kings?,” 60) also admitted a connection of H with the royal court.

240 table 5

chapter 3 Kinds of events reported by contemporary sections of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

Political and military events Changes of church hierarchs popes archbishops of Canterbury archbishops of York bishops abbots of the house where the annals were being kept (and the history of this monastery in general)a other abbots Consecration of churches Journeys of church hierarchs Natural phenomena, omens, and disasters Other Total

C, 1045–51

H, 1113–4

E, 1122–31

13

 6

21

–  3  1  7  4

–  1  2  2 –

 2  3 –  6  5

 1 –  2  2

 9 – –  1

–  2  1 11

– 33

– 21

 3 54

a Abingdon for MS. C and Peterborough for MS. D. As for C, Catherine O’Brien O’Keeffe opposed the traditional view that the manuscript was written in Abingdon, and suggested Canterbury (ASC, 5, lxx–lxxi, lxxiv–lcii). However, the fact that in the contemporary section of the manuscript the only changes of abbots mentioned are those of Abingdon seems, to me, be decisive.

Novgorod are much more interested in the building of churches than any of the three English annalistic fragments. As for natural phenomena and disasters, their weight is approximately the same. The Chronicle of Ireland is a scholarly reconstruction: it is the non-extant common source of two branches of the Irish annalistic tradition. The Chronicle is supposed to have been kept in the monastery of Iona (on an island near the Western coast of what is now Scotland, within the Kingdom of Dalriada) and later, after the 740s, in Ireland, and to cover the period from 432 to 911.267 The annals for 432–562 of the Chronicle are supposed to be its retrospective,

267 Flechner, “The Chronicle of Ireland”, 422–4.

241

Historical Writing in Novgorod table 6

Kinds of events reported by the Anglo-Saxon and the Novgorodian annals

political and military events changes (and deaths) of church hierarchs building and consecration of churches natural phenomena, omens, and disasters other Total

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (C, 1043– 51; H, 1113–4; E, 1122–31)

The Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod, 1115–1414

40 (37%) 46 (42.6%)

558 (50.2%) 85 (7.7%)

2 (1.9%) 14 (13%)

191 (17.2%) 161 (14.5%)

6 (5.6%) 108

116 (10.4%) 1111

non-contemporary section; I will deal only with figures for its second section, i.e. for the annals for 563–911.268 Roy Flechner classified events reported by the Chronicle of Ireland ‘under five main categories: deaths, violent events (e.g. battles, raids), ecclesiastical events (e.g. the foundation of churches and consecrations), natural phenomena (e.g. eclipses, earthquakes, harvests, decease), and political events (e.g. accession to the kingship, abdications)’.269 When dealing with Rus chronicles it is difficult to distinguish among three of those five categories: deaths, violent, and political events. It is typical for Rus annalists to report events of those three kinds within one entry. Changes of princes often were the results of deaths and/or were accompanied by wars, and so on. As for deaths, those labeled by Flechner as ‘clerical’ I add to the category ‘changes of ecclesiastical hierarchs’. Flechner also treats ‘events outside the British Isles,’ as a separate category.270 Such categories as ‘events outside Novgorod/the Novgorodian Land/Rus’ were treated above. However, for the strictness of the analysis it seems more appropriate here to classify all the notes according to types of events, not just to 268 Ibid., 451–4. Flechner says he counts ‘events rather than entries’ (ibid., 428), but such an antithesis makes sense only when dealing with Irish annals, which are traditionally edited with a division into entries (items) within one annal (see chapter 1, note 113). The chronicles of Rus were never edited in this way, and thus any division of an annal into smaller units is a scholar’s responsibility. 269 Flechner, “The Chronicle of Ireland”, 428. 270 Ibid., 429, 450, 453.

242 table 7

chapter 3 Kinds of events reported by the Chronicle of Ireland and the Annals of Novgorod

political and military events changes (and deaths) of church hierarchs building of churches natural phenomena, omens, and disasters other Total

The Chronicle of Ireland, 563–911

The Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod, 1115–1414

985 (62.3%) 445 (28.1%)

558 (50.2%) 85 (7.7%)

4 (0.3%) 81 (5.1%)

191 (17.2%) 161 (14.5%)

66 (4.2%) 1581

116 (10.4%) 1111

places where they happened (and in any case notes on outer events are not numerous in both sets of annals). The picture is similar but not in all details. Firstly, it is not so typical to the Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod (as to the Irish ones) to mention deaths as separate events.271 Deaths are reported often, but in most of the cases as components of more general events (such as successions of princes, city magistrates or church hierarchs, battles, etc.). Secondly, the Annals of Novgorod report much more often than the Irish ones the construction of churches (0.3% in the Chronicle of Ireland272 and 17.2% in the annals of Novgorod), as well as natural phenomena and disasters (5.1%, in the Chronicle of Ireland and 14.5% in the Archiepiscopal Annals). On the contrary, the Chronicle of Ireland is more concerned with deaths and successions of church hierarchs (28.1% in the Chronicle of Ireland and 7.7% in the Archiepiscopal Annals). There are some other differences in the rubric ‘other’ as well. For example, the Archiepiscopal Annals never mention such events as promulgation of laws or writing of chronicles.273 Flechner is surprised by the general consistency of the content of the Chronicle of Ireland. He says that the same guidelines were unlikely to have 271 According to Flechner more than a half of all the events reported by the Chronicle of Ireland are deaths (Ibid., 450–51). 272 Ibid., 451, 453. 273 Ibid., 454. In N1Y s.a. 1016 (that is, in the retrospective part) the promulgation of law (Russkaia Pravda) is reported, and its text is included into the annal.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

243

been observed by the annalists over three centuries and a half, and tends to attribute the uniformity of the Chronicle of Ireland to an editor.274 However, the case of the Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod shows that the circle of events written down may remain generally the same for generations of annalists updating the same chronicle. Even more, the above-made comparison with the contemporary sections of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle shows that the guidelines of this sort can be very consistent even if we deal with the annals kept in different religious houses. 3.8

The Synodal Manuscript: A Copy of the Archiepiscopal Annals Kept and Continued in St. George’s Monastery

Syn., our oldest surviving witness to early Rus annalistic writing, was created and continued in Novgorod in the 13th–14th centuries. Its history deserves special attention. The book certainly belonged to St. George’s Monastery to the south of Novgorod. This was not an ordinary monastic community. The abbot of St. George’s was from the late 12th century titled archimandrite, and that probably meant that he was the head of all the monastic organization of Novgorod. There is some evidence that the archimandrite was elected at veche and so was somewhat a city magistrate, as the posadnik, the tysiatsky—and the archbishop.275 As an aside, the oldest surviving Rus parchment charter (the Mstislav’s Charter) originates from the same monastery: this is a grant of Prince Mstislav and his son Vsevolod to St. George’s issued c. 1130 (see Figure 4). Syn.’s provenance from the same monastery is demonstrated by additions in flyleaves at the end of the manuscript covering events of 1330–52. A good deal of those notes are concerned with St. George’s, and in one of them the main church of the monastery is called ‘this church’ (‘церки си’).276

274 Flechner, “The Chronicle of Ireland,” 432. 275 See above, note 214. 276 PSRL, 3, 100. This was noticed already by Konstantin Kalaidovich in the 19th century, see e.g.: Isaak M. Trotskii, “Opyt analiza pervoi Novgorodskoi letopisi,” Izvestiia Akademii nauk SSSR, ser. 7: Otd. obshchestvennykh nauk 5 (1933): 351–352, 361; Shakhmatov, “An account,” xxxix; Wladimir Vodoff, “Quelques remarques sur la Première chronique de Novgorod,” in Studia slavica mediaevalia et humanistica Riccardo Picchio dicata, ed. Michele Collucci et al. Roma: Edizioni Dell’Ateneo,1986, 748–51; Gippius, “K istorii,” 17, 21.

244

chapter 3

figure 18 St. George’s Monastery near Novgorod. The church of St. George founded in 1119 is in the background. In the foreground one sees the church of the Savior built in 1823–4 photo by the author

The bulk of Syn. consists, as it has already been said,277 of two parts (Figures 11– 12, 16), being a transcript of the Archiepiscopal Annals made c. 1234, and a continuation of this transcript—a copy of the Archiepiscopal Annals’ text from 1234 to 1330. The most economical hypothesis would be that the copy was made and later continued for St. George’s. So, in the 1230s the monastery decided to obtain a copy of the Archiepiscopal Annals, and in the 1330s ordered it to be updated. In both parts of this copy there are no significant additions, only small changes in the text can be attributed to its scribes. For example, the first scribe abbreviated notes dedicated to the representatives of the family of Malyshevichi, and that probably says that there was some tension between the Malyshevichi and the house of St. George.278 The same scribe in the last annal of his portion (1234) added a name of a Novgorodian killed in battle: Pavel.279 277 Subchapters 1.2, 3.1. 278 Gimon and Gippius, “Novye dannye,” 41; Gimon, “Redaktirovanie,” 121. 279 Gimon, “Redaktirovanie,” 121.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

245

Also, both scribes abbreviated the text they copied when they were afraid not to keep within the remaining space in a quire.280 Rather, additions in flyleaves of Syn. can be regarded as a piece of St. George’s historical writing. After the manuscript was updated with the annals for 1243–1330, it probably was decided to continue it in a more contemporary way. Five additions by four scribes were made on three flyleaves at the end of the book, reporting some events of 1330–52. The writing of those additions can be studied well in detail, not only through palaeographic observations, but also because the text of the Archiepiscopal Annals for the same years is extant in N1Y, and so it is possible to study the interaction of the St. George’s notes and the Archiepiscopal Annals. The first addition (five lines on the top of fol. 167r) comprises two short notes: on the consecration of Archbishop Vasilii (this note continues the annal for 1330), and on the solar eclipse on the 30th of November 30th, 1331.281 Those notes are independent from the Archiepiscopal Annals (as represented by N1Y); the sun eclipse is not even mentioned in the latter. The second addition (annals for 1332–3, 18 lines on fol. 167r and 16 lines on fol. 167v) was made by the same scribe as the first one, but after a long break: at the edge of the annals for 1331 and 1332 the pen changes (from thin to a much thicker one), the ink likely changes, letters become larger, the writing becomes more uneven, and some particular letters change their shape (Figure 19).282 Contrary to his previous stint, here the scribe mostly borrowed the material from the Archiepiscopal Annals: the text of this addition is almost the same one finds in N1Y.283 Only the last note (on the construction works initiated by Archbishop Vasilii) is abbreviated in Syn., but, at the same time, supplemented with a note on the building of a new defensive wall of St. George’s (in Table 8 below the unique text of Syn. and N1Y is italicized):284

280 See subchapter 3.1, and: Gimon and Gippius, “Novye dannye,” 28–41. 281 The date is perfectly correct, see: Daniil O. Sviatskii, Astronomiia Drevnei Rusi. S katalogom astronomicheskikh izvestii v russkikh letopisiakh, sostavlennym M.L. Gorodetskim (Moscow: Russkaia panorama, 2007), 58. 282 See: Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “Pripiski na dopolnitel’nykh listakh v Sinodal’nom spiske Novgorodskoi I letopisi,” in Norna u istochnika Sud’by: Sb. st. v chest’ E.A. Mel’nikovoi, ed. Tat’ana N. Dzhakson [Jackson] (Moscow: Indrik, 2001), 56–60. 283 It is noticeable that the scribe copied from the Archiepiscopal Annals only the text for 1332–3, not for 1331, although the Archiepiscopal Annals contained in that annal a much more extended text than the short note on solar eclipse in Syn. The scribe understood his task quite formally: if there already had been an annal for 1331 in Syn., his task was to find material only about the next two years, 1332–3. 284 PSRL, 3, 99–100, 345.

246 table 8

chapter 3 Notes on building in Syn. and N1Y s.a. 1333

Syn. (the second addition)

N1Y

In that same year Vasilii, the Archbishop of Novgorod, erected stone city walls in two years, and Lavrentii, the Archimandrite of St. George’s, erected the wall of St. George’s, forty sazhensa in length, and with battlements.

In that same year Archbishop Vasilii covered the side of St. Sophia with lead, and renewed the great cross on St. Sophia, and removed the ceiling beams (?), and erected stone city walls, with God’s help, in two years. And give him, o Lord and Saint Sophia, remission of sins in this life, and in the future one, with his children, the Novgorodians. Того же лѣта владыка Василии святую Софѣю сторону свинцомъ поби, и крестъ обнови на святои Софѣи великыи, и сволокы сня сторону; и город каменыи постави, поспѣшениемь Божьимь, въ два лѣта. А даи ему, Господи Боже, святая Софѣя, в сии вѣкъ и в будущии отпущение грѣховъ с дѣтми его, с новгородци.

Того же лѣта архиепископъ новгородьскыи Василии постави городъ каменъ въ два лѣта, и архимандритъ святого Юрья Лаврентии постави стѣны святого Юрья силою 40 саженъ и съ заборолами.

a Sazhen is a traditional Russian measure of length. Several variations of sazhen are known in later times, ranging from 1,52 to 2,48 m.

The first and the second additions were written without layout,285 but, nevertheless, the scribe tried to make his portion of text similar to the previous text of Syn.: the size of letters, the number of lines on a page and of letters in a line are approximately the same as in the previous text. The scribe (in his two stints) tended to provide a regular continuation to the annals: there are annals for subsequent years, from 1330 to 1333. The third, fourth, and fifth additions are another thing. Each of them is dedicated to one event: of 1337, 1345, and 1352, respectively, and so they do not form a continuous set of annals. As there was no layout on the flyleaves, the scribes of those additions were free to choose the size of the letters which is radically different in all three cases, and different from the previous text. The third addition occupies the space that remained on fol. 167v after the writing 285 Arsenii N. Nasonov, “Predislovie,” PSRL, 3, 6–7.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

247

of the second addition (Figure 20). The fourth addition occupies most fol. 168r. The fifth addition is on fol. 168v–169r. It starts on fol. 168v, in spite of the fact that some space remained at the bottom of fol. 168r. So, while the first and the second additions can be regarded as an attempt at regularly keeping the annals, the other three additions are too irregular for such a treatment. The third and the fourth additions are dedicated to events in St. George’s Monastery. Again, they correspond verbatim with notes on the same events in N1Y (see Table 9). Here the direction of borrowing is opposite to that in the annals for 1332–3 (the second addition). All scholars agree that Syn.’s notes are primary here, being contemporary records by some monks of St. George’s. It is possible that Syn.’s notes were used as an additional source at one of the stages of the formation of N1Y in the late 14th or the 15th century.286 However, it seems more probable that the notes for 1337 and 1345 were borrowed into the Archiepiscopal Annals in the course of their updating by the annalist of Archbishop Vasilii (1331–52). Otherwise, it would have been unclear why he used only those two notes and nothing else, not excluding the fifth addition of Syn. giving a much more detailed narration of the death of Archbishop Vasilii, than the one now in N1Y.287 The third addition is especially interesting from the point of view of Novgorodian politics. It reports an uprising in Novgorod against Archimandrite Esif, but does not report the outcome of the events. The next annal of N1Y (1338) says: In that same year Archimadrite Lavrentii of St. George’s passed away, and they288 assigned Esif. Того же лѣта преставися анхимандритъ Лаврентѣи святого Георгиа, и посадиша Есифа.289 Therefore, in 1337 Lavrentii was indeed restored as archimandrite, but in the following year he died, and then Esif was restored. We do not know when exactly the third addition was made. If the record were made already after Lavrentii’s death, the words ‘whoever digs a pit for a friend will himself fall into it’ could 286 Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 2, 437; Ianin, “K voprosu o roli,” 180–1; Vodoff, “Quelques remarques,” 751; Gippius, “K istorii,” 17, 70. 287 See: Gimon, “Novgorodskoe istoriopisanie,” 44–5. 288 3rd plural of the verb here relates to the Novgorodians rather than to the monks of St. George’s. 289 PSRL, 3, 349.

248 table 9

chapter 3 Notes for 1337 and 1345 in Syn. and N1Y

Syn.

N1Y

In the year 6845 (1337), the 5th indiction, by devil’s inspiration, the common people arose against Archimandrite Esif, by advice of former archimandrite Lavrentii, and they gathered a veche, and imprisoned Esif in the church of Saint Nicholas, and the rebels sat near the church night and day, guarding him. And whoever digs a pit for a friend will himself fall into it.a В лѣто 6845. Индикта 5 наважениемь дияволимь сташа простая чадь на архимандрита Есифа, а думои старого архимандрита Лаврентия, и створиша вѣче, и запроша Есифа въ церкви святого Николы; и сѣдоша около церкви нощь и день коромолници, стрегуще его. А оже кто подъ другомь копаеть яму, самъ впадется в ню. In the year 6853 (1345), the 3rd year of indiction, this church of Saint George was renewed, a roofing [made], under Great Prince Simeon Ivanovich, under Archbishop Vasilii, under Posadnik Evstafii, under Tysiatsky Avram, by God’s providence, with the help of Christ’s Saint Martyr George, by order of God-loving Archimandrite Esif of Novgorod. В лѣто 6853-ee. Индикта лѣто 3-ее, поновлена бысть церки си святыи Георгии покровомь, при великомь князѣ Семенѣ Ивановичѣ, при архиепископѣ новъгородьскомь Василии, при посадницѣ Еустафьи, при тысячьскомь Аврамѣ, промысломь божиимь, поспѣшениемь святого мученика христова Георгия, повелѣниемь боголюбиваго архимандрита новъгородьского Есифа.

In the year 6845 (1337), by devil’s inspiration, the common people arose against Archimandrite Esif, and they gathered a veche, and imprisoned Esif in the church of Saint Nicholas, and the rebels sat near the church night and day, guarding him. And whoever digs a pit for a friend will himself fall into it. В лѣто 6845. Наважениемь диаволимь сташа простая чадь на анхимандрита Есифа, и створиша вѣче, запроша Есифа въ церкви святого Николы; и сѣдоша около церкви нощь и день коромолници, стрегуще его. Аще кто под другомъ копаеть яму, самъ впадеться в ню.

a This is a quotaition from Prov. 26: 27.

In that same year the church of Saint George was renewed, covered with new lead, under Great Prince Simeon Ivanovich, by God’s providence, with the help of Christ’s Saint Martyr George, by idea of Archimandrite Esif of Novgorod. Того же лѣта поновлена бысть церкви святыи Георгии покровенъ бысть новым свинцомъ, при великомъ князи Семеонѣ Ивановичѣ, промысломь божиимъ и поспѣшениемъ святого мученика Георгиа, замышлѣниемъ боголюбиваго архи­мандрита Есифа.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

249

be understood as indirectly pointing at Lavrentii’s soon death. However, as the outcome of the events is not reported in Syn.’s third addition, it seems more probable that it was made immediately after the revolt, and the scribe simply foretells bad fortune to Lavrentii.290 This implies that one of the monastery’s monks could make in the monastery’s book of annals a record so openly hostile to the current archimandrite (Lavrentii). At least one case from early 12thcentury English annalistic writing speaks in favor of such possibility.291 The fifth addition (for 1352) reports the journey of Archbishop Vasilii to Oreshek (Noteburg), then to Pskov, which suffered from plague (the infamous Black Death), and Vasilii’s death on his way back. The text mentions Archimandrite Nikifor of St. George’s who accompanied the archbishop in this journey, and there can be little doubt that Nikifor was either the scribe’s informant, or even the scribe himself.292 The Archiepiscopal Annals, of course, reported Vasilii’s death as well (their account is preserved by N1Y). The fifth addition of Syn. is completely independent from this account, and is much more detailed. So, only the first and the second additions of Syn. can be regarded as an attempt at regularly continuing the annals. This attempt was far from satisfactory: even a layout was not made. As for the third, fourth, and fifth additions, they are a series of isolated records of important events rather than a continuous set of annals. It is difficult to call them the annals of St. George’s: they do not even report the successions of its archimandrites (if not to count the record of the uprising of 1337).293 Maybe, they can be compared with the earliest 11th-century Novgorodian annalistic notes (also a series of isolated records

290 A third possible interpretation is that by John Fennel [The Emergence of Moscow, 1304–1359 (London: University of California Press, 1968), 153] and Sergei Bogdanov [“K voprosu o datirovke zhalovannykh gramot velikogo kniazia Ivana Danilovicha Iur’evu monastyriu i pechorskim sokol’nikam,” Novgorod i Novgorodskaia zemlia: Istoriia i arkheologiia 22 (2008): 238]: the words in question concern not Lavrentii, but Esif: Esif had earlier plotted against Lavrentii, and now paid for that. This interpretation is not convincing, as the scribe of 1337 certainly supports Esif, the rebellion against whom started ‘by devil’s inspiration’ (compare also: Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 2, 437). 291 In 1127–37 the monastery of Peterborough was ruled by Henry of Poitou, to whom most of the monks were hostile. The annals kept in the monastery (MS. E of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle) express this hostility quite openly, although the records (as the palaeography says) were made during the office of Henry, not post factum, maybe even in order to justify the claims of the monks (see: Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 491–2). 292 Wladimir Vodoff supposes the latter (“Quelques remarques,” 751). 293 Three changes of archimandrites are not mentioned: Lavrentii to Esif between 1333 and 1337, again Lavrentii to Esif in 1338, and Esif to Nikifor between 1345 and 1352.

250

chapter 3

figure 19 The Synodal MS. of the First Novgorodian Chronicle, fol. 167r. The first and the second additions, annals for 1330–3. The political alteration is in the 6th and the 7th lines from the bottom reproduced from: PSRL, 3

Historical Writing in Novgorod

251

figure 20 The Synodal MS. of the First Novgorodian Chronicle, fol. 167v. The second and the third additions, annals for 1333 and 1337 reproduced from: PSRL, 3

252

chapter 3

of important events, sometimes quite emotional ones) rather than with the systematically kept Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod. Aleksandr Bobrov points out that, while there are some 12th–14th century books commissioned by the monastery of St. George (including Syn.), we know nothing written inside it—except those three leaves at the end of Syn. and some graffiti.294 In other words, the monks of St. George’s could write, but there was no scriptorium in the house. The absence of a layout on the flyleaves of Syn. may confirm this. Finally, speaking of Syn. and its additions, one must mention two proMoscow alterations that were made in Syn. at some time between 1333 and 1337. In Syn. s.a. 1332, that is, in its second addition (fol. 167r, Figure 19), a raid of Ivan I Kalita, the Prince of Moscow, against the Novgorodian Land is reported. Something was erased in this narration, and over the erasure another hand wrote: “за новгородскую измѣну” (“because of Novgorod’s treason”). What was erased we learn from N1Y: it gives absolutely the same narration but in the place of Syn.’s erasure we read: “чересъ крестное цѣлование” (“in spite of his kissing cross”, i.e. breaking Ivan’s own oath). This is a clear example of political editing: a pro-Moscow hand edited the texts that previously contained an accusation of Ivan Kalita. It was made before the text on the recto of the same leaf was written, that is, before 1337. Another alteration with the same tendency is found in the annal for 1238, in the narration of the Mongolian invasion of Rus (fol. 122v). In N1Y it is said: ‘Москвичи же побeгоша ничегоже не видѣвше’ (‘The people of Moscow ran away, having seen nothing’), and in Syn. the word “побeгоша” (‘ran away’) is erased, so dismissing the very idea that the people of Moscow could flee. It is more than probable that the same person, an advocate of Moscow and its current prince Ivan Kalita, made both alterations.295 And it is no less probable that this was not a personal opinion 294 Aleksandr G. Bobrov, “Monastyrskie knizhnye tsentry Novgorodskoi respubliki,” in Knizhnye tsentry Drevnei Rusi: Severnorusskie monastyri, ed. Svetlana A. Semiachko (Saint-Peterburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2001), 15–23. 295 Priselkov, Istoriia, 36–7; PSRL, 3, 75, note 2; 99, note 2 (notes by Arsenii Nasonov); Likhachev, “Sofiiskii vremennik,” 265. Aleksandr Sevalnev and Aleksandr Bobrov have argued that the two alterations were made in the 15th century, see: Aleksandr V. Seval’nev, “Kogda i kem bylo ispravleno izvestie Sinodal’nogo spiska Novgorodskoi I letopisi o vziatii Ivanom Kalitoi Torzhka i Bezhetskogo Verkha? (K voprosu o prakticheskoi paleografii srednevekov’ia),” in Vspomogatel’nye istoricheskie distsipliny: Klassicheskoe nasledie i novye napravleniia: Mat-ly XVIII nauch. konf., Moskva, 26–28 ianvaria 2006 g., ed. Viktor A. Murav’ev (Moscow: RGGU, 2006), 366–9; Aleksandr G. Bobrov, “‘Ruka Moskvy’: Pravka teksta v Sinodal’nom spiske Novgorodskoi pervoi letopisi,” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom) 64 (2016): 140–63. For my response to Sevalnev’s argument see: Gimon, “Novgorodskoe istoriopisanie,” 49–50.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

253

of a monk, but the position of the monastery ruled by Archimandrite Esif and receiving land grants from the prince of Moscow.296 3.9

Excerpts from the Archiepiscopal Annals Made for the Annunciation Monastery

Another example concerns the Annunciation Monastery near Novgorod. A copy of the monastic rule (Typikon of Alexios Stoudites)297 was written for this monastery in the late 12th century. The verso of the last leaf (f. 281v, Figure 21) was originally left blank, but later a series of annalistic notes was written in it: In the year 6678 [1170] Archbishop Ilia and his brother Gavriil founded the monastery of the Annunciation of Saint Virgin. And in the year 87 [1179] they erected the stone church. In the year 6694 [1186], the 4th indiction,298 Archbishop Ilia passed away, having been tonsured,299 in the month of September on the 7th, on the feast of Saint Martyr Sozon, and his monastic name was Ioann. In the year 6701 [1193], the 11th indiction,300 his brother Gavriil passed away, the Archbishop of Novgorod, also having been tonsured,301 in the

296 297

298 299

300 301

Bobrov adds to the discussion some interesting considerations, however, from my side the main point is that the 15th-century hypothesis is an over-complication. It implies that the third addition of Syn. on the verso of fol. 167 was written in the 15th century and was specially designed to look as if it had been made in the 14th century. So, according to Sevalnev and Bobrov, all this falsification was intended for readers to think that the proMoscow correction on fol. 167r was indeed made before 1337. Although Bobrov points at an example of forging of a scribal colophon in St. George’s in the 15th century (Bobrov, “‘Ruka Moskvy’,” 162–3), the theory still seems an over-complicated explanation of what can be explained in a much simpler way. See: Vodoff, “Quelques remarques,” 751–2; Bogdanov, “K voprosu o datirovke,” 238–9. GIM, Syn., 330. I have not worked with the manuscript de visu. See a description of the book: Dmitrii S. Ishchenko, “Starsheishii russkii spisok Studiiskogo ustava (paleograficheskoe opisanie),” in Issledovaniia istochnikov po istorii russkogo iazyka i pis’mennosti, ed. Lidiia P. Zhukovskaia and Nina I. Tarabasova (Moscow: Nauka, 1966), 140–61. The words ‘the 4th indiction’ are written above the line. To the Great Schema, or, maybe, to Stavrophore, if he had only been earlier tonsured to Ryassaphore, see: Mikhail V. Pechnikov, “Spornye voprosy biografii arkhiepiskopa Ilii— Ioanna Novgorodskogo,” in Novgorodika-2010: Vechevoi Novgorod: Mat-ly Mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konf., 20–22 sentiabria 2010 g., ed. Dar’ia B. Tereshkina, part 3 (V. Novgorod: NovGU, 2011), 55. The words ‘the 11th indiction’ are written above the line. See above, note 299.

254

figure 21 Annalistic notes in GIM, Syn 330, fol. 281v (late 12th century) reproduced from: PSRL, 3

chapter 3

Historical Writing in Novgorod

255

month of May on the 24th, on the feast of Our Father Symeon of the Admirable Mountain, and his monastic name was Grigorii. O, Lord, with the mercy of Your Mother, and of our blessed fathers John and Gregory, and of Your Archangel Gabriel,302 keep guarding this house till the end of the time, and grant us salvation! Amen. В лѣто 6678 постави Илия ахриепископъ и брат его Гаврилъ манастыр святыя Богородица Благовѣщение. А въ лѣто 87 каменоу церковь постависта. В лѣто 6694, индикта 4, прѣставися Илия архиепископъ новгородьскыи, постригъся месяца сепмтября въ 7 день, на память святого священомученика Созонта, и бысть емоу имя мнишьское Иоанъ. Въ лѣто 6701, индикта 11, прѣставися брат его Гаврил, архиепископъ новгородскыи, такоже постригъся месяца маия въ 24 день на память святого отця нашего Сьмеона, иже на Дивнѣи горѣ, и бысть емоу имя мнишьское Григории. Господи, милостьми рожьшия тя и преподобною отцю нашею Иоанна и Григория и архангела твоего Гаврила съхрани присѣщая домъ сии до сконьцания вѣкоу и намъ дароуи спасение обрѣсти. Аминь.303 So, the first two annals report the foundation of the monastery and of the stone church inside, and the next two ones report the deaths of the two founders of the community: archbishop Ilia (Ioann) and his brother—and successor as archbishop of Novgorod—Gavriil (Grigory), who certainly had to be commemorated in the monastery. The prayer for ‘this house’ at the end of the text leaves no doubt that the set of annals was written inside the Annunciation Monastery. The visual uniformity of the notes (in spite of its writing by two scribes) implies that they were regarded as one account dedicated to the monastery.304 Two different hands wrote the text (both different from the main hand of the monastic rule). The first of them wrote the annals for 1170 and 1179, as well as the indiction numbers in the annals for 1186 and 1193, both being glosses above the line. The second hand wrote the annals for 1186 and 1193, and the prayer. Lubov Stoliarova points out that the second hand imitates the first 302 Saint patrons of Ilia (Ioann) and Gavriil (Grigorii). 303 Text is printed: Liubov’ V. Stoliarova, “Zapisi istoricheskogo soderzhaniia na Studiiskom ustave kontsa XII v.,” in PSRL, 3, 562–4. See a facsimile: ibid., between p. 564 and 565. 304 Ibid., 568.

256

chapter 3

figure 22 The church of Annunciation in the Annunciation Monastery near Novgorod built in 1179 photo by the author

one.305 So, initially the first scribe wrote the annals for 1170 and 1179, then the second scribe wrote the annals for 1186 and 1193, and the prayer, and only then the first scribe added to the portion of the second one two indiction numbers. Dmitrii Ishchenko and Lubov’ Stoliarova believe that the notes were not written simultaneously: the first portion was written when Archbishop Ilia was still alive (that is, between 1179 and 1186), the second portion was written after 1193, and only then the indiction numbers were added.306 However, a possibility that all text in fol. 281v was written at one moment by two collaborating scribes (maybe, a teacher and a pupil) cannot be ruled out. It is interesting that this short text was not composed independently. The annals for 1186 and 1193 are no doubt textually akin to the corresponding notes

305 Ibid., 565. 306 Ishchenko, “Starsheishii russkii spisok,” 155–6; Stoliarova, “Zapisi istoricheskogo soderzhaniia na Studiiskom ustave,” 564–5.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

257

of N1, and thus are excerpts from the Archiepiscopal Annals.307 However, some information present in N1 is omitted in our short annals,308 and, on the contrary, the scribes added the indiction numbers (above the line), the name of the saint at whose feast Archbishop Ilia died,309 and the monastic name of Ilia.310 As the two notes were written simultaneously, it looks as if the note on Gavriil’s death in the Archiepiscopal Annals, a more complete one, was used by the second scribe as model for his note on Ilia’s death, to which he added some lacking information. As Stoliarova says, the copying from an exemplar let the second scribe to rightly estimate the volume of the remaining text as to fit the page.311 The notes on the foundation of the monastery and of the church (s.a. 1170 and 1186) are shorter than the corresponding notes of N1, but also can be based on the Archiepiscopal Annals. In summation, the text on fol. 281v can be regarded as the short annals of the Annunciation Monastery near Novgorod placed in an important monastery’s book: the monastic rule. They are a series of excerpts from the Archiepiscopal Annals, from which the two scribes derived notes only on four events: the foundation of the monastery, the building of its main church, and the deaths of its two founders, the Novgorodian archbishops (and brothers) Ilia and Gavriil. So, while the greatest monastery of the Novgorodian suburbs, St. George’s, committed a full copy of the Archiepiscopal Annals (Syn.), which was later updated and supplemented, the smaller Annunciation Monastery was happy with one page of excerpts from the Archiepiscopal Annals reporting only four events principal to the house. There is a nice English parallel to those short Annunciation annals.312 A manuscript of the Benedictine Monastic Rule (itself written in the late 10th or the early 11th century)313 contains several additions on originally blank leaves, concerned with the abbey of Bury St Edmunds (Suffolk).314 The first of those pages, fol. 105, contains two annals in Latin written by one hand c. 1100:

307 308 309 310 311 312 313

Stoliarova, “Zapisi istoricheskogo soderzhaniia na Studiiskom ustave,” 562–8. N1 in both cases reports the place of burial of the deceased (in St. Sophia Cathedral). In the case of Gavriil the feast is indicated in Syn. as well. Again, the monastic name of Gavriil is given in Syn. Stoliarova, “Zapisi istoricheskogo soderzhaniia na Studiiskom ustave,” 565. I am grateful to Rebecca Rushforth who prompted me this parallel. Oxford, Corpus Christi College, 197. I haven’t consulted the manuscript de visu. See facsimile: http://image.ox.ac.uk/show?collection=corpus&manuscript=ms197 (1.08.2018). On this manuscripts see: David N. Dumville, English Caroline Script and Monastic History: Studies in Benedictism, A.D. 950–1030 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1993), 19–35. 314 Ker, Catalogue, 430–1; Dumville, English Caroline Script, 30–1.

258

chapter 3

1020. Here then Bishop Ælfwine, under Earl Thorkell, established the monastic community dedicated to St. Edmund in the monastery, according to the will and the permission of King Cnut, which continues to exist now. 1032. Here, under King Cnut, Archbishop Æthelnoth of blessed memory consecrated the church constructed, to the honor of Christ, St. Mary, and St. Edmund. M’ .xx. Hic denique Ælfuuinus sub comite Thurkillo constituit regulam monachorum sancti EADMVNDI in monasterio et sub uoluntate licentiaque Cnutoni regis permanet usque in presens. M’ .xxxii. Hic sub Cnutono rege constructam basilicam beate memorie archipresul Ægelnothus consecrauit in honore Christi et sancte Marie santique Eadmundi.315 Exactly as in Novgorod, a manuscript of a monastic rule is supplemented with two annals on the history of the house: the foundation of the monastery and the consecration of the church—and names the founders. And again as in Novgorod, those annals are copied from an exemplar. In the case of Bury St Edmunds, almost the same two annals are placed in an Easter table (in Bury Psalter), dated to earlier time (the last third of the 11th century),316 as well is in one of the manuscripts the Chronicle of John of Worcester.317 The latter is dated to a later time, but the former either could be the direct source of the notes in Benedectine Rule, or could derive from the same (non-extant) exemplar.318 According to Teresa Webber, the annals were inserted into the Easter table and the Benedictine Rule ‘to stand as part of the formal record of the history of the abbey’s foundation as asserted (and also in part constructed) during Baldwin’s 315 Printed in: Dumville, English Caroline Script, 32. 316 Roma, Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 12, fol. 16v, 17v. See facsimile: https://digi .vatlib.it/view/MSS_Reg.lat.12 (1.08.2018). I haven’t consulted the manuscript de visu. The date of the manuscript is 1064 or slightly earlier, but the annalistic notes were added later, see: Rebecca J. Rushforth, The Eleventh- and Early Twelfth-Century Manuscripts of Bury St Edmunds Abbey: Unpublished Ph. D. diss. (University of Cambridge, 2002), 119–21, 178–9. 317 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley, 297. I haven’t consulted the manuscript de visu. See on this version of the Chronicle: Patrick McGurk, ed. and transl., The Chronicle of John of Worcester, vol. 3: The annals from 1067 to 1140 with the Gloucester interpolations and the continuator to 1141 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), xvii. 318 See: Dumville, English Caroline Script, 32–4; Rushforth, The Eleventh- and Early TwelfthCentury Manuscripts, 19, 120, 178–9; Teresa Webber, “Books and their use across the Conquest,” in Bury St Edmunds and the Norman Conquest, ed. Tom Licence (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2014), 173.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

259

abbacy’. It was a time of dispute with the bishop of Thetford, in which a claim for the abbey’s foundation (as Benedictine house) by King Cnut was of crucial importance for the house.319 Nothing of this sort, however, is known about the Annunciation Monastery near Novgorod in the late 12th century. 3.10

Historical Writing in Novgorod: A General Overview

As for the 11th century, it seems possible to speak of three forms historical writing in Novgorod: – brief annalistic notes for 1045–77, maybe a continuation of the brief annals of Kiev of the first half of the 11th century; – an ‘asymmetric’ annalistic compilation of the 1090s (up to 1016 being the full text of the Kievan Initial Compilation, and from 1017 containing only brief excerpts from it supplemented with earlier Novgorodian notes); – lists (or, rather, overviews) of the Kievan and the Novgorodian princes ‘after the holy baptism’, and of the Novgorodian bishops, also composed in the 1090s. From the 1110s–and until the 15th century—the Archiepiscopal Annals were the basic form of historical writing in Novgorod. Those annals were systematically kept for centuries, the annalists (probably also archiepiscopal secretaries) changed, as a rule, when (arch)bishops changed. The manner of keeping the annals could vary, as well as their style and (slightly) the circle of events reported. The manuscript could be partly or, maybe, completely renovated, and some textual changes could be made in the course of such renovations (as it was in 1199 or soon after), but the very tradition of keeping those annals was very sustainable. Some scholars have argued that the annals were created in Novgorod in the 12th century and later not only in the archbishop’s court and St. Sophia Cathedral but also outside of it, for instance within the suburban monasteries.320 Aleksei Shakhmatov believed that there were numerous ‘private chronicles’ (частные летописи) in Novgorod.321 Dmitrii Likhachev 319 Webber, “Books,” 173. 320 Ivan A. Tikhomirov, “O Timofee—ponomare, upominaemom v Sinodal’nom spiske pervoi Novgorodskoi letopisi,” Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia 3, part 2 (1887): 28–37; idem, “Neskol’ko zametok o novgorodskikh letopisiakh,” Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia 283, no. 9, part 2 (1892): 144–52; Vodoff, “Quelques remarques.” See also references in: Gippius, “K istorii,” 4–6; Gippius, “K kharakteristike,” 354. 321 Aleksei A. Shakhmatov, “Obshcherusskie letopisnye svody XIV i XV vv.,” Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia 332 (1900), no. 11: 188–90.

260

chapter 3

postulated the existence of chronicles of parish (‘street’, уличанские) churches.322 Evgenii Perfetskii’s idea was that, besides the archiepiscopal chronicle, and chronicles of individual churches and monasteries, annals were kept in Novgorod at princely court up to the early 13th century.323 Yet all this argument can hardly be corroborated by textual and historical evidence.324 Mark Aleshkovskii’s idea that the archbishops had a sort of monopoly on writing original annals, which only could be copied for churches and monasteries,325 seems much closer to reality. The evidence of Syn. and of the brief ‘annals’ of the Annunciation Monastery supports this view. Syn. is a copy of the Archiepiscopal Annals made for the Monastery of St. George, the second important religious house of Novgorod, in or soon after 1234. In or soon after 1330 this copy was updated (new quires with the text for 1234–1330, also copied from the Archiepiscopal Annals, were added). Both parts of Syn. were mere copies, the scribes of which did not greatly change the text of the exemplar. However, in the 1330–50s five times unsystematic additions were made to the Syn., partly independently, and partly using the Archiepiscopal Annals. Those additions are an interesting phenomenon, but they show that no serious attempt at keeping their own chronicle was made in the monastery. There is a set of excerpts from the Archiepiscopal Annals, made for a smaller monastery (that of Annunciation) in the late 12th century on the last blank page of a copy of monastic rule. Those excerpts only report the foundation of the house, the building of its church, and the deaths of two archbishops who founded the monastery. One can only guess if copies or excerpts of those sorts were made for other Novgorodian monasteries in the 12th–14th centuries. This is quite possible, but we have no additional evidence. And, in the light of Syn. and the notes of the Annunciation Monastery, it seems unlikely that in any of Novgorod’s religious houses annalistic records alternative to the Archiepiscopal Annals were kept. 322 Likhachev, Russkie letopisi, 212–4. This idea, first of all, is based on the fact that two clerics of St. Jacob’s parish church mentioned themselves in the Syn. (Priest German Voiata s.a. 1144, and Sexton Timofei s.a. 1230). According to Likhachev, German Voiata’s chronicle was ‘semi-private, semi-official’ (ibid., 214). However, a better explanation is that both those clerics updated the Archiepiscopal Annals while serving as archiepiscopal secretaries; see subchapter 3.4, and: Gippius, “K istorii,” 4–6, 8–11 et al. (with references to all scholars who, as Likhachev, supposed that the chuch of St. Jacob was a center of annalistic writing). 323 Evgenii Iu. Perfetskii, Russkie letopisnye svody i ikh vzaimootnosheniia (Bratislava: Izd-vo Filos. f-a Un-ta Komenskogo, 1922), 57–77. 324 Gippius, “K kharakteristike,” 354–7. 325 Aleshkovskii, Povest’ vremennykh let, 188.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

261

Nevertheless, some independent records of historical events did exist— not on parchment but in the form of graffiti on church walls. In subchapter 1.5 I quoted recently discovered inscriptions from the church of St. George’s Monastery and from the Annunciation Church in Gorodishche. In the first case we see, firstly, a set of annals for the 1160s kept by one scribe for a few subsequent years, but then not continued as far as one can judge. Secondly, we see five records of deaths of highest secular and ecclesiastical officials of Novgorod made by various hands from 1198 to 1232. The latest of those inscriptions pre-dates the creation of Syn by two years. It well may be that, by the 1230s, the practice of making records of important events on the walls of the monastery’s church led the monks to an idea of commissioning a copy of the Archiepiscopal Annals. The inscription on the death of Vsevolod, son of Mstislav, in 1138, is another thing. This inscription (being more than just a memorial graffito as it resembles letopisi’s accounts of deaths) was made in Gorosishche, in the princely residence near Novgorod. Gorodishche was outside the control of the archbishop and the secular city magistrates. However, another prince was sitting in Gorodische at the moment, most probably Sviatoslav Olgovich whom the Novgorodians had invited after the expulsion of Vsevolod. So, a writing of such a graffiti was rather an individual action of a partisan of Vsevolod, than an attempt at starting any official records. For the late 13th and the 14th centuries, some ‘minor forms’ of historical writing are attested in books that belonged to St. Sophia cathedral. The Novgorodian Kormchaia (Кормчая, Nomokanon, bishop’s book of canonic law) of the late 13th century contains the Brief Chronicle of Patriarch Nikephoros together with its Rus continuation. However, the text was copied from a Rostov exemplar and no Novgorodian additions were made in it.326 In the mid-14th century an Easter table with annalistic notes was copied from a Tver exemplar. Novgorodian additions were made when copying, but they were, as far as one can judge, extremely scarce: just three notes (for 1332, 1335, and 1340),327 and later no continuation was made, although the book certainly belonged to the library of St. Sophia, as it was referred as ‘the book of Archbishop Vasilii’ (‘книга владычна Васильева’).328 Two isolated annalistic records were made in Novgorod in the late 13th century—and both in books belonging to the library of St. Sophia. The first of 326 See subchapter 1.5. 327 See subchapter 1.5 and Figure 10. 328 Dmitrii I. Prozorovskii, “Psalomnik,” Vestnik arkheologii i istorii 7 (1888): 59–60; Gimon, “Letopisnye zapisi,” 571–2.

262

chapter 3

them reports the arrival of Archbishop Kliment to Novgorod in 1276 and his inspection of the treasury of St. Sophia.329 The second one reports the expulsion in 1296 of Prince Andrei’s vicars by the Novgorodians, the invitation by them of Prince Daniil, and (after two lines left blank) the construction of the bridge across River Volkhov. The scribe names himself: Skoren (Скорень), deacon of St. Sophia.330 Both records are not textually akin to N1. In the second case even the events in question are not mentioned in N1. Finally, 15th-century and later Novgorodian chronicles contain some notes on 14th-century events that are unlikely to go back to the Archiepiscopal Annals.331 So, it is possible to suppose that annalistic records were made in the 14th century not only in the official annals of the archbishops and on the flyleaves of Syn., but in some other books as well. Elena Koniavskaia has argued that in the 14th century the Brief Novgorodian Annals were kept.332 It well may be that those annals also were kept by the clerics of St. Sophia, being another, less official, form of recording events; another possibility is the church of St. Boris and Gleb, situated not far from St. Sophia.333 So, during all the period studied the cathedral church of St. Sophia was the main center, almost a monopolist of historical writing. It was the home of the earliest annalistic records, of (quite probably) the early lists of princes and bishops, of the official Archiepiscopal Annals and all their revisions, of most of the minor forms of historical writing, and, maybe, of brief annals kept in the 14th century. The second important religious house (St. George’s) was the home of a series of historical graffiti (in the late 12th and the early 13th centuries) and the commissioner of the only extant pre-1400 copy of the Archiepiscopal Annals (Syn.), to which some additions were made there in the 14th century. A page of excerpts from the Archiepiscopal Annals made for the Annunciation Monastery in the late 12th century is in fact all that remains from the historical writing of other numerous religious houses in and around Novgorod. Also, an extended historical graffito was made in Gorodishche in 1138.334 New founds of historical inscriptions in Novgorodian churches are quite possible in future. However, there are no grounds to think that anything comparable to the Archiepiscopal Annals was kept anywhere outside the walls of St. Sophia.

329 330 331 332

Stoliarova, “Zapisi istoricheskogo soderzhaniia XI–XIV vekov,” 24–5, 65–6, no. 6. The note is quoted above, on p. 65. See: Gimon, “Novgorodskoe istoriopisanie,” 65–6. Elena L. Koniavskaia, “Kratkii novgorodskii letopisets i ego mesto v novgorodskom letopisanii,” Drevniaia Rus’: Voprosy medievistki 1 (39) (2010): 40–52. 333 See: Gimon, “Novgorodskoe istoriopisanie,” 66–7. 334 See subchapter 1.5.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

263

In general, book production in Rus during the ‘parchment’ period was concentrated in the hands of secular clergy, primarily in cathedral churches. The situation changed in the late 14th and the 15th century when big land-owning monasteries began developing their scriptoria and libraries.335 In the mid-15th century some suburban monasteries of Novgorod became centers of annalistic work.336 At the same time, the main witnesses for N1Y, mid-15th century manuscripts Com. and Acad., are no more than copies of the Archiepiscopal Annals337 probably made for different suburban monasteries.338 But historical writing (mainly annalistic writing) is not the same thing as book-production in general. The annals had some special functions, and only the understanding of those functions can explain why those texts were maintained in the cathedral of St. Sophia, and only were copied (fully or as short excerpts) for monasteries. The problem of the functions of the annals will be dealt with in the last chapter of this book. 3.11

Oral Historical Tradition in Novgorod

Oral historical tradition, no doubt, flourished in Old Rus, as everywhere in archaic societies. It is unlikely that annals (or any other forms of historical writing) circulated in sufficient number of copies339 to be widely accessible and to significantly influence the mass vision of the past. Rather, what most people (both literate and illiterate) knew of the past, they had learned via oral tradition. It is likely that there were different types of oral historical tradition, or different groups of legends: those recounted at princely court and retinue, in

335 Stoliarova, Iz istorii knizhnoi kul’tury, 17–9, 37–42; eadem, “Kniga v kul’ture Drevnei Rusi,” Problemy istochnikovedeniia 1 (12) (2006): 61–2; Bobrov, Novgorodskie letopisi, 243–7; idem, “Monastyrskie knizhnye tsentry,” 28–9. 336 Bobrov, Novgorodskie letopisi, 220–8. 337 Figure 15 above implies that there were three intermediate texts between the Archiepiscopal Annals and those two manuscripts. What were those texts is not a question for this book, but I guess that, probably, we should speak of them in terms of renovations of the Archiepiscopal Annals, not in terms of creating books of annals for other houses. 338 For which ones exactly, we do not know. In what concerns Com. two hypotheses have been put forth: the Monastery of Khutyn (Bobrov, Novgorodskie letopisi, 70–4; idem, “Monastyrskie knizhnye tsentry,” 44–5) and that of Viazhishchi [Mikhail A. Shibaev, “Kodikologicheskoe opisanie peterburgskikh spiskov Kratkoi Khronograficheskoi Palei,” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom) 56 (2004): 147–8]. 339 See subchapter 4.5.

264

chapter 3

local societies (‘tribal’ lore), in monastic houses, etc.340 We even have a direct testimony of an annalist’s usage of oral tradition: the note in PVL s.a. 1106 on the death of Ian Vyshatich from whom the author ‘heard many stories’.341 Many studies have been dedicated to the oral historical tradition in Rus, but mostly either to the oral sources of the earliest extant Rus historical narratives (PVL and its hypothetical predecessors), or to folkloric texts reflected in much later records (from some fifteenth-century texts up to the famous Russian bylinas, recorded mostly in the 18th and the 19th centuries), and also to oral sources of hagiography. As for the ‘middle period’ (say, from the 12th to the 14th century), attention was only paid to some direct references to historical memory in the annals.342 Although no records of folklore survive from this period, it seems possible to approach the oral tradition via a study of differences between various annalistic texts in representing the same events. If several chroniclers pay special attention to certain events, if they, when creating a new version of the annals, change or add details (as if they dispute with each other), it can be supposed that they knew of those events from outside their written sources—that is, from the oral tradition.343 Of course, this suggestion in each case should be supported by other data. In this subchapter I will analyze from this point of view the annalistic notes on three 11th-century events: (1) the ‘charter(s)’ which Iaroslav the Wise is said to have given to Novgorod; (2) the death of Iaroslav the Wise’s wife in the year of the construction of St. Sophia Cathedral; (3) the capture of Novgorod by Prince Vseslav of Polotsk in 1066. I will study the versions of those notes in the chronicles up to the first half of the 15th century. 340 See: Mel’nikova, “Ustnaia traditsiia,” 153–65; eadem, The Eastern World, 97–112. 341 See the translation of the fragment on p. 102–3. 342 See bibliography in: Shchavelev, Slavianskie legendy, 24–48; Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “Ustnaia traditsiia o sobytiiakh XI v. v srednevekovom Novgorode,” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2016 (2018): 157–8. 343 Aleksei Shchavelev in his important study of oral sources of the earliest Slavonic historical narratives suggested several criteria for distinguishing information taken from oral sources: a direct reference to an oral source; a focus on a certain person (often of second row); a reference to the existence of alternative versions (or simply the presence of alternative versions in extant texts); ‘minor forms of folklore’ (such as proverbs, nicknames, etc.); references to mythological figures, place-names, material objects; linguistic traces of non-bookish origin of a fragment; and probably the presence of direct speech or dialogs in the narration and special ‘oral formulae’: Shchavelev, Slavianskie legendy, 83–104; idem, “‘Ustnyi narrativ’ v pervykh slavianskikh letopisiakh i khronikakh: Identifikatsiia i rekonstruktsiia,” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e 22 (2010): 283–9. This is the criterium of ‘the presence of alternative versions in extant texts’ that I will test now.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

265

Iaroslav’s charter(s). N1 four times (s.a. 1228, 1229, 1230, and 1339) mentions ‘Iaroslav’s charters’ (‘Ярославли грамоты’), or ‘all Iaroslav’s charters’ on which new princes of Novgorod took the oath (‘целовали крест’, ‘kissed the cross’).344 Those ‘charters’ always have been attracting scholars’ attention. It has been supposed that those were either some non-extant documents granting privileges to Novgorod (concerning paying tribute, or maybe political autonomy), or Kratkaia Pravda (the earliest known Rus laws, also known as the Shorter Version of Russkaia Pravda). The first supposition is prompted by the obvious importance of those ‘charters’ for Novgorod as a political body in the 13th and the 14th centuries. The second one is prompted by N1Y, which s.a. 1016 says that Iaroslav the Wise rewarded the Novgorodians for their help and gave them ‘law’ and ‘rule’ (‘правда’ and ‘устав’, pravda and ustav345)—and after this the text of Kratkaia Pravda is transcribed. Most scholars believe that the Iaroslav who promulgated the ‘Iaroslav’s charters’ was Iaroslav the Wise (died in 1054), but some have suggested Iaroslav Vladimirovich, a prince of Novgorod in the late 12th century.346 There can be little doubt that the origin and the significance of those charters were somehow explained orally.347 There should have been at least a legend describing the promulgation of the charters by Iaroslav. One can find the traces of this legend in the annals and lists of princes, which describe the rule of Iaroslav the Wise. The version of N1Y already cited is not the only one: the texts demonstrate a diversity of versions of the story of Iaroslav giving a charter to Novgorod. The two basic versions one finds in the annals are as follows: 1. In N1Y s.a. 1016 and in the chronicles of NS-group s.a. 1019 or 1020, after the description of Iaroslav the Wise’s victory in the struggle for Kiev, in which the Novgorodians have helped him, it is said: … and Iaroslav went to Kiev and succeeded to the throne of his father Vladimir; and then he started to reward his warriors: the elder men 344 PSRL, 3, 67–8, 70, 350. 345 One of possible translations can be: ‘law and rule’. 346 See a detailed overview of historiography in: Aleksei V. Petrov, Ot iazychestva k sviatoi Rusi: Novgorodskie usobitsy: K izucheniiu drevnerusskogo vechevogo uklada (Saint-Petersburg: Izd-vo Olega Abyshko, 2003), 71–87. 347 It is strange that, as far as I know, this topic never was analyzed in connection with the problem of oral tradition. Only Nikolai Kotliar mentioned it when discussing historical memory in Rus: Nikolai F. Kotliar, “Iaroslav i ego vremia v obshchestvennom soznanii vtoroi poloviny XI–XIII v.,” in Iaroslav Mudryi i ego epokha, ed. Igor’ N. Danilevskii and Elena A. Mel’nikova (Moscow: Indrik, 2008), 206–7.

266

chapter 3

(starostas) [recieved] 10 grivnas [each], and the peasants (smerds) [recieved] a grivna [each], and all the Novgorodians [recieved] 10 grivnas [each]; and he gave them law (pravda), and transcribed the rule (ustav), saying to them as follows: ‘Go according to this charter, observe what I have transcribed for you’. And this is the Rus Law (Pravda Russkaia) … … а Ярославъ иде къ Кыеву, сѣде на столѣ отца своего Володимира; и абие нача вое свои дѣлитѣ: старостамъ по 10 гривенъ, а смердомъ по гривнѣ, а новгородцомъ по 10 всѣмъ; и отпусти ихъ всѣх домовъ, и давъ имъ правду, и уставъ списавъ, тако рекши имъ: ‘по се грамотѣ ходите, якоже списах вамъ, такоже держите’. А се есть Правда Рускаа…348 This is followed by the text of Kratkaia Pravda. 2. The chronicles of NS-group s.a. 1036 (NK1 and N4) or 1034 (S1) say: And Iaroslav went to Novgorod, and seated his son Vladimir in Novgorod, and appointed Zhiriata as bishop; and wrote to people a charter, saying: ‘Pay tribute according to this charter’. И иде Ярослав к Новуграду, и посади сына своего Володимира в Новѣградѣ, и епископа постави Жиряту; и людемь написа грамоту, рекъ: ‘По сеи грамотѣ даите дань’.349 Almost the same one finds in the list of Novgorodian princes: And then Iaroslav was wroth with Konstantin, and imprisoned him; and seated his son Vladimir in Novgorod. And Iaroslav wrote a charter, saying as follows: ‘Go according to this charter’. И потомъ разгнѣвася Ярославъ на Коснятина, и заточи и; а сына своего Володимира посади в Новѣгородѣ. И писа грамоту Ярославъ, рекъ тако: ‘по сеи грамотѣ ходите’.

348 PSRL, 3, 176–177. 349 PSRL, 42, 63.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

267

Some scholars350 believe that those are not versions of the same story but descriptions of two different events: Iaroslav in different years granted to Novgorod different charters. Such a literal understanding of the annals would be legitimate if we believed that both those fragments went back to an 11thcentury chronicle, the annalistic compilation of c. 1050 once postulated by Aleksei Shakhmatov. However, as it has been stated above,351 it is much more probable that there was no such a chronicle, and most of the information on 11th-century Novgorod found in the extant texts was written later, on various stages of annalistic-writing. If so, the versions of ‘1016’ and ‘1036’ almost certainly have different origin (even though both of them can be found in the chronicles of NS-group, their fragments common with N1Y and those absent from N1Y belong to different textual strata352). At the same time, they have similar plots (Iaroslav grants to Novgorod a charter) and even similar phraseology (the Novgorodians must ‘go’ [‘ходити’] or pay tribute ‘according to this charter’ [‘по сеи грамотѣ’]). Thus, it is likely that those are two versions of the same story, just written down at different times; if so, the story is likely to have been originally oral. I think that the version of ‘1036’ should be attributed to the Kievan Initial Compilation of c. 1093, the version of the list of princes (very close to the ‘1036’ one) appeared in the proto-list c. 1095, and the version of ‘1016’ was written down by the Novgorodian compiler of the 1160s. But even if one does not agree with those datings and attributions, we are faced with various versions of the same story reflecting the variability of oral tradition. One more version, a very brief one, is presented in a genealogy of Rus princes composed in the 1420s: Vladimir generated Iaroslav, whose charter is in Novgorod the Great. Володимеръ роди Ярослава, его же грамота въ Великомъ Новѣгородѣ.353 To sum up, we have three short narrations of Iaroslav’s promulgation of a ‘charter’ to Novgorod (probably datable to the 1090s and 1160s), one mention of 350 See, e.g.: Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 1, 338–9, 342; Zimin, Pravda Russkaia, 89–98, 126–132; Nikolai N. Grinev, “Kratkaia redaktsiia Russkoi Pravdy kak istochnik po istorii Novgoroda XI v.,” Novgorodskii istoricheskii sbornik 3 (13) (1989): 32, 41. 351 Subchapter 3.3. 352 Ibid. 353 PSRL, 3, 465.

268

chapter 3

Iaroslav’s ‘charter’ which is kept in Novgorod (the 1420s), and four mentions of ‘Iaroslav’s charters’ (in plural) on which princes ‘kissed the cross’ (in the 13th and the 14th centuries). To this one can add two mentions of some privileges attributed by the Novgorodians to ‘old princes’ (not particularly Iaroslav): in N1 s.a. 1209 and Laur. s.a. 1169,354 as well as late 15th and 16th-century references to ‘Iaroslav’s charters’ in support of Moscow’s claims against Novgorod.355 One can also take into account that in Pskov, formerly Novgorod’s dependent city, in the late 14th and the 15th centuries, we find references to ‘Aleksandr [Nevskii]’s charter’ which was probably opposed by the Pskovians to ‘Iaroslav’s’ one(s).356 All this is quite enough to imagine a strong and important oral tradition on ‘Iaroslav’s charter(s)’, alive from the 11th to the 15th century, which was never written down but from time to time was reflected in the annals and other texts when the scribes wrote of Iaroslav the Wise’s time or the relations between Novgorod and the princes. As with all oral traditions, this one was variable. The charter(s) could be mentioned in singular as well as in plural. The character of the charter(s) also varied: the Novgorodians had either to ‘go’ or to ‘pay tribute’ according to it, it can be identified with Kratkaia Pravda, etc. This variability probably reflects the transformations of the oral tradition. If we admit that the ‘1036’ version is a late 11th-century one, the implication is that the earliest variant of the legend spoke of one charter. It is not possible to say for sure if in reality Iaroslav the Wise promulgated a charter for Novgorod. However, the Oldest, or Iaroslav’s, Pravda (the first part of Kratkaia Pravda) is likely to have been issued for Novgorod when Iaroslav became the prince of Kiev: some features of this document are consistent with the annalistic ‘1016’ version.357 Nevertheless, the ‘1016’ version seems to be written down much later, in the 1160s. And the scribe included into the annals not only the Oldest Pravda, but also three other documents (the Pravda of the sons of Iaroslav, and two short texts titled Pokon virnyi and Urok mostnikom, and concered with the food

354 Ibid., 50; PSRL, 1, 362. 355 See: Petrov, Ot iazychestva k sviatoi Rusi, 67–8. 356 See: Iurii G. Alekseev, Pskovskaia Sudnaia gramota: Tekst. Kommentarii. Issledovanie (Pskov: Vozrozhdenie, 1997), 126–35, especially 129. 357 See: Lev V. Cherepnin, Russkie feodal’nye arkhivy XIV–XVI vv., vol. 1 (Moscow: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1948), 242–9; Zimin, Pravda Russkaia, 89–98; Grinev, “Kratkaia redaktsiia,” 34–41; Sergei L. Nikol’skii, “‘Drevneishaia pravda’ Iaroslava: druzhinnoe pravo v stanovlenii gosudarstvennogo zakonodatel’stva,” in Iaroslav Mudryi i ego epokha, ed. Igor’ N. Danilevskii and Elena A. Mel’nikova (Moscow: Indrik, 2008), 55–67.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

269

provision of fine-collectors, and the reward to pavers, respectively).358 The four documents are known now together as Kratkaia Pravda. They have survived only together, and only in N1Y s.a. 1016. There is a hypothesis that it was the annalist of the 1160s who united the four documents.359 However, the motives of such a unification of old documents are unclear. It is more probable that by the 1160s the four documents already were kept together, perhaps written in one parchment quire,360 and that is why the annalist treated them as a unit. If so, this is probably the answer to the question, why ‘Iaroslav’s charters’ were mentioned in plural in the 13th and the 14th centuries. The booklet (?) with the decrees of old princes (Iaroslav and his sons) was regarded as one of the material symbols of Novgorod, on which the princes took their oath. To my mind, it is not necessary to seek in ‘Iaroslav’s charters’ any actual content for the interrelations between Novgorod and the princes in the 13th an 14th centuries. Rather, it is important that in N1 (both in Syn. and in N1Y) the victory of Iaroslav the Wise with the help of Novgorodians (i.e. annal for 1016) marks an important textual boundary. The history before that moment is narrated according to a Kievan source (and thus is regarded as the common history of Kiev and Novgorod). After 1016, having said that Iaroslav rewarded Novgorodians for their help, the annalist stops using the Kievan source, although it continued later and could be used. There was no detailed account of the 11th-century history of Novgorod, and that is why the text of N1 after 1016 is extremely brief.361 This textual boundary, a very impressive one, shows that Iaroslav’s time—and, one can guess, Iaroslav’s charter(s)— were regarded as a key moment for the establishment of Novgorod as a political body. Finally, the singular used in the genealogy of the 1420s either means a booklet as a material object, or, rather, goes back to the version reflected in the

358 On Kratkaia Pravda see: Zimin, Pravda Russkaia, 31–150; Grinev, “Kratkaia redaktsiia,” 20–42; Konstantin Tsukerman [Zuckerman], “O Pravde Russkoi,” Ruthenica 12 (2014): 108–56. There is a hypothesis that Kratkaia Pravda is a secondary 15th-century text (Oleksiy P. Tolochko, “The Short Redaction of Pravda Ruskaia: A Reconsideration,” Palaeoslavica 15, no. 1 (2007): 1–56; idem, Kratkaia redaktsiia). There is also a hypothesis that originally Kratkaia Pravda was transmitted orally (Tsukerman, “O Pravde Russkoi,” 150–2). 359 Irinarkh A. Stratonov, K voprosu o sostave i proiskhozhdenii Kratkoi redaktsii Russkoi Pravdy (Kazan’, 1920), 33–9. This idea was supported by: Grinev, “Kratkaia redaktsiia,” 23–4, 42; Gippius, “K istorii,” 63. 360 One can recall the laws of the 7th-century kings of Kent, which survive together, as continuations of each other, in 12th-century Textus Roffensis. 361 See also subchapter 3.3.

270

chapter 3

NS-annals s.a. 1036/4 and in the list of princes, both of which being available to the 1420s scribe. The death of the wife of Iaroslav the Wise. PVL reports the death of Iaroslav’s wife s.a. 1050.362 N1Y does the same, but before that it says that St. Sophia Cathedral in Novgorod was finished: In the year 6558 [1050] St. Sophia was completed in Novgorod, by the order of Prince Iaroslav, his son Vladimir, and Archbishop Luka. And Iaroslav’s wife, the princess, died. В лѣто 6558. Свершена бысть святая Софѣа в Новѣгородѣ, повелѣниемь князя Ярослава и сына его Володимира и архиепископа Лукы. И преставися жена Ярославля княгыни.363 The note on the princess’s obit is taken verbatim from PVL. The note on the cathedral, on the contrary, is not based on any earlier text. The earlier version of the Novgorodian annals (represented by Syn.) presents absolutely another story of St. Sophia’s construction, and says nothing about it s.a. 1050. The version of N1Y (that is, presumably, of the 1160s) is secondary and artificial.364 Therefore, the scribe of the 1160s added the note on St. Sophia to the obit of the princess, taken from PVL. Why did he do so? NK1 reports the death of Iaroslav’s wife twice: In the year 6549 [1041] ⟨…⟩ In that same year the princess, Vladimir’s mother, Iaroslav’s wife, died in the month of October, on the 5th day, in the 1st year when [they]365 started to build St. Sophia. ⟨…⟩ In the year 6553 [1045] Vladimir founded St. Sophia in Novgorod. In that same year the princess, Vladimir’s mother, Iaroslav’s wife, died in the month of October, on the 5th day.

362 363 364 365

PSRL, 1, 155. PSRL, 3, 181. See subchapter 3.3. The verb ‘started’ (‘начя’) is in 3rd singular, aorist. Literally this means that the princess is the subject. However, it seems more probable that this is a mistake of the compiler of the early 15th century or even of the copyist of c. 1500 who wrote so instead of ‘начаша’, impersonal plural usual for notes on construction of churches. Mistakes in forms of aorist are typical for 15th-century and later scribes.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

271

В лѣто 6549 ⟨…⟩ Того же лѣта умре княгини, мати Володимиря, жена Ярославля, месяца октябръ в 5 день, в лѣто 1-е, егда начя здати святую Софию. ⟨…⟩ В лѣто 6553. Заложи Володимирь святую Софию в Новѣграде. Того же лѣта умре княгини, мати Володимиря, жена Ярославля, месяца октября 5 день.366 The first of those dates is strange: no St. Sophia cathedral is reported in any of the Rus chronicles to be built in 1041. The second date is partly consistent with PVL, Syn., and N1Y all of which report the foundation of St. Sophia of Novgorod s.a. 1045. However, no other chronicle says that Iaroslav’s wife died in that same year.367 Aleksandr Bobrov rightly concludes that the compiler of NK1 in both cases proceeded from a knowledge that Iaroslav’s wife died in the first year of the construction of St. Sophia. He had no authoritative written source in front of him (otherwise he would not have hesitated), and therefore this knowledge was from oral tradition.368 It is not clear why the compiler of NK1 reported the princess’s death twice, and why for the first time s.a. 1041. Probably, this was nothing but a marginal gloss reflecting his quest, placed s.a. 1041 by a copyist. Anyway, it is evident that the early 15th-century compiler of NK1 was sure that the princess died in the year when St. Sophia started to be constructed. The scribe of the 1160s (N1Y), on the contrary, believed that Iaroslav’s wife died in the year when the cathedral was finished. This difference can reflect nothing but the variability of oral tradition. Another example of such variability is the precise date of the princess’s death. In most of the manuscripts of PVL as well as in N1Y it is not specified. In both the notes of NK1 the death is dated to the 5th of October. Other variants are the 14th of February (the Elder Version of S1369), and the 10th of February (Hyp., the Younger Version of S1, Tv.370). A fourth date is given in another context: s.a. 1439 N1Y reports the canonization of Vladimir (son of Iaroslav the Wise and the founder of St. Sophia) and his mother:

366 PSRL, 42, 64. 367 Some other chronicles, as PVL and N1Y, report the princess’s death s.a. 1050 (PSRL, 5 [1st ed.], 138; 6, part 1, 181; 15, part 1, 150). N4 does not mention her death. 368 Bobrov, Novgorodskie letopisi, 105–6. Bobrov thinks that the note in N1Y is taken from S1. If we admit, however, that it appeared much earlier, in the 1160s, the oral source becomes even more evident. 369 PSRL, 6, part 1, 181. 370 PSRL, 5 [1st ed.], 138; 15, part 1, 150; 2, 143.

272

chapter 3

In that same year Archbishop Evfimii [II] gilded the coffin of Prince Vladimir, the grandson of Vladimir the Great, and painted [it]; he also painted his mother’s coffin as well, and placed a shroud, and prescribed to commemorate them each year in the month of October, on the 4th.371 Того же лѣта архиепископъ Еуфимии позлати гробъ князя Володимера, внука великого Володимера, и подписа; такоже и матери его гробъ подписа, и покровъ положи, и память имъ устави творити на всякое лѣто мѣсяца октября в 4.372 The fact that the annalists associated the death of Iaroslav’s wife with the construction of St. Sophia (with its end, as in the 1160s, or with its start, as in the early 15th century) along with the hesitation about the precise date of her death (in the first half of the 15th century) proves the existence of oral tradition about the princess from as early as the 12th century up to the time around her official canonization in 1439.373 The capture of Novgorod by Prince Vseslav of Polotsk. In 1066 Prince Vseslav of Polotsk captured Novgorod. In 1069 he was driven out, having been defeated near Novgorod by a Novgorodian army led by Prince Gleb. Syn.’s emotional reports of those events probably go back to contemporary records.374 The chronicles of the NS-group include more or less the same texts, with minor changes.375 Additional information of the NS-chronicles can go back to oral tradition, but it is impossible to prove this. PVL and N1Y speak of those events briefly.376 However, we have at least two testimonies that those events were remembered by oral tradition. Hyp. s.a. 1178, when speaking of Mstislav Rostislavich’s activities as the prince of Novgorod, says: 371 Later calendars know the 4th of October as the day of commemoration of Vladimir and his mother Anna, and the 10th of February as that of Anna alone: Archbishop Sergii (Spasskii), Polnyi mesiatseslov Vostoka, vol. 2, part 1 (Moscow: Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, 1997 [first published in 1875–6]), 40, 308. 372 PSRL, 3, 420. 373 I do not touch here the problem of the princess’s name. The mid-16th-century and later sources call her Anna. However, the real wife of Iaroslav was called Irina/Ingegerd. It has been suggested that Anna was Irina’s monastic name, that Anna was the first wife of Iaroslav (and in that case not Vladimir’s mother), and that ‘Anna’ is a 15th-century invention (see: Nazarenko, Drevniaia Rus’, 489–91; Gimon, “Ustnaia traditsiia,” 169–70). I am not ready to agree with one of those versions. 374 PSRL, 3, 17. See translation above, on p. 205. 375 PSRL, 42, 67–8. 376 PSRL, 1, 166; 3, 186.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

273

And in spring he, having consulted his men, went [to a raid] against Polotsk, against his brother-in-law Vseslav, because his [Vseslav’s] grandfather377 had raided Novgorod, and stolen a church tabernacle, and liturgical vessels, and seized one pogost378 to Polotsk. And Mstislav wanted to recover all this, the land of Novgorod, and the insult. И на весну съдума с мужи своими, поиде на Полтьскъ, на зятя на своего на Всеслава, ходилъ бо бяше дѣдъ его на Новъгородъ и взялъ ерусалимъ церковныи и сосуды служебныѣ, и погостъ одинъ завелъ за Полтескъ. Мьстиславъ же все то хотя оправити, Новгородьскую волость и обиду.379 As Dmitrii Likhachev rightly noticed,380 this is a direct testimony of oral historical tradition: more than a century after the event Vseslav’s raid was still remembered as such an insult that it could encourage people to fight. Obviously, the territorial dispute (‘one pogost’) helped this. The other testimony of the same tradition is indirect but impressive. In some 15th-century chronicles s.a. 1065 it is said that Vseslav of Polotsk besieged the town of Pskov but could not capture it. One version is in the chronicles of the NS-group, the other is in the Second Pskovian Chronicle. The version of the NS-group is as follows: Prince Vseslav of Polotsk was with an army near Pskov, and he beat Persi with poroki. Князь Всеслав Полотскыи был у Пскова ратью, и перси билъ порокы.381 This note contains two anachronistic details. Firstly, the line of Pskovian fortifications known as Persi was constructed in 1337. Secondly, missile weapons (poroki) are known in Rus only from the 13th century. Besides that, the note is absent from NK1 that, as most of scholars agree, represents the earliest

377 378 379 380

In fact great-grandfather. A territorial unit. PSRL, 2, 608. Dmitrii S. Likhachev, “Slovo o polku Igoreve” i kul’tura ego vremeni, 2nd ed., suppl. (Leningrad: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1985 [1st ed.: 1978]), 77. 381 PSRL, 42, 98; 4, part 1, 122, 583; 15, part 1, 154.

274

chapter 3

stratum of the NS-chronicles. Therefore, this note is unlikely to be a genuine 11th-century record.382 The second version, found in the Second Pskovian Chronicle (a manuscript of the 1480s), was probably based on the first version (the Pskovian compiler seems to have used N4 in which we find the first version).383 The second version is more verbose but gives no additional detail. However, it is interesting, in what context it is placed. The Second Pskovian Chronicle’s text for the 11th and the first half of the 12th century is so brief that we can quote it all here: In the year 6573 [1065] Prince Vseslav of Polotsk, having gathered his numerous forces, came to Pskov, and, having labored a lot, with many ambitions, and having beat [the fortress] with poroki, retreated, having no success. In the year 6574 [1066] Prince Vseslav of Polotsk, having come with an army, captured Novgorod and burnt it. And in the 3rd year after that the Novgorodians defeated Vseslav on [River] Gzen. In the year 6624 [1116] Mstislav with the Novgorodians and the Pskovians went [to a raid], and they captured Medvezhia Golova.384 In the year 6643 [1135] Prince Vsevolod Mstislavich went with the Novgorodians to Suzdal. And the people of Suzdal went out, and defeated the Novgorodians, and they came back ashamed. В лѣто 6573. Князь полотьскыи Всеславъ, събравъ силы своя многыя, прииде ко Пскову, и много тружався съ многыми замыслении и пороками шибавъ, отъиде ничто же оуспевъ. В лѣто 6574. Князь Всеслав Полотскыи, пришед ратью, взя Новгород и пожже. А по томъ на 3-ее лѣто побѣдиша новгородци Всеслава на Кзѣне. В лето 6624. Иде Мстиславъ с новгородци и съ псковичи, и взяша Медвежью Голову.

382 See a detailed analysis of this note and references concerning Persi and poroki in: Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “Soobshchenie o pokhode Vseslava Polotskogo na Pskov v 1065 g. v letopisanii XV v.,” in Pskov, russkie zemli i Vostochnaia Evropa v XV–XVI vv. K 500-letiiu vkhozhdeniia Pskova v sostav edinogo Russkogo gosudarstva: Sb. tr. mezhdunar. nauch. konf., 19–21 maia 2010 g., ed. Valentina I. Okhotnikova (Pskov: Pskovskaia oblastnaia tipografiia, 2011), 13–33. 383 Gimon, “Soobshchenie,” 19–21. 384 I.e. Bear’s Head. This is a calque of Estonian place-name Otepää.

Historical Writing in Novgorod

275

В лето 6643. Князь Всеволодъ Мстиславич ходи с новгородци к Суздалю, и изшедше суздальци победиша новгородцовъ и възвратишася посрамлени.385 Here there are two couples of notes in each of which the success of Pskov is opposed to the shame of Novgorod: in 1065 Vseslav is not able to capture Pskov, and in 1066 he captures Novgorod; in 1116 a raid undertaken together with the Pskovians is successful, in 1135 a raid of the Novgorodians alone is shameful. Those oppositions can be a creation of the late 15th-century Pskovian compiler. However, the note on Vseslav’s unsuccessful besiege of Pskov appeared earlier, in the NS-chronicles. There it could be taken either from a Pskovian annalistic source (we know that the compiler used one), or from Pskovian oral tradition.386 Whatever the case, the first record on Vseslav’s besiege of Pskov was unlikely to have appeared earlier than Persi were constructed in 1337. Even if it was some scribe’s invention (though its oral origin seems more plausible), it shows that in the 14th or the early 15th century the memory of Vseslav’s capture of Novgorod was still an actual one. Only so one can explain the appearance of the Pskovian ‘alternative legend’: that Vseslav, the famous warrior, captured Novgorod but was not able to capture Pskov. The three topics discussed above were not the only 11th-century events remembered in oral tradition. A possible fourth case concerns the war(s) against the Chuds (Eesti) c. 1060: the chronicles contain two different records that probably reflect the variability of oral tradition about the same conflict.387 A fifth case is the battle of the Kulachska River of 1096. In 1216, in another battle in the same Northeast of Rus, the Novgorodians said to Prince Mstislav: … o, prince, we do not want to die on horses, but [we want to fight] like our fathers who fought on [the River] Kulachska on foot. … къняже, не хочемъ измерети на конихъ, нъ яко отчи наши билися на Кулачьскѣи пѣши.388 385 PSRL, 5, part 2, 18–9. 386 On both possibilities see: Gimon, “Soobshchenie,” 21–31. 387 See: Guimon, “Estonia,” 36–40. Those two records (N1Y s.a. 1060 and NS-chronicles s.a. 1054) are quoted above, in subchapter 3.3. 388 PSRL, 3, 56. On this testimony of oral tradition see: Likhachev, “Slovo o polku Igoreve”, 77; Aleksei S. Shchavelev, “Traditsii vikingov v voinskoi kul’ture srednevekovykh novgorodtsev,” in Aleksandr A. Fetisov and Aleksei S. Shavelev, Vikingi: Mezhdu Skandinaviei i Rus’iu (Moscow: Veche, 2009), 264–73.

276

chapter 3

Those legends could be retold in different media and were actualized in different situations. ‘Iaroslav’s charters’ were important for Novgorod as a political body and were connected with the ritual of the princes’ oath. Wars against Vseslav, the Chuds, or the people of Suzdal (on Kulachska) certainly were referred to during military campaigns (as shown by Hyp. s.a. 1178 and N1 s.a. 1216, both quoted above). But the Pskovian ‘alternative legend’ of Vseslav shows that the memory of Vseslav’s capture of Novgorod had a wider circulation than only in military contexts. The death of Iaroslav’s wife in the year of the building of St. Sophia may have been a local legend of the clerics of the cathedral, though its wider circulation also cannot be excluded. All those legends were never deliberately written down. Annalists could briefly retell some of them when they edited the text for the 11th century, but the scribes (unlike the earliest Kievan history-writers) never aimed to narrate systematically what they knew from oral tradition. Rather, the oral historical tradition and the annalistic writing existed parallel and played different roles in the life of the society.

chapter 4

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus What were the Rus annals (letopisi) written for? How did the annalists understand the purpose of their work? In what situations were the annals supposed to be read (used, consulted)? And in which cases were the annals read (used, consulted) in reality? Who were the intended (and real) readers (users) of the annals? All those questions are interconnected, and none of them has an obvious answer. However, they are extremely important for our understanding of letopisi. As for the 15th century, a little evidence exists that the annals were used as a source of precedents, or as a proof of some ancient rights. In 1432 there was a dispute over the throne of the Great Prince of Vladimir at the court of the Khan of the Golden Horde between two Rurikids, Iurii Dmitrievich and Vasilii Vasilievich. During this dispute … the great prince (i.e. Vasilii) sought the throne applying to [the fact that his] father and grandfather [had been great princes], and Prince Iurii [did this] with old manuscripts of the annals and the [written] will1 of his father Great Prince Dmitrii. … князь великыи по отчеству и по дѣдству искаше стола своего, князь же Юрьи лѣтописцы старыми списки и духовною отца своего великого князя Дмитрея.2 Vasilii won the dispute, and so the annals did not help. As Iakov Lurie points out, the tone of this account is scornful to Iurii.3 The annalist did not welcome Iurii’s way of justifying his rights. In 1471 Ivan III, Great Prince of Moscow, started his military expedition against Novgorod (which contributed much to Novgorod’s loss of independence).

1 Dukhovnaia (духовная, literally: spiritual [charter]) here certainly is a term for written will. 2 PSRL, 18, 172; 26, 187–8; 27, 103. 3 Lur’e, Dve istorii Rusi, 88.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004335592_006

278

chapter 4

And he asked his mother the Great Princess for diak4 Stepan the Bearded [to let go with him to the expedition], who knew handling5 the Rus annals.6 ‘When—he [Ivan] said—they [Novgorodians] come, he will recall him [Ivan] how to recount to them all [their] old treasons, how they betrayed great princes in old times—his [Ivan’s] fathers, grandfathers, and grand-grandfathers’. Да испроси у матери своеи у великои княини дьяка Степана Бородатаго, умѣющаго воротити лѣтописцем руским. ‘Егда,—рече— приидут, и онъ воспоминает ему говорити противу их измѣны давные, кое измѣняли вѣликим князем в давныя времена, отцем его и дѣдом и прадѣдом’.7 Stepan the Bearded is mentioned several times in the annals and other sources: he appears to be a person close to the princely family of Moscow (to Vasilii II, Ivan III’s father, and later Vasilii’s widow, Ivan’s mother), as a diplomat, as an annalist’s informant, and as a sponsor of the writing of a book.8 In some of the annals he is said to act as the organizer of the secret murder of Vasilii II’s rival, Prince Dmitrii Shemiaka, in 1453.9 In the passage in question Stepan acts as an expert on the annals whose knowledge is in demand: the prince wants to use it in a political dispute. The expert is supposed to retrieve from the annals examples of Novgorod’s past treasons. In 1415 Vytautas, the Great Prince of Lithuania, in his circular epistle dedicated to the consecration of Metropolitan Grigorii Tsamblak of Kiev, refers to the precedent of Kliment Smoliatich who was elected metropolitan in 1147 without blessing from Constantinople:

4 Diak (дьяк) can roughly be translated as ‘clerk’, or ‘functionary’. 5 ‘воротити’, literally: ‘to twirl’, ‘to rotate’, ‘to roll’, or maybe ‘to juggle’, ‘to manipulate’. In the other version of the same account: ‘говорити лѣтописцем Русским’, i.e. ‘to speak from the Rus annals’. 6 In original it is in singular, so designating not the annals as a genre, but rather the ‘Rus Annals’ as a particular text. 7 PSRL, 6, part 2, 172. The same account with minor variants see: PSRL, 20, 1st half, 282. 8 See: Bobrov, “ ‘Ruka Moskvy’,” 157–60. Bobrov hypothetically ascribes to Stepan two proMoscow alterations in Syn., see subchapter 3.8, note 295. 9 PSRL, 20, 1st half, 262; 23, 155.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

279

And we have found that written in the Rus annals,10 in the annals of Kiev and Vladimir,11 and in others. А то нашли есмо написано стоитъ в лѣтописцѣхъ русскыхъ, въ киевскомъ, и въ володимерскомъ, и въ иныхъ.12 Later in the same document it is said that a council was gathered ‘according to rules, as it is written in the annals …13 as was old custom’ (‘по правиломъ, как в лѣтописцѣхъ пишеть … по давному’).14 Thus, in all the three cases the annals are regarded as texts where precedents used in some political disputes (including ecclesiastical politics in the latter case) can be found. Unfortunately, there is no such evidence for earlier times. There are some passages in earlier annals that declare the purposes of the work, but they are so inconcrete that it is impossible to deduce from them any understanding of the functions of letopisi writing. For example, when starting to describe the first battle between the Rus and the Tatars in 1223 on River Kalka, where many Rus princes were killed, the annalist says: Only God knows who they are, and from where they went out; wise men who comprehend books know well; and we do not know them, and who they are, but we have written this down here for the memory of the Rus princes and of the disaster they met because of them. Богъ единъ вѣсть, кто суть и отколѣ изидоша; прѣмудрии мужи вѣдять я добрѣ, кто книгы разумѣеть; мы же ихъ не вѣмы, кто суть; нъ сде въписахомъ о нихъ памяти ради рускыхъ князь и бѣды, яже бысть от нихъ имъ.15

10 ‘в летописцех русскых’, i.e. in more than one annalistic text. 11 Vladimir is probably that of Volhynia, not that upon Kliazma. As Olexiy Tolochko (“On ‘Nestor the Chronicler’,” 37) comments, here ‘undoubtedly a chronicle of the Hypatian type’ is mentioned. 12 Akty, otnosiashchiesia k istorii Zapadnoi Rossii, sobrannye i izdannye Arkheograficheskoiu kommissieiu, vol. 1: 1340–1506 (Saint-Petersburg: Tip. II Otd. Sobstv. E.I.V Kantseliarii, 1846), 36, no. 25. 13 Again in plural, meaning more than one annalistic text. 14 Ibid., 37. 15 PSRL, 3, 62. See almost the same in: ibid., 1, 446.

280

chapter 4

It is clear from this passage that the motivation of the annalist is somewhat connected to the commemoration of those killed but it is impossible to find out how exactly this text was intended to be used. So, one can speak of the functions of letopisi only hypothetically. And many ideas have been expressed. Some scholars only articulated their perception of the functions of the annals without any special discussion. In other cases, however, arguments were presented in support of a certain view.16 The next subchapter contains an overview of those opinions and theories, with some preliminary discussion. In the following subchapters I will present my own case, the observations on the content of the annals and the practices of annalistic writing, upon which I will base my own reflections on the functions of the annalistic writing and their evolution. 4.1

Existing Theories and Their Discussion

Many scholars, especially in the 20th century, regarded the Rus chronicles as products of current politics and pieces of propaganda. One of the greatest scholars of letopisi, Aleksei Shakhmatov, wrote in 1916, that ‘chronicler’s hand was directed by political passions and mundane interests’.17 Those words were later quoted many times, especially in the historiography of the Soviet period. Mikhail Pokrovskii, one of the founders of Soviet Marxist historiography, treated letopisi as pieces of ‘propaganda’ and ‘publicism’, the purpose of which was to indoctrinate masses in the interests of rulers.18 According to Arsenii Nasonov, ‘a significant stimulus for the development of annalistic writing was socio-political life, the struggle of particular groups or institutions’.19 Iakov Lurie wrote that ‘the annals were designed, first of all, not to the posterity, but to contemporaries’.20 Nasonov and Lurie are among the best 20th-century 16 17

18 19 20

Most of serious scholars prefer not to touch this troublesome question at all, but to concentrate on more ‘answerable’ questions such as the history of the annalistic texts, etc. Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 2, 538. For other references see: Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “Dlia chego pisalis’ russkie letopisi? (vtoraia versiia),” Istoriia: Elektronnyi nauchno-obrazovatel’nyi zhurnal 5 (13) (2012), http://history.jes.su/s207987840000431-3-1, notes 10–11, 14. Mikhail N. Pokrovskii, “Bor’ba klassov i russkaia istoricheskaia literatura,” in idem, Izbrannye proizvedeniia, book 2 (Moscow: Mysl’, 1967), 287–8 [first published in 1923]. Arsenii N. Nasonov, “O russkom oblastnom letopisanii,” Izvestiia Akademii nauk SSSR, ser. istorii i filosofii 2, no. 4 (1945): 290. Iakov S. Lur’e, “Problemy izucheniia russkogo letopisaniia,” in Puti izucheniia drevnerusskoi literatury i pis’mennosti, ed. Dmitrii S. Likhachev and Nadezhda F. Droblenkova (Leningrad: Nauka, 1970), 45.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

281

scholars of letopisi; similar wordings can be found in the works of many others as well. No doubt, much in the chronicles was directed by politics. In many cases, when comparing texts, we find that an editor changed something due to his political preferences. One of the most striking and doubtless examples of such an editing is found in Novgorod: these are two pro-Moscow alterations made in the 1330s in Syn. described in chapter 3.8. There is an opinion, erroneous, to my mind,21 that those corrections were made much later, in the 15th century. Its most recent advocate, Aleksandr Bobrov, even points out that such an example of ‘political passions and mundane interests’ would be ‘solemn’ and ‘not characteristic’ for the 14th century. Such alterations would be much more likely in the 15th century, ‘when the functions of letopisi changed, and they indeed became a means of the struggle for power’.22 This is, I think, an opposite extreme. There is no doubt that early annalists indeed had political preferences and could—at least sometimes—edit texts for the benefit of their patrons. The differences between Laur. and Hyp. in 12thcentury annals show this quite well. Or, one can compare the descriptions of the same events of the 1210s in Laur. and LPS. Tetiana Vilkul has shown that, when two or three independent descriptions of the same political conflict are extant, one can trace that the narrative strategies used by the annalists were well designed to glorify or whitewash their patrons and to shift the blame onto the opposite side of the conflict, or sometimes from princes onto city communities.23 Jonathan Shepard says that political evaluations in PVL (for example, the praising of Vladimir Monomakh and, on the contrary, criticism of princes from the side of the Kievan Cave Monastery) imply ‘continuous political discourse’,24 even an existence of a ‘political nation’.25 Political bias and political intentions in many of the early Rus annalistic texts are, to my mind, beyond doubt.26 Nevertheless, it is doubtful that political propaganda was the only, or even the main purpose of annalistic writing. At least, two questions come to mind. Firstly, how many copies of the annals existed and how many people read them—for political propaganda to take effect? Shepard says that, even if the texts were ‘read by few’, their ‘essence might be dissementated orally, a “ripple effect”.’27 It is impossible, however, to 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

See chapter 3, note 295. Bobrov, “ ‘Ruka Moskvy’,” 163. Vilkul, Liudi i kniaz’, 113–225. Shepard, “History,” 349. Ibid., 336, 341, et al. See also subchapter 4.9. Shepard, “History,” 343.

282

chapter 4

mesure this ‘ripple effect’. Even more, in a predominantly oral culture certainly there were other, more effective ways of propaganda than to write something in a parchment book.28 Secondly, how can the needs of political propaganda explain writing down natural events or changes of ecclesiastics? Another idea, also expressed many times, is that the annals were a quasilegal document, a collection of historical precedents that could be used in political rivalries. For example, annals contained accounts of the successions of princes and could be used as proof of somebody’s right to occupy a certain throne, or as a justification for the legitimacy of somebody’s doubtful action, and so on.29 Some scholars supposed that the writing down into the annals of a certain legal document worked as a confirmation of this document, or gave it some additional significance. Aleksei Shakhmatov explained the writing of the ‘earliest Novgorodian chronicle’ (in his reconstruction, the earliest historiographical text ever written in Rus) in 1017 saying that ‘it was important to confirm, by writing down into the chronicle, the constitutive charter which Iaroslav granted to Novgorod’.30 The continuation of that chronicle, according to Shakhmatov, was written because Iaroslav granted to Novgorod one more charter in 1036.31 Ilia Maiakovskii, in a book dedicated to the history of archives in Russia, wrote that ‘documents, selected by prince, were included into the annals immediately after their issuing’.32 However, Simon Franklin insists that letopisi were not purely legal, but quasi-juridical texts: … the Russian chronicles are in themselves legal documents of a kind. They are mostly cumulative annals, compiled from previous annals with the addition of recent events noted year by year. They thus constitute the only form of cumulative record either extant or referred to in early 28 Compare: Mortensen, “Sanctified Beginnings,” 249, note 4. 29 Ivan D. Beliaev, “O raznykh vidakh russkikh letopisei,” Vremennik Moskovskogo obshchestva istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh 5 (1850): 1–4; Sukhomlinov, “O drevnei russkoi letopisi,” 3; Kostomarov, Lektsii, 21–2; Bestuzhev-Riumin, O sostave, 58; Nikolai N. Ianish, Novgorodskaia letopis’ i ee moskovskie peredelki (Moscow: Imp. obshchestvo istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh, 1874), 81; Lev V. Cherepnin, Russkaia istoriografiia do XIX v.: Kurs lektsii (Moscow: Izd-vo Mosk. un-ta), 1957, 62, 81, 87–8; Aleshkovskii, Povest’ vremennykh let, 296–7; Ol’ga I. Podobedova, Miniatiury russkikh istoricheskikh rukopisei: K istorii russkogo litsevogo letopisaniia (Moscow: Nauka, 1965), 7–8; etc. 30 Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, book 1, 338. 31 Ibid., 340. On the issue of ‘Iaroslav’s charters’ see subchapter 3.11. 32 Il’ia L. Maiakovskii, Ocherki po istorii arkhivnogo dela v SSSR: Opyt sistematicheskogo rukovodstva, part 1 (Moscow: Istoriko-arkhivnyi institut, 1941), 67.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

283

medieval Russia. Furthermore, most of the chroniclers adopt a highly partisan approach to their subject. Their accounts of the past are to some extent designed to justify or condemn, with written evidence, the actions of princes in the present, to demonstrate or refute the legitimacy of current claims and campaigns. Nevertheless ⟨…⟩ it represents the claims of one party, not a mutually agreed or objectively witnessed transcript. It is an open statement, sometimes legitimizing, but not juridical. ⟨…⟩ However one chooses to define the status and uses of early Russian chronicles, they are not in themselves evidence of documentation in the conduct of business which they describe. There is a vast gulf between a chronicle and a cartulary, pipe rolls, or feet of fines.33 Another approach to letopisi as a quasi-legal text was expressed earlier by Dmitrii Likhachev: ‘… the creation of annalistic compilations was a historical and legal moment: an annalistic compilation, narrating the past, fixed (закреплял) a certain stage of the present. It is not absolutely clear, what exactly was meant by this fixing of the present’.34 In other words, Likhachev draws attention to the possibility that the very act of the creating of a new annalistic text had a somewhat legal significance. In Likhachev’s time annalistic writing was perceived by most of scholars as a series of editorial events, not as a continuous process. More productive would be the following modification of Likhachev’s thought: keeping their own annals (or, maybe, simply possessing a manuscript of the annals) was regarded as a sign of a high status of a polity (principality) or of a religious house. Legal or quasi-legal significance of the annals seems a plausible possibility, especially if one takes to mind the 15th-century cases cited at the beginning of this chapter. However, the content of the Rus annals is much wider than political precedents and other moments connected with politics. Again, there are numerous notes on ecclesiastical events, natural phenomena, and so on. Some scholars suggested one more idea: the annals were a collection of notes that could be used for religious purposes. For example, obits were written down usually with precise dates, and this was helpful for memorial services. The same can be said on the dates of consecration of churches, and of other events likely to be memorized.35 Aleksei Laushkin has undertaken a study of 33 Simon D. Franklin, “Literacy and Documentation in Early Medieval Russia,” Speculum: A Journal of Medieval Studies 5, no. 1 (1985): 21. 34 Dmitrii S. Likhachev, Poetika drevnerusskoi literatury (Moscow: Nauka, 1979), 65. 35 Kostomarov, Lektsii, part 1, 22, 97; Bezstuzhev-Riumin, O sostave, 58; Ivan E. Zabelin, Istoriia russkoi zhizni s drevneishikh vremen, part 1 (Moscow, 1876), 473; Markevich, O letopisiakh, vol. 1, 78; Aleshkovskii, Povest’ vremennykh let, 129–30; Aleksei V. Laushkin,

284

chapter 4

precise dates in letopisi: which kinds of events typically were dated with accuracy up to the day? According to Laushkin, precise dates were most often cited by annalists either if the date had some ritual importance (the day of birth was significant for the choice of name and patron saint; the day of death became that of annual commemoration; the day of consecration of a bishop became an annual festival for the diocese, and that of the consecration of a church became a festival for the parish; the day of the translation of relics got into liturgical calendars), or if the event (such as omen or disaster) was percieved as connected to the providence.36 This helps us to understand an important part of the material included into the annals, but again only a part. One can add to this that notes on foundation of churches and monasteries in the majority of cases mention the commissioner, or ktitor, the person who sponsored the works. On the one hand, this is a merit, an example of piety, and a good deed. On the other hand, it is probable that in Rus ktitors had some prerogatives over the churches or monasteries they had founded,37 and the annals could act as a document confirming this.38 Dmitrii Likhachev in one of his works wrote that writing down ‘precedents’ (the word being used in a pretty wide sense) was a function of the Novgorodian annals (in contrast to the Kievan ones): The analysis of the content of those notes shows that the annalist was motivated, first of all, not by an interest to history but by a desire to record everything more or less unusual—so that to convey his life experience to next generations. The annalist records ‘precedents’: one needs to know the day of the consecration of a certain church for appropriate services in it; a requiem for drowned priests is a special ‘canonical case’;39 a long lasting rainy weather is a curious ‘case of natural history’, maybe important for economic life; etc. ⟨…⟩ With the time those records accumulated and

“Tochnye datirovki v drevnerusskom letopisanii XI–XIII vv.: Zakonomernosti poiavleniia,” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e 16 (2004): 103. 36 Laushkin, “Tochnye datirovki,” 103–4. 37 See: Petr S. Stefanovich, Prikhod i prikhodskoe dukhovenstvo v Rossii v XVI–XVII vekakh (Moscow: Indrik, 2002), 31–108. 38 I am grateful to Andrei Topychkanov who suggested this idea when discussing my paper in 2003. 39 N1, s.a. 1145: ‘In that same year two priests drowned, and the bishop did not allow a requiem service for them’ (‘Въ то же лѣто утопоста 2 попа, и не да епископъ надъ нима пѣти’, PSRL, 3, 27).

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

285

got interesting as history. They were mixed into compilations, and here became ‘history’.40 Nikolai Kostomarov in the 19th century wrote that omens and disasters were recorded in letopisi ‘for pious people to be able in future to watch out when having noticed something, and to escape God’s anger with the help of prayers’,41 as well as to ‘follow the movement of God’s providence and anger’.42 Viktor Zhivov recently expressed a similar idea (with a reference to Igor Eremin): the annals ‘could be regarded as a specific part of spiritual literature, describing the realization of God’s providence in the human history’.43 Evgenii Vodolazkin also tends to regard letopisi primarily as pieces of theology.44 Also, letopisi have been supposed to be written to satisfy a scholarly interest to the past,45 to give material for those who would like to study past in future,46 to be a material used in education,47 to be read for entertainment,48 but those ideas were just expressed, but never specially justified. Some scholars did not hesitate to ascribe to the annals several different functions at the same time: letopisi could be intended to be political propaganda, a record of political precedents, a pious reading, a record of dates needed for liturgy, and so on.49

40 Dmitrii S. Likhachev, Vozniknovenie russkoi literatury (Moscow – Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1952), 165. Compare his thoughts expressed in: Dmitrii D. Blagoi, ed., Istoriia russkoi literatury, vol. 1: Literatura X–XVIII vv. (Moscow – Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1958), 96. 41 Kostomarov, Lektsii, part 1, 22–3. 42 Ibid., 97–8. 43 Zhivov, “Osobennosti,” 603. 44 Vodolazkin, Vsemirnaia istoriia, 64–71. 45 Aleksandr S. Lappo-Danilevskii, “Ocherk razvitiia russkoi istoriografii. Vvedenie,” Russkii istoricheskii zhurnal 6 (1920): 5. 46 Istrin, Ocherk, 41; Vladimir G. Mirzoev, “Sotsial’naia funktsiia istorii (po “Povesti vremennykh let”),” in Voprosy istoriografii i metodologii istorii, ed. Vladimir G. Mirzoev (Rostov-na-Donu: Rostovskii-na-Donu pedag. in-t, 1976), 8. 47 Nasonov, “O russkom oblastnom letopisanii,” 290; Likhachev, Russkie letopisi, 71, 97; Mirzoev, “Sotsial’naia funktsiia,” 8, 16–17; A.F. Kilunov, “K voprosu o moralizme drevnerusskoi letopisi,” in Otechestvennaia obshchestvennaia mysl’ epokhi srednevekov’ia: Istoriko-filosofskie ocherki, ed. Vilen S. Gorskii et al. (Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1988), 141. 48 Aleksandr S. Orlov, Drevniaia russkaia literatura XI–XVI vv. (Moscow – Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1945), 88. 49 Sukhomlinov, “O drevnei russkoi letopisi,” 2–5; Markevich, O letopisiakh, vol. 1, 78–9; Aleksei A. Kurnosov, “K voprosu o prirode vidov istoricheskikh istochnikov,” Istochnikovedenie otechestvennoi istorii 1976 (1977): 16–7. Judging from the vast diversity of ideas about the functions of the annals expressed by Dmitrii Likhachev (see refecences above), this great scholar of OId Rus literature also perceived letopisi as polyfunctional texts.

286

chapter 4

Finally, I must discuss two theories that have been argued in an especially detailed way: those by Mikhail Priselkov and Igor Danilevskii. Mikhail Priselkov, the author of a comprehensive History of the Rus annalistic writing (first published in 1940), largely based on Shakhmatov’s conclusions but with important innovations, and somewhat more coherent and placed into the context of the political history of Rus, suggested the following theory: the annals were ‘historical memoranda’ written to be presented to outer centers of power: to Byzantium, and later, after the Mongol invasion, to the Golden Horde. Only when the Muscovite State became independent from the Golden Horde, the annals ‘became a reading for political indoctrination of the subjects’, that is, pure pieces of inner propaganda.50 According to Priselkov, the metropolitan of Kiev was a ‘permanent Greek agent’ in Rus, and all the communication between the rulers of Rus and Byzantium was in his hands. If any question concerning the makeup of the Rus church arose, the metropolitan demanded from the prince ‘some historical justification of his claims to present them in Constantinople’, and the annalistic compilations were prepared for that purpose.51 The ‘Oldest Compilation’ of 1037 (the Oldest Tale in my terminology) appeared because ‘the custom of the Byzantine ecclesiastical administration demanded, when a new see was founded, to compose a historical memorandum about the reasons, place, and actors of that event—for the records of the Patriarchal Synod in Constantinople’. As the metropolitan see of Kiev was founded in a newly baptized state, the memorandum could not help becoming ‘an overview of the historical fortunes of that young political unity’.52 When the Mongols invaded Rus, the annals began to be used as historical justification in the struggle for the throne of Vladimir when the Khan of the Golden Horde had to support one of the parties. Priselkov refers here to the case of 1432 cited at the beginning of this chapter.53 Priselkov’s theory is not convincing. We cannot be sure either in the date of the foundation of the metropolitan see of Kiev (quite probably it was founded earlier than in 1037),54 or in the date of the composition of the Oldest Tale.55 The content of the later annals is so rich and diverse, that it would be difficult 50 Priselkov, Istoriia, 38–41 (quotation from p. 41). 51 Ibid., 39–40. 52 Ibid., 61. In what concerns the ‘Oldest Compilation’, such a hypothesis had earlier been expressed by Aleksei Shakhmatov (Istoriia, vol. 1, book 1, 281–2). 53 Priselkov, Istoriia, 40–1. 54 See: Anrzej Poppe, “Mitropolity i kniaz’ia Kievskoi Rusi,” in Gerkhard Podskal’ski [Gerhard Podskalsky]. Khristianstvo i bogoslovskaia literatura v Kievskoi Rusi (988–1237 gg.) (Saint-Petersburg: Vizantonorossika, 1996), 446–9. 55 See subchapter 2.3.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

287

to interpret those texts as materials needed for negotiations with Byzantium. The vast majority of notes included into the annals have nothing in common with the questions of ecclesiastical organization or (later) with the disputes for the throne of great prince. The very language of letopisi (Church Slavonic with local elements, and by no means Greek) speaks against such a possibility.56 Priselkov argues that the Byzantine historian Niketas Choniates used a Rus chronicle speaking of Prince Roman of Galich’s military raids against the Cumans and against Rurik of Kiev in the early 13th century,57 but one can find here neither textual correspondence with any of the Rus letopisi nor any other traces of the usage of a Rus written source.58 Igor Danilevskii (in the 1990s–2000s) suggested an eschatological explanation of annalistic writing in Rus. At first, Danilevskii argued that the Rus annals were regarded by their authors as the ‘Books of Life’ mentioned in the Apocalypse (20: 12, 15). He suggested a daring idea that the annalists envisaged their texts to be present at the Last Judgment. According to Danilevskii, the earliest text-predecessor of PVL was written in the atmosphere of the forthcoming doomsday (the scholar links those expectations with the year 1037 AD), and the story told by the historiographer was that of the salvation of Rus as a whole. When the end of days did not happen, salvation became more of an individual matter. From the second half of the 11th century, the annals, according to Danilevskii, became registers of deeds (either merits or sins) of princes, bishops, and other persons, and, at the same time, those texts were full of implicit allusions to episodes from the Bible (often assessing human deeds), obscure for an ordinary reader but clear enough for the divine one.59 56 This was pointed out by: Dmitrii S. Likhachev, “ ‘Povest’ vremennykh let’: Istorikoliteraturnyi ocherk,” in Povest’ vremennykh let, ed. Varvara P. Adrianova-Peretts and Dmitrii S. Likhachev, 2nd ed., corr. and suppl. (Saint-Petersburg: Nauka, 1996 [first published in 1950]), 357. 57 Priselkov, Istoriia, 40. Choniates’s fragment in question is: Ioannes Aloysius van Dieten, rec., Nicetae Choniatae Historia (Berolini et Novi Eboraci: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1975), 522–3 (lines 25–49). 58 Priselkov says that in Choniates’s text ‘a narrative manner of the Rus annals sounds’, but the phrasing he quotes is no more than a description of a successful military raid possible in any tradition. Another Priselkov’s consideration is that, if Choniates had used an oral source, he would have described the later course of events including the death of Roman in 1205 (Priselkov, Istoriia, 40). However, Choniates clearly speaks of Byzantine affairs, and he only mentions a small episode from the Rus politics because of its connection with the war against the Cumans. 59 Igor’ N. Danilevskii, “Zamysel i nazvanie Povesti vremennykh let,” Otechestvennaia istorija 5 (1995): 101–10; idem, “ ‘Dobru i zlu vnimaja ravnodushno …’? (Nravstvennye imperativy drevnerusskogo letopistsa),” Al’fa i omega 3 (6) (1995), 157–9.

288

chapter 4

In a later book, Danilevskii suggested another modification of this eschatological hypothesis. The annalist ‘easily could undertake the role of a spiritual guide of his characters. To point to princes’ sins during their life was a necessary condition for them to confess to crimes committed … The sacrament of repenting gave to a Christian a partial liberation of his sins. In other words … the annalist presented to the Highest Judge … a list of merits of his characters, as well as of their sins to which the attention was drawn in due time.’60 In any case, Danilevskii did not abandon his main idea: the annals were intended to God as reader and for the Last Judgment.61 This theory certainly is worth discussing, although some doubts do arise. First of all, Danilevskii’s starting point is the change of the character of annalistic text in about the middle of the 11th century.62 This change is obvious, but its explanation is also obvious: the text up to the mid-11th century is largely based on the non-annalistic, retrospective Oldest Tale (even if some notes are taken from early brief annals), and only in the second half of the 11th century letopisi in pure sense started to be kept contemporarily. So, the difference in content between PVL’s text up to the mid-11th century and all the later annals is due to the ways those texts were composed; it does not need any more sophisticated explanation. Also, even in the Oldest Tale not much was dedicated to the salvation of Rus: the origins of the dynasty, the deeds of pagan princes, many folkloric accounts (such as, for example, that of Olga’s acts of vengeance on the Drevliane) can hardly be labeled as the history of salvation. Secondly, Danilevskii discusses possible eschatological interpretations of the title of PVL and some of its passages.63 However elegant those interpretations may be, they are, as the scholar himself points out, a possible deeper layer of the sense of the passages in question, which does not supersede their main, non-eschatological meaning.64 Thirdly, numerous biblical allusions in letopisi65 indeed could be addressed to human readers (if the annalist himself was able to invent them he probably supposed that other educated clerics could comprehend them).66 The interest in omens, so evident in the annals, is, of course, of an eschatological 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

Danilevskii, Povest’, 264. Ibid., 266–7. Ibid., 262 ff. Danilevskii, Povest’, 234–40. Danilevskii, “Zamysel i nazvanie,” 104–7. Danilevskii, Povest’, 90–111, 135–82, 252, 264–6. Danilevskii himself allows this: “‘Dobru i zlu vnimaja ravnodushno …’?,” 157; idem, “Bibliia i Povest’ vremennykh let (k probleme interpretatsii letopisnykh tekstov),” Otechestvennaia istoriia 1 (1993): 90; idem, Povest’, 266.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

289

nature,67 but it does not presuppose that letopisi were intended for exactly such usage. Perhaps, one could proceed with ideas on possible usages of annalistic records. The content of letopisi is diverse, and each of the ideas discussed can explain the usage only of some kinds of notes, not of all of them. But does this mean that it is useless to look for a general explanation of the emergence and the consistency of annalistic writing in Rus? To my mind, the overview of ideas expressed provokes the following generalization: the annals were a cumulative record of deeds and occurrences that could be (at least potentially) used in different situations. Such situations could include: political struggle (the annals contained precedents, proofs of somebody’s guilt, justification of somebody’s rights, etc.), liturgical practice (the annals contained precise dates of deaths, of consecration of churches, etc.), prognostics (the annals reported omens and disasters), and even the Last Judgment. This is the idea I have expressed in several publications.68 However, this can be an oversimplification. The annals were kept for centuries, in different places and in various political situations, so their functions could vary both in time and space. One can by no means be sure that the functions of the annals can be reduced to practical situations in which the knowledge of some past events could help someway. Finally, there is no guarantee that all annalists had at least some notion of the purpose of their work: they could just follow a tradition. To throw at least some light at the functions of the annals in Old Rus one, to my mind, should try to answer some questions: – Who were the patrons of the annals and the annalists themselves, that is, which institutions and persons were responsible for this kind of activity (or were entrusted to do this work)? – What kinds of events were written down into the annals? How far the circle of events reported varied in time and space? (A sub-question would be: whose deeds or misdeeds were reported in the annals?) – How were the annals maintained and revised? What was primary in the annalistic writing: the contemporary recording of the present or the retrospective description of the past? To what degree could the annalistic text be revised by later scribes (who created compilations, made new copies, or simply altered the same manuscript)?

67 Danilevskii, Povest’, 240, 262–3. 68 See the most detailed argument in: Gimon, “Dlia chego pisalis’ russkie letopisi?”

290

chapter 4

– Did the annals exist in several copies, did they circulate widely, to what circle of people were they available? – What were the interrelations between the annals and purely juridical texts? How often the annalists included legal texts or their fragments into letopisi and why? (It is especially important to discuss in this relation so-called princely messages, so numerous in the Kievan Chronicle from the 1140s; were they transcripts of real documents or not, and what was their function in the annalistic text?) – How did the annalists treat the sphere of politics and what was the role of ‘non-political’ themes in the annals, that is, of notes on ecclesiastical, family, and natural events? An attempt to answer those questions will be undertaken in the following subchapters. 4.2

Who Were Patrons, Supervisors, and Authors of the Annals?

As it has been said above,69 there is a very strong case in support of the connection of the annals of Novgorod with the Novgorodian (arch)bishops. Changes of scribes who updated the annals coincide with those of (arch)bishops from the mid-12th up to the 15th century. There is, thus, no doubt that the archbishops were patrons of the Novgorodian annals, the updating of which can be regarded as one of the responsibilities of a cleric functioning as archiepiscopal secretary. It has also been said that some of the suburban monasteries around Novgorod wished to have a copy or at least a set of excerpts from the Archiepiscopal Annals: St. George’s Monastery had a copy with a few local additions, and the much smaller Annunciation Monastery possessed a set of excerpts placed in a manuscript of the monastic rule. Alan Timberlake has provided evidence that the text lying behind Laur.’s annals for the late 12th century had in fact been the episcopal annals of Rostov. The analysis of some linguistic and stylistic features has let him conclude that the annals from 1177 to 1203 had been written by four annalists: (1) up to mid-1185, (2) 1185–8, (3) 1189–90, (4) from 1192. Two of the three changes of authors within this interval coincide with the changes of bishops of Rostov that occurred in 1185 and 1189/90.70

69 Subchapter 3.4. 70 Timberlake, “Who Wrote the Laurentian Chronicle,” 237–66.‬‬

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

291

I can supplement this conclusion with evidence, firstly, of the circle of events covered by the annals. The circle of topics of annalistic notes in 1218– 31 is wider than before and after this interval. The annalist here is especially interested in natural phenomena.71 Also, within this interval bigger is the relative share of notes dedicated to events not belonging to the groups typically recorded by annalists.72 This chronological interval corresponds with the dates of the rule of Bishop Kirill I of Rostov (1216–29). The coincidence is not strict, but it is quite obvious from the annal for 1229 that it was still written by Kirill I’s annalist, as the description of the trial of Kirill I (he was dismissed from the see) is sympathetic to him. The next bishop, Kirill II, took the office only in 1231. Stylistically, the annals for 1229–31 are closer to the previous text, as from 1232 annual entries become much shorter and probably belong to a new annalist, that of Kirill II. Secondly, the formulaic of notes on the construction of churches changes with time. Four zones can be distinguished,73 which correspond with the offices of bishops of Rostov (see Table 10).74 Thus, there can be little doubt that the annalistic writing in the late 12thand the early 13th-century Northeastern Rus was patronized by the bishops of Rostov, and not (at least not directly) by princes as it has been supposed many times.75 Anyway, the annals (as we have them in Laur., of course) are loyal to the princes of Vladimir, and even apologetic.76 The situation changed after the death of Prince Vsevolod, in later sources known as ‘the Big Nest’ (Большое Гнездо, 1177–1212). His sons acted as rivals, especially the two eldest ones: Konstantin (who inherited Rostov), and Iurii (who inherited Vladimir). In 1214, after the removal of Bishop Ioann of Rostov (he was firstly expelled from Rostov and lived in Vladimir), two different bishops were consecrated to Rostov (Bishop Pachomii) and to Vladimir and Suzdal, 71 S.a. 1156–1263 there are 22 notes on natural phenomena and disasters, of which 10 are s.a. 1221–30. Other 4 notes are s.a. 1185–88, that is, in the annals of Bishop Luka. 72 S.a. 1156–1263 I counted 13 such untypical notes, of which 7 are s.a. 1218–31, see: Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “Tematika soobshchenii Lavrent’evskoi letopisi (tekst za 1156–1263 gg.),” Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta im. N.I. Lobachevskogo 6, part 3 (2012): 42–7. 73 See the full argument: Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “K segmentatsii Lavrent’evskoi letopisi,” Drevniaia Rus’: Voprosy medievistiki 3 (61) (2015): 28–9. 74 It should be noted that there are no notes on construction of churches s.a. 1165–86. We even do not know who was the bishop between 1169 (the execution of Feodor) and 1185 (the election of Luka), so it well may be that the annals for that time did not survive in full. 75 See, e.g.: Priselkov, Istoriia, 101, 109, 126, 132, etc. 76 See also subchapter 4.9.

292 table 10

chapter 4 The style of notes on building of churches in Laur. and the changes of bishops of Rostov: four zones

1. 1161–4 2. 1187–9 3. 1192–1207 4. 1213–53

Leon (1157–64) Luka (1185–89]) (two of Timberlake’s annalists, those of 1185–88, and 1189–90) Ioann (1190–1214) (Timberlake’s fourth annalist from 1192) Pachomii (1214–16) Kirill I (1216–28) Kirill II (1231–61)

both belonging to the principality of Iurii (Bishop Simon). This bifurcation of the episcopal see seems to have led to a bifurcation of the annals. On the one hand, the annals patronized by the bishops of Rostov continued to be updated: Laur. reflects this text. On the other hand, we possess a chronicle that shares with Laur. its text up to 1206, and has independent annals from 1206 (continuation) up to 1214. This text is extant in a 15th-century manuscript and is known under the name of the Chronicle of Pereyaslavl of Suzdal (Летописец Переяславля-Суздальского, LPS). LPS’s annals for 1206–14 are written, no doubt, in Northeastern Rus. Some additions in the previous text (common with Laur.) as well as some passages in the annal for 1213 make scholars think that LPS originated in Pereyaslavl-Zalessky (Pereyaslavl of Suzdal), a smaller town, at the time the center of the principality of Iaroslav, another son of Vsevolod the ‘Big Nest’, who supported Iurii of Vladimir in his struggle against Konstantin of Rostov. Although the connection of LPS with Pereyaslavl is beyond doubt,77 the fact that it ends with the annal for 1214 in which the bifurcation of the episcopal see is reported is unlikely to be a coincidence. It can be argued that after the separation of the see of Vladimir it was decided to create an independent book of annals here—and the idea was realized either in Pereyaslavl, or with the participation of an author with a Pereyaslavl bias.78 LPS has no continua77 This was shown already by Mikhail Obolenskii in 1851 (see chapter 1, note 148). 78 The idea that the independent annals of LPS for 1206–14 are connected with the bifurcation of the see is mine. However, the interrelations of the texts in questions were studied much, see the most recent studies: Gelian M. Prokhorov, “Radzivilovskii spisok Vladimirskoi letopisi po 1206 god i etapy vladimirskogo letopisaniia,” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom) 42 (1989), 53–76; Nadezhda I. Miliutenko, “Vladimirskii velikokniazheskii svod 1205 goda (Radzivilovskaia letopis’),” ibid., 49 (1996): 36–58. It must be noted that, while LPS and Laur. share their text

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

293

tion after 1214, and one can agree with Nadezhda Miltiutenko saying that this was due to the defeat of Iurii (of Vladimir) and Iaroslav (of Pereyaslavl) at River Lipitsa in 1216.79 Iurii was forced to yield Vladimir to Konstantin, and moved to a smaller town, Gorodets. In some chronicles it is even said that Bishop Simon moved from Vladimir to Gorodets with Iurii, although this information is doubtful.80 Even though Iaroslav retained Pereyaslavl, it seems that the victory of Konstantin contributed to the end of the separate annalistic tradition that started at the time of the political balance and the bifurcation of the diocese. In the late 13th century annalistic writing starts in one more center of Northeastern Rus, in Tver. The chain of Tverian notes can be traced in Tv., Rog., and (with substantial variations) in Laur. from 1285. The first note in this chain in all the three sources reports the foundation of the stone cathedral church of the Savior in Tver. It is very probable that the keeping of annals in Tver started about this moment.81 The exact date of the foundation of the episcopal see in Tver is unknown. A bishop of Tver is mentioned for the first time s.a. 1271/2,82 and the see probably had been established not long before. The annalistic writing starts, therefore, not immediately after the foundation of the see, but quite soon after it, about the time of the construction of the new, stone cathedral. Laur. (the second earliest annalistic manuscript which survived) is a copy made in 1377 of a non-extant manuscript ending with the annal for 1305. The colophon of Laur. reads as follows: ⟨…⟩ I started to write this book, called the Annals, in the month of January, on the 14th ⟨…⟩ to Great Prince Dmitrii, son of Konstantin, with the blessing of sacred Bishop Dionisii. And I ended in the month of March, on the 20th ⟨…⟩ in the year 6885 [1377], under faithful and Christ-loving Great Prince Dmitrii, son of Konstantin, and under our bishop, Christ-loving and sacred Dionisii of Suzdal, [Nizhny] Novgorod, and Gorodets. ⟨….⟩

up to 1206, Radz. and MA end here. So, it is very probable that there was a manuscript of annals created c. 1206. 79 Miliutenko, “Vladimirskii velikokniazheskii svod,” 36–7. 80 See: Andrei A. Kuznetsov, “Izmeneniia v pravovom polozhenii tserkvi vo VladimiroSuzdal’skom kniazhestve v period 1212–1218 gg.,” Religii mira: Istoriia i sovremennost’ 2006–2010 (2012): 230–5. 81 Klug, Das Furstentum Tver, 14–6; or Russian translation: Kliug, Kniazhestvo Tverskoe, 19–20, 23 (with references and polemics). Klug attributes to a Tver author some earlier notes as well (ibid., 20), but this seems too arbitrary. See also: Elena L. Koniavskaia, “Tverskoe vladychnoe letopisanie kontsa XIII–XIV v.,” Srednevekovaia Rus’ 9 (2011): 139–52. 82 Priselkov, Troitskaia letopis’, 331.

294

chapter 4

⟨…⟩ Началъ есмь писати книги сия глаголемыи Лѣтописець месяца генваря в 14 ⟨…⟩ князю великому Дмитрию Костянтиновичю, а по благословенью священьнаго епискпопа Дионисия. И кончалъ есмь месяца марта в 20 ⟨…⟩ в лѣто 6885 при благовѣром и христолюбивом князи великом Дмитрии Констянтиновичи и при епископѣ нашем христолюбивѣм священномъ Дио[ни]сьѣ Суждальском, и Новгородьском, и Городьском. ⟨…⟩83 The most plausible interpretation would be that the book was sponsored by the prince, blessed (and maybe supervised) by the bishop, and written in (or maybe only for) the Cave Monastery of Nizhny Novgorod. The latter house is not mentioned in the colophon, but it is known that the manuscript was owned by that monastery in the 17th century, and it is also known that Dionisii before his consecration to bishop had been the abbot of that house.84 If so, this is a parallel to the situation in Novgorod: what has survived is not the original chronicle, but a copy made for an important monastery.85 So, what is known of the annalistic writing in the North—both the Northwest and the Northeast—speaks in favor of the connection between the annals and episcopal sees (only copies or excerpts being made for monasteries). In Kiev, on the contrary, in the late 11th and the early 12th centuries annalistic writing was located in suburban monasteries. As it has been said above,86 there can be little doubt that the bulk of the text of PVL was written in the Kievan Cave Monastery, which was the home of both, continuous updating annals and large-scale enterprises such as the creation of the Initial Compilation in the early 1090s. The Vydubichi Monastery of St. Michael is mentioned in Abbot Silvestr’s colophon of 1116—and so was the place where Silvestr had copied, or edited, or even created PVL. Alan Timberlake, analyzing the dating formulas of the text of the Primary Chronicle for 1050–1110, suggested a preliminary division of this part of the text into five segments, each written by a different annalist.87 Timberlake did not compare those intervals with the offices of the abbots of the Kievan Cave Monastery, but it appears that each of Timberlake’s segments matches one abbot: short intervals correspond with short offices, and the relatively 83 PRSL, 1, 487–8. 84 See: Boris M. Kloss, “Predislovie k izdaniju 1997 g.,” in PSRL, 1, G–I. 85 In the case of Laur., however, the exemplar ended with the annal for 1305, and no text for 1306–77 has ever been added. One only can speculate that it was planned to obtain some material for those years elsewhere. 86 Subchapter 2.2. 87 Timberlake, “Intervals,” 51–70.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus table 11

295

Timberlake’s segments of PVL and offices of abbots of the Cave Monastery

Timberlake’s segments

Abbots

1050–60 1061–71 1072–6 1077–87 1088–1110

Varlaam (before c. 1062)a Feodocii I (c. 1062–74) Stefan (1074–7/8) Nikon (1077/8–88) Ioann (mentioned s.a. 1089–before 1108)

a However, it is hardly probable that in this section we deal with contemporary year-by-year records made in the Cave Monastery.

long interval of 1088–1110 matches the office of Ioann who is mentioned s.a. 1089 and in the 1090s, and probably was abbot between the death of Nikon (1088) and the accession of Feoktist (first mentioned s.a. 1108).88 The fact that dates sometimes match each other only approximately is not significant: the last stint of a previous annalist could actually be written under a new abbot, and, vice versa, a new annalist could describe events that happened before the change of abbots (see Table 11). So, the connection between the changes of abbots and of annalists in the Kievan Cave Monastery in the second half of the 11th and the early 12th centuries seems plausible, although needs further support. And what about Kiev after the 1110s? The Kievan Chronicle (that is, the text of Hyp. for the 1110s–90s) has been studied many times but still its origin and makeup are not clear. The late 19th- and 20th-century historiography of this text was dominated by its perception as a compilation of several chronicles of very different character: from quite ecclesiastical ones to a mid-12th century chronicle associated with Prince Iziaslav Mstislavich and sometimes assumed to have been written by a layman: boyarin Petr Borislavich whose diplomatic missions are described in Hyp. s.a. 1152 in great detail.89 However, a somewhat 88

The dates of the offices are given according to: Aleksei Iu. Karpov, Russkaia tserkov’ X–XIII vv.: Biograficheskii slovar’ (Moscow: Kvadriga, 2017). 89 Bestuzhev-Riumin, O sostave, 72–151; Priselkov, Istoriia, 88–93; Boris A. Rybakov, Drevniaia Rus’: Skazaniia, byliny, letopisi (Moscow: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1963), 316–36; idem, Russkie letopistsy i avtor ‘Slova o polku Igoreve’ (Moscow: Nauka, 1972). Nikolai Kotliar’s modification of this view is a division of the Kievan Chronicle into ‘chronicles’ of particular princes: Mykola F. Kotliar, Kiїvs’kii lіtopis XII stolіttia: Іstorichne doslіdzhennia (Kiїv: IIU NANU, 2009). See a persuasive criticism of Petr Borsilavich’s authorship in: Vadym Iu. Aristov, “Problemy proiskhozhdeniia soobshchenii Kievskoi letopisi,” Ruthenica 10 (2011): 130–1.

296

chapter 4

simpler vision of the Kievan Chronicle seems more plausible. Although the text as we have it is, no doubt, a result of a compilative work by one author90 active c. 1198,91 it seems very probable that his basic source were the annals of Kiev, kept continuously throughout the 12th century. Otherwise, it would be difficult to explain the fact that the Kievan Chronicle systematically covers the 12thcentury history of the throne of Kiev, providing numerous precise dates and much factual detail in almost all its annals.92 So, it is worth trying to explain the differences between different sections of the Kievan Chronicle in content and style in terms of several individuals who updated the Kievan annals during the 12th century (and, quite possibly, edited somehow the sections written by their predecessors). It is more or less certain that the compiler of c. 1198 worked in the Vydubichi Monastery near Kiev. The final narration of the Kievan Chronicle is a detailed description of the building of a new wall in that monastery, with a panegyric to the sponsor of the works, the current Kievan prince Rurik Rostislavich. There is somewhat a consensus among the scholars that the compiler of the Kievan Chronicle probably was identical to Abbot Moisei whose panegyric speech is quoted in the narration.93 So, c. 1198, just as in 1116, the Vydubichi Monastery appears to be the birthplace of the annalistic text as we have it. Vadym Aristov (following Dmitrii Ilovaiskii) argues that the simplest suggestion would be that the Vydubichi Monastery was the home of the Kievan

90 At least a source from Rostov and a source from Chernigov were used by the Kievan compiler of c. 1200 (Priselkov, Istoriia, 87–93; Nasonov, Istoriia, 102–7; Tetiana L. Vilkul, “Litopys Sviatoslava Ol’hovycha u skladi Kyivs’koho zvodu XII stolittia,” in Do dzherel: Zb. prats’ na poshanu O. Kupchyns’koho z nahody ioho 70-richchia, edited by Igor Gyrych et al. vol. 2. (Kyiv – Lviv, 2004), 63–74). Much can be said of his manner of work: he was not a mere compiler, but a gifted writer, who amplified the text and used quotations from some translated works (see in subchapter 4.5 references to Tetiana Vilkul’s works). 91 The last annal of the Kievan Chronicle in Hyp. is 1200. However, it is evident from Khlebn. that the annal-numbers for 1199 and 1200 were inserted by the scribe of Hyp. into what originally was the annal for 1198, the last one in the Kievan Chronicle. There is an opinion that the compiler worked in fact after 1212 (Aleksei [Oleksiy] P. Tolochko, “O vremeni sozdaniia Kievskogo svoda ‘1200 g.’,” Ruthenica 5 (2006): 73–87); see objections: Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “Sozdanie letopisnykh kodeksov v gorodakh Rusi na rubezhe XII–XIII vv.,” in Sovremennye problemy knizhnoi kul’tury: Osnovnye tendentsii i perspektivy razvitiia Sovremennye problemy knizhnoi kul’tury: Osnovnye tendentsii i perspektivy razvitiia: Mat-ly IX Mezhdunar. nauch. seminara, Moskva, 24–25 oktiabria 2018 g., ed. Liudmila A. Avgul’ et al., part 1 (Minsk – Moscow: Nauka, 2018), 105–6. 92 Compare: Priselkov, Istoriia, 93–5 (Priselkov spoke of ‘continuous princely annalistic writing’, ibid., 95); Aristov, “Problemy,” 117–8, 130–5. 93 Priselkov, Istoriia, 88; Aristov, “Problemy,” 135–6.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

297

annals between 1116 and c. 1198 as well.94 However, as Aristov himself says, nothing in the content of the Kievan Chronicle, except its final narration about the new wall, speaks in favor of the keeping of annals in Vydubichi. On the contrary, there are several fragments in the Kievan Chronicle that seem to have been written in the Kievan Cave Monastery. Aristov counts 15 occurrences of that house in the Kievan Chronicle, but insists that none of them was necessarily composed within the monastery.95 However, five of those 15 occurrences are in fact detailed narrations demonstrating a deep interest of the author to the monastery and its abbots,96 and at least in one case it is difficult to imagine the account to have been written in any place other than the Cave Monastery.97 S.a. 1158 a death of a princess, widow of Prince Gleb Vseslavich, is reported. It is said that she was buried in the Cave Monastery, and then the annalist lists the donations made by the deceased princess herself, by her father Iaropolk Iziaslavich, and by her husband Gleb to the monastery, that is, lands and sums of money, all carefully listed.98 Therefore, at least some portions of text now read in the Kievan Chronicle originated in the Kievan Cave Monastery.99 Having this in mind, let us look for such features of the text that change at the moments when the abbots of the Cave Monastery change. The problem is that our knowledge of the monastery’s 12th-century history is far from complete. One can find a ‘complete’ list of the abbots of the Cave Monastery with the dates of their successions in many works of reference including Wikipedia.100 94 Aristov, “Problemy,” 136. 95 Ibid., 121–3. 96 S.a. 1156, 1158, 1168, 1171, 1182. One should add to this a detailed description of a diplomatic mission of Abbot Polikarp s.a. 1171 in which the author was probably a participant (once a 1st plural is used: ‘поидохомъ’, i.e. ‘we went’; in Khlebn., however, 3rd plural is used: ‘поидоша’, i.e. ‘they went’, see on this narration: Aristov, “Problemy,” 118–9). 97 See, e.g.: Bestuzhev-Riumin, O sostave, 122. 98 See a commentary to this passage: Iurii A. Artamonov, “Kniaz’ia Polotskie—‘velikii milosniki velikoi lavry Pecherskoi’,” in Ad fontem—U istochnika: Sb. st. v chest’ S.M. Kashtanova, ed. Aleksand O. Chubar’ian (Moscow: Nauka, 2005), 176–82. 99 The idea that some records made in the Cave Monastery were among the sources of the Kievan Chronicle has been expressed many times, see, for example: Vasilii M. Perevoshchikov, O russkikh letopisiakh i letopisateliakh po 1240 g.: Materialy dlia istorii rossiiskoi slovesnosti (Saint-Petersburg, 1836), 34–5 (on annals from 1176); Bestuzhev-Riumin, O sostave, 116, 122 (on annals for 1126 and 1158); Shakhmatov, Istoriia, vol. 1, part 2, 90–2, 555–6; vol. 2, 77; Mikhail D. Priselkov, Ocherki po tserkovno-politicheskoi istorii Kievskoi Rusi. X–XII vv., 2nd ed. (Saint-Petersburg: Nauka, 2003 [first published in 1913]), 199–202; Istrin, “Zamechaniia,” 27: 247; Rybakov, Russkie letopistsy, 36–59. 100 https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE-%D0% 9F%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B B%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B0.

298

chapter 4

This list goes back to the book by Metropolitan Evgenii (Bolkhovitinov) published in 1831.101 Evgenii’s sources of information are unknown, and it is very probable that the list is no more than his own reconstruction. The dates of the successions that can be found in reliable sources are as follows. 1112: Feoktist → Prokhor102 1126: Prokhor (died) → ?103 1130: Timofei (mentioned)104 1148: Feodosii II (mentioned)105 1156: Feodosii II (died) → ?106 1168: Polikarp (mentioned for the first time)107 1182: Polikarp (died) → Vasilii108 1197: Vasilii (mentioned for the last time)109 Also, the Paterikon of the Kievan Cave Monastery mentions Abbot Pimen, and it is probable that he was abbot between Timofei and Feodosii II, that is, somewhere between 1130 and 1148.110 The list of Metropolitan Evgenii places one more abbot, Akindin, between Feodosii II and Polikarp, but the name is taken from a certainly spurious charter fabricated in the 16th century.111 So, within the period covered by the Kievan Chronicle we know six or seven names of abbots, but only four times we know exact dates of their successions (1112, 1126, 1156, 1182). Nikolai Berezhkov, who studied the chronology of the Kievan Chronicle, mainly its usage of the March and the ultra-March styles,112 divided the text into several segments.113 Those segments match what we know of the successions of abbots of the Kievan Cave Monastery (see Table 12). 101 Metropolitan Evgenii (Bolkhovitinov), Opisanie Kievopecherskoi Lavry s prisovokupleniem raznykh gramot i vypisok, ob’iasniaiushchikh onoe, takzhe planov Lavry i obeikh peshcher, 2nd ed. suppl. and widened (Kiev: Tip. Kievopecherskoĭ Lavry, 1831), 127–159 (on 12thcentury abbots at p. 131–7). 102 PSRL, 2, 274. 103 Ibid., 290. 104 Ibid., 293. 105 Ibid., 366. 106 PSRL, 1, 483. 107 PSRL, 2, 530. 108 Ibid., 626–7. 109 Ibid., 707. 110 See: Priselkov, Ocherki, 194–5. 111 See: Karpov, Russkaia tserkov’, 26–7. 112 See appendix 1. 113 See: Nikolai G. Berezhkov, Khronologiia russkogo letopisaniia (Moscow: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1963), 23–4, 41–2, 124–211.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus table 12

299

The usage of the March and the ultra-March styles in the Kievan Chronicle and the succession of abbots of the Cave Monasterya

Berezhkov’s segments

abbots

annals for 1111–24: March style annals for 1125–40: ultra-March style

Prokhor (1112–26) Timofei (mentioned s.a. 1130) Pimen (?) Pimen (?) Feodosii II (mentioned s.a. 1148, died in 1156) ? Polikarp (mentioned s.a. 1168, died in 1182) Vasilii (from 1182)

annals for 1141–56: March style

annals for 1157–77: ultra-March style

annals for 1178–98: March style

a Years in both the columns of this table are annal-numbers of Hyp. minus 5508, not necessarily real dates of events.

Berezhkov’s boundaries of 1124–5 and 1156–7 match well the known changes of abbots (1126 and 1156). The boundary of 1177–8 is more a problem: the change of abbots is reported by Hyp. a few years later, s.a. 1182. However, the chronology of the annals for 1178–83 is very much confused: in general, Berezhkov defines this group of annals as ‘March minus one’.114 Certainly, this is not a special style, but a shift by mistake, which could be made if those annals were written retrospectively, at a chronological remove. Precise dates (month-andday or the like) are absent s.a. 1178–80, if not to count the date of Mstislav the Brave’s death in Novgorod (s.a. 1178, in a narration probably added by the final compiler of the Kievan Chronicle115), and two dates of events in Chernigov s.a. 1179 (both probably taken by the same compiler from a Chernigov source). From 1181 precise dates of events in Kiev appear, including that of the death of Abbot Polikarp s.a. 1182. However, s.a. 1183 it is said that Prince Vladimir of Galich, in exile, came to Prince Igor Sviatoslavich to the town of Putivl, and Igor welcomed him with honor, and ‘retained him with himself for two years, and in the third year [Igor] reconciled him with his father’ (‘и за двѣ лѣтѣ держа и у себе, и на третьее лѣто введе и в любовь со отцемь его’).116 If this is not a later addition, this means that this part of the annal for 1183 was 114 Berezhkov, Khronologiia, 195–6, 199–202. 115 Priselkov, Istoriia, 88. 116 PSRL, 2, 634.

300

chapter 4

written two or three years later. Therefore, the annals for the late 1170s and the early 1180s were not written strictly contemporarily with the events, there were long breaks in updating annals. Therefore, it is plausible that the annals from 1178 (where the ‘March’ segment starts) were written by the new annalist, the one who started his work already under Abbot Vasilii, after 1182. So, the last segment of the Kievan Chronicle (the ‘annals of Vasilii’) starts from the entry for 1178. The most outstanding section of the Kievan Chronicle is the text for 1146–55. Those annals are the most voluminous, they are full of details of interrelations and wars between princes, including the greatest concentration of so-called ‘messages’—texts sent from one prince to another, regardless of whether they were written messages or as something learnt by heart by envoys.117 This interval seems to match the office of Abbot Feodosii II. The end of the interval coincides strictly with his death (1156). He is mentioned for the first time s.a. 1148, and he was likely already to be abbot by 1143.118 This matches the fact that the character of the annals changes from 1146. It would be legitimate, thus, to attribute the Kievan Chronicle’s annals for 1146–55 to a scribe connected with Feodosii II. Scholars attribute to Feodosii II several other pieces of writing (two epistles to Prince Iziaslav—the one on fasting and the other against the ‘Latinians’, i.e. Western Christians—a translation of Leo the Great’s Tome, and probably a homily on St. Clement).119 So, Feodosii II was likely to be a person involved in literature, who could be responsible for the outstanding features of the Kievan annals for the time of his office.120 One can add that within this interval the Kievan Chronicle does not report changes of bishops of Rus sees. Up to 1144 such events are reported quite regularily, from 1158 they again start to be reported, although more seldom. Also, between 1145 and 1161 there are no notes on natural phenomena and disasters. Between 1147 and 1156 notes on changes of ecclesiastics, building of churches, and natural phenomena are totally absent.121 At the same time, the content of those annals (full of precise dates and factual detail) shows that they were 117 See on those ‘messages’ subchapter 4.7. 118 Priselkov, Ocherki, 198. 119 See the most recent studies: Aleksandr V. Nazarenko, ‘Slovo na obnovlenie Desiatinnoi tserkvi’, ili k istorii pochitaniia sviatitelia Klimenta Rimskogo v Drevnei Rusi (Moscow – Brussels: Conférence Sainte Trinité de Patriarcate de Moscou ASBL, 2013), 131–3; Dmitrii A. Dobrovol’skii, “ ‘Slovo o vere khristianskoi i o latinskoi’ v istoricheskom kontekste serediny XII v.,” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e 30 (2018): 88–92; Polonskii, Dmitrii G. “Antilatinskaia polemika v Kieve XII v. i deiatel’nost’ Feodosiia ‘Greka’ v kontekste politiki kniazia Iziaslava Mstislavicha,” ibid., 247–51. 120 Feodosii’s involvement in annalistic writing has been supposed by Mikhail Priselkov, but too briefly (Priselkov, Ocherki, 199). 121 See also below, diagram 7 and subchapter 4.10.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

301

written contemporarily, not at a chronological remove. The annalist of Abbot Feodosii II seems to be interested in details of contemporary politics and war but indifferent to other kinds of events. One also finds no notes on natural phenomena between 1164 and 1180—and this seems to match Abbot Policarp’s office, although we do not know the date of its beginning. Also, only from 1159 to 1180 the annals mention the names of non-princes being prisoners of war.122 An interest to the affairs in Polotsk, which is not typical for earlier and later annals, can be traced from 1159 to 1165. On can suggest that the compiler of the Kievan Chronicle c. 1198 used a source from Polotsk, as he used a source from the Northeast and probably from Chernigov,123 but why was such a source used only in a few annals? It seems more plausible, that the interest to Polotsk was characteristic to the individual who kept the main annals of Kiev in the late 1150s and the early 1160s.124 S.a. 1144, for the last time before a very long break, the Kievan Chronicle reports building of churches in Southern Rus. Such notes appear again only from 1183—and this matches another change of abbots, the death of Polikarp and the election of Vasilii in 1182. Vasilii’s section of the annals contains only three such notes (s.a. 1183 and two s.a. 1197) but all the three are quite similar, all containing lists of ecclesiastics who participated in the ceremony of consecration. From 1180 the annals start to list names of rulers of the Cumans (polovtsy).125 Also, as Vera Franchuk notices, from 1180 to 1198 the annalist is interested in Christian (baptismal) names of princes and princesses.126 As the analysis of chronological styles show (table 12 above), the annalist of Abbot Vasilii probably wrote the text from as early as the annal for 1178, so these are his features. If those observations are correct, the Kievan Cave Monastery patronized the main annals of Kiev throughout the 12th century, and therefore they were a 122 Such names also are given s.a. 1136 and 1144 (twice). On non-Rurikids mentioned in letopisi see subchapter 4.4. 123 See above, note 90. 124 It is worth reminding that, as it has already been said, s.a. 1158 the death of a widow of a prince of Minsk (in the Polotsk Land) is reported, and her family’s donations to the Kievan Cave Monastery are carefully listed. Gleb died many years earlier, in 1119, and we do not know where his widow lived after that, but even if she lived in Kiev her connections with the Land of Polotsk are plausible. Perhaps, here is the key to the Polotsk interests of the Kievan annalist around the time of her death. 125 S.a. 1180, 1183, 1193. 126 Vera Iu. Franchuk, Kievskaia letopis’: Sostav i istochniki v lingvisticheskom osveshchenii (Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1986), 19–20. Otherwise, princes are mostly called their traditional (‘princely’) names (such as Vsevolod, Rurik, etc.) which in most of the cases are not identical to the baptismal ones.

302

chapter 4

direct continuation of the annalistic tradition that emerged in the house in the second half of the 11th century and underlies the bulk of the text of PVL. Contrary to Novgorod and the Northeast (with their episcopal annals), Kievan annalistic writing was located in suburban monasteries, at least in two of them: the Cave Monastery (where more or less continuous chronicle was kept year by year) and the Vydubichi Monastery (where in 1116 Abbot Silvestr, and c. 1198 Abbot Moisei [?] created new manuscripts, or versions, or compilations of annals). In the Northwest and the Northeast, monasteries only ordered copies of, or excerpts from, episcopal annals. In Kiev, Greeks mostly occupied the metropolitan see, and it is natural that it was not a center of the writing of annals—a genre closely associated with Rus politics and Rus self-consciousness. Archbishops and bishops (of Novgorod, Rostov, etc.) often were of Rus origin and, sometimes, former monks of the Kievan Cave Monastery. This, together with the relative stability of episcopal power in comparison with that of princes (especially in Novgorod), made archbishops or bishops the most natural patrons of annalistic writing. These conclusions do not necessarily mean that lay rulers, Rurikid princes, could not act as patrons of annalistic writing: certainly they did. It is very plausible that the creation of PVL in the 1110s was sponsored by Vladimir Monomakh,127 that the writing of the Kievan Chronicle c. 1198 was sponsored by his grand-grandson Rurik Rostislavich,128 that the Vladimir compilation of c. 1206 was sponsored by Monomakh’s grandson Vsevolod ‘the Big Nest’,129 and so on. In the case of Laur. of 1377 (see the quotation above) a prince is explicitly named as one of the two addressees of the work (the other is bishop). It well may be that those princes not only sponsored the work but also initiated it, and maybe influenced its content, thus demonstrating some sense of the significance of annalistic writing for their realms. However, the idea that one can counterpose ‘princely’ and purely ecclesiastical annals130 seems not productive: in any case all the annals were written in religious houses, by clerics. The role of princes—although probably sometimes important—is apparent in the cases when, say, a one-sitting enterprise was undertaken. The patronizing of yearly updating of annals seems to have been a prerogative of ecclesiastical institutions.131 127 See subchapter 2.1 on Silvestr and his colophon mentioning Vladimir Monomakh. 128 As it ends with a panegyric to him, see, e.g.: Priselkov, Istoriia, 87–8. 129 It is plausible that the prince commissioned this work to the Monastery of the Nativity of St. Mary (see: Miliutenko, “Vladimirskii velikokniazheskii svod,” 58). 130 See e.g.: Priselkov, Istoriia, 110–1; Koniavskaia, “Tverskoe vladychnoe letopisanie,” 139 ff. 131 In many cases, as scholars have noticed, annalistic narrations are biased in favour of certain princes or branches of the dynasty of Rurikids (see at least two books written

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

303

Finally, a few words should be said on the personal status of the scribes who were involved into annalistic writing. As it has been said above,132 we know very few names of annalists. Only four or five of them are explicitly given in the annals: Vasilii (mentioned s.a. 1097), Abbot Silvestr (worked in 1116), Sexton Timofei (mentioned s.a. 1230), Monk Lavrentii (worked in 1377), and, probably, Monk Nestor (some sources assign to him the writing of PVL). One can be more or less certain about the annalistic activity of Monk Nikon of the Cave Monastery (the 11th century),133 Deacon Kirik, Priest German Voyata (the 12th century),134 Abbot Moisei of Vydubichi (c. 1198), maybe some other. Besides Vasilii whose status is unknowm, all belonged to clergy, both monastic and secular.135 Kirik, German, and Timofei, although being clerics of a suburban monastery (Kirik) or a parish church (German and Timofei), probably acted as archiepiscopal secretaries,136 and in that capacity were entrusted to keep annals. Abbots of the Vydubichi Monastery near Kiev, Silvestr and Moisei, were themselves heads of their house. Monk Lavrentii, as quoted above, acted by the order of his prince and with the blessing of his bishop. Monks of the Kievan Cave Monastery, Nikon and Nestor, if they were indeed annalists, are likely to have worked under the supervision of their abbots, but we have no direct evidence about that. 4.3

What Kinds of Events Did the Annalists Report?137

Any extant manuscript of Rus letopisi contains hundreds of items—brief notes or extended narrations—on various kinds of events: from successions of princes to natural phenomena. As it has been said above,138 in most of the

132 133 134 135 136 137

138

by scholars of different generations and methodological approaches: Priselkov, Istoriia; Vilkul, Liudi i kniaz’). But does this always mean that the princes in question necessarily were commissioners of the annals? Other possibilities (patronage by a lay aristocrat, by a city or district community, private initiative of the annalist himself) have been suggested in relation to certain hypothetical stages of the annalistic work, but seem hardly probable. Subchapter 1.2. Subchapter 2.2. Subchapter 3.4. The hypothesis of boyarin Petr Borislavich as the annalist is excessive, see note 89. Subchapter 3.4. A preliminary version of this subchapter is a part of my paper: Timofey V. Guimon, “What Events Were Reported by the Old Rus’ Chroniclers?,” COLLeGIUM: Studies across Disciplines in the Humanities and Social Sciences 17 (2015): 92–117 https://helda.helsinki.fi/ bitstream/handle/10138/153792/VOL17_05_guimon.pdf?sequence=1. Subchapter 1.2.

304

chapter 4

cases the division of an annal into such items is a simple procedure: they are separated from one another by wordings ‘In that same year’ (‘Въ то же лѣто’) or the like. Although in some cases such a division is an ambiguous operation, in general the annalistic text can be regarded as atomic, and thus suitable for a quantitative analysis. To catalogue and classify those items, to count items of different groups, to follow the distribution of various groups of items, as well as to compare different annalistic texts from this point of view, seems a useful task. It can help us to understand better the purposes of the annalistic writing, to clarify the special features of certain texts or traditions, and—the last but not the least—to give some additional data for the reconstruction of the details of textual history. The latter implication has already been demonstrated above on the examples of the annalistic writing of Novgorod, Rostov, and Kiev.139 Here my purpose is rather to understand better letopisi as a kind of text and to outline the specificity of the annals of different cities and periods. It may seem strange, but scholars almost did not try to use this opportunity of studying letopisi. Besides my own works there is only one, small paper by Olga Kvirkvelia, who undertook a systematic analysis of the circle of events reported in a fragment of N1 (annals for 1113–62).140 Her purpose was mainly to find out if there are changes in the interests of the annalists that can reflect changes of authors—an approach which I also use extensively. Also, some scholars presented general overviews of the circle of annalists’ interests, or, on the contrary, dedicated systematic studies only to certain kinds of events reported in letopisi.141 In addition, I can refer to some studies of the same problem on similar foreign texts.142 139 140 141 142

Subchapters 3.4, 4.2. Kvirkveliia, “Metodika,” 83–97. See references in: Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 142–3. Alfred P. Smyth, King Alfred the Great (New York – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 478–82, 490–2, 496–7, 508–12; Zoia Iu. Metlitskaia [Metlitskaya], “Istoriia v khronikakh: Istoricheskoe soznanie anglosaksonskoi Anglii,” in Dialogi so vremenem: Pamiat’ o proshlom v kontekste istorii, ed. Lorina P. Repina. Moscow: Krug’, 2008, 157–61 (on the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle); Timofey V. Gimon [Guimon] and Zoia Iu. Metlitskaia [Metlistkaya], Granitsy oikumeny letopistsa: Soobshcheniia anglo-saksonskikh, irlandskikh i drevnerusskikh annalov o sobytiiakh za predelami svoikh stran,” Istoricheskaia geografiia 2 (2014): 171–200 (on notes on foreign events in the Anglo-Saxon, Irish, and Rus annals); Flechner, “The Chronicle of Ireland;” Dega V. Deopik, “Opyt kolichestvennogo analiza drevnei vostochnoi letopisi ‘Chun’tsiu’,” in Konfutsieva letopis’ Chun’tsiu (Vesny i oseni), ed. Artemii M. Karapet’ianst (Moscow: Vostochnaia literatura, 1999), 195–234 [first published in 1977]; idem, “Nekotorye tendentsii v sotsial’noi i politicheskoi istorii Vostochnoi Azii v VIII–V vv. do n.e. (na osnove sistematizatsii dannykh ‘Chun’tsiu’),” ibid., 235–63 [first published in 1976] (on the Chinese annals).

305

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus table 13

Kinds of events recorded in the principal early Rus’ annalistic texts

Political and military events Of which: Changes and deaths of city magistrates Events in princely families Changes of ecclesiastical hierarchs Building of churches Natural phenomena, omens, and disasters Construction of fortifications, bridges and other civil structures Other Total

PVL, 852–1110

Kievan Chronicle, 1111–98

Laur., 1111–1305

N1, 1115–1414

Total

193 (59.4%)

316 (62.8%)

335 (58.6%)

558 (50.2%)

1402 (55.8%)

–

–

–

65 (5.9%)

29 (8.9%)

74 (14.7%) 64 (11.2%) 15 (1.4%)

182 (7.2%)

12 (3.7%)

40 (8%)

55 (9.6%)

85 (7.7%)

192 (7.6%)

20 (6.2%)

24 (4.8%)

44 (7.7%)

27 (8.3%)

31 (6.2%)

46 (8%)

191 (17.2%) 161 (14.5%)

279 (11.1%) 265 (10.6%)

5 (1.5%)

6 (1.2%)

8 (1.4%)

30 (2.7%)

49 (2%)

39 (12%) 325

12 (2.4%) 503

20 (3.5%) 572

71 (6.4%) 1111

142 (5.7%) 2511

The circle of events reported by the Novgorodian annalists has already been analyzed above.143 In Table 13 those data are compared with the circle of interests of the annalists working outside Novgorod, mainly in Kiev and Northeastern Rus. Here the items of four texts are studied: (1) PVL (as represented by Laur.); (2) Hyp. for 1111–1198 (that is, the Kievan Chronicle); (3) Laur. for 1111–1305; (4) N1 (Syn. from the linguistic boundary s.a. 1115, and up to 1330, supplemented by the annals of N1Y for 1273–99 and 1331–1414). We see from this chart that 50.2 to 62.8% of the notes and narrations in each text are dedicated to political and military events. It is difficult to divide 143 Subchapter 3.6.

306

chapter 4

this group of notes into sub-groups, but in general it can be said that the subgroups would include changes of princes, conflicts between them, revolts and conspiracies, wars (internal, with nomads, etc.), meetings of princes and peace agreements, relationships between Rus princes and Tatar rulers (after the 1230s), and the like. I included into this group all notes on deaths of male representatives of princely families. It is a questionable decision, for sometimes very young boys died, an event that may be closer to the next group (‘events in princely families’). But in many cases it is impossible to decide whose death is mentioned: that of an underage boy or a political figure. As a result, all male deaths are counted here as political events. Only in the Novgorodian annals this group includes notes on changes of city magistrates (posadniks and tysiatskys: 65 notes, or 5.9% of the total). Those offices existed in other cities as well, but only in Novgorod (and later in Pskov), as far as we know, they played the role of important ‘republican’ institutions. In general, notes and narrations on political and military events form the main ‘plot’ of letopisi, and in some sections, as we will see below, they are the only content. The group labelled ‘events in princely families’ includes births of princes’ sons and daughters, deaths of female members of the ruling dynasty, weddings, and, finally, postrigi (cutting hair—a kind of initiation for princely boys). Notes in this group are very rare in N1, because of the unstable position of princes and their frequent changes in Novgorod. Such notes are more numerous in PVL, Laur. and, especially, in the Kievan Chronicle. Notes on changes of ecclesiastical rulers (metropolitans, archbishops, bishops, and abbots) have approximately equal weight (about 8–10%) in all the texts except PVL, where they are less numerous. Notes on the building of churches (I also include here painting and renovating of churches as well as the founding of monasteries) make up 17.7% in N1 and from 4.8 to 7.3% in the other chronicles. The Novgorodian annalists were the only ones to write down building of churches during all the period studied, as well as to report the construction not only of stone churches, but also of wooden ones. The situation is somewhat the same with natural phenomena and disasters (eclipses, comets, earthquakes, fires, floods, pestilence, locusts, bad harvests, and the like). Their weight is similar in all the chronicles, but again the First Novgorodian Chronicle is at the forefront (with 14.5%), and the Kievan Chronicle has the least (with 6.2%). Those four groups will be discussed in detail below.144 Notes on civic building are very rare in all the texts. Most of them report construction of fortresses or bridges, but one (PVL s.a. 1089) is dedicated to the building activity of Metropolitan Efrem in Pereyaslavl-upon-Dnieper: he 144 Subchapter 4.10.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

307

established two churches, a stone bathhouse (the first in Rus, as the annalist emphasises), stone city walls, and other buildings. The group labelled ‘other’ includes notes on assorted events: the visits and movements of princes, church hierarchs, and so on, as well as martyrdoms, translations of relics, illnesses of princes, etc. Six times the chroniclers report (as separate notes) deaths of people who were neither members of the princely dynasty nor church hierarchs, nor were they Novgorodian city magistrates (not even former ones). All those cases deserve special attention. Ian [Vyshatich] (PVL s.a. 1106) is said to have been the annalist’s informant.145 Petr Iliich (the Kievan Chronicle s.a. 1147) is said to be the ‘man’ of Prince Sviatoslav’s father and to have died at the age of 90, exactly like Ian in 1106. German Voiata (Syn. s.a 1188) was a parish priest and, at the same time, an annalist.146 The deaths of three representatives of a Novgorodian aristocratic family of Malyshevichi (in the years 1217, 1243, and 1247) were mentioned by the Novgorodian annals, perhaps owing to their importance for Novgorodian politics.147 Some notes are of canonical importance. PVL s.a. 1108 reports that a liturgical commemoration of Abbot Feodosii I of the Cave Monastery was introduced in all dioceses of Rus. N1 s.a. 1145 says: In that same year two priests drowned, and the bishop did not allow a requiem service for them. Въ то же лѣто утопоста 2 попа, и не да епископъ надъ нима пѣти. N1 s.a. 1227 reports the burning of four sorcerers (volkhvs), who were blamed for witchcraft (and the annalist comments that only God knows if this was truth).148 It is impossible to list here all of the items labelled here ‘other’, but it is worth pointing out that I also included in this group some narrations in PVL concerned with Christian enlightenment of the Slavs and the Rus, as well as some rhetorical passages that could be regarded as separate items in the annalistic text. The percentage of such narrations and notes in PVL (12%) is much larger than in later chronicles (1.8–4.6%). The content of PVL is less standard, because the early Kievan historiographers had to deal with the beginnings of the state and the church, with a remote legendary past, and not only 145 See subchapter 2.2. 146 See subchapter 3.4. 147 See: Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “V kakikh sluchaiakh imena novgorodtsev popadali na stranitsy letopisi (XII–XIII vv.)?,” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2004 (2006): 302–4. 148 Quoted above, on p. 227.

308

chapter 4

with ‘routine’ events of their time. By contrast, the low percentage of ‘untypical’ notes in the later chronicles shows a certain level of their uniformity, a tradition that had already been established. To discuss this level of uniformity another procedure may be helpful. The diagrams below reflect the distribution of annalistic notes on four kinds of, say, ‘non-political’ events: events in princely family (births, deaths of women, weddings, postrigi), changes of ecclesiastical hierarchs, building of churches, and natural phenomena and disasters. Notes on political and military events are excluded from the diagrams simply because such events are reported in almost each annual entry in every text. Nor do I include the notes on civic building and ‘other’ events, as they are rare and would not alter the results very much. Thus, the idea is to map four kinds of notes—those that appear in all the texts studied, but which at the same time are distributed unevenly. Diagram 5 shows the distribution of ‘non-political’ notes in Syn. for 1115– 1238, that is, before the Mongolian invasion of Rus. This diagram shows no long breaks in reporting ‘non-political’ events (excluding family events, which are relatively rare in the Novgorodian annals, as already has been pointed out). This corresponds well to what we know of the annalistic writing in Novgorod in the 12th and early 13th centuries. Archiepiscopal annalists updated the annals year by year, and, although their work at different moments could be more or less regular, the annalists were always contemporaries with the events they described.149 Thus, if they had the idea that they should report certain kinds of events, they could easily do so. But, although the annals of Novgorod continued to be kept year by year after 1238, the diagram presents a different picture (see Diagram 6). Even though the Mongols did not invade Novgorod itself, something in the annalistic writing changed. Firstly, there was an obvious crisis in church construction in Novgorod, which is reflected in the absence of notes on church building between 1238 and 1261; from 1262 such notes appear again, but up to the 1290s they are far more seldom than before 1238. Secondly, we see long gaps in the reporting on any of ‘non-political’ events, specifically in the years 1245– 8, 1253–8, 1263–6, 1277–80, 1282–90, 1314–20. One cannot conclude that those breaks always reflect long lapses in keeping the annals, because sometimes in those intervals there are precise dates, which were probably recorded contemporaneously. It is impossible now to interpret those breaks in any simple way, but it seems clear that, after the Mongol invasion, the annalistic writing in Novgorod became less systematic, both in the periodicity of making new records and in the regularity of reporting ‘non-political’ events. The Kievan Chronicle presents a somewhat similar picture (see Diagram 7). 149 Subchapter 3.5.

309

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

1116 1119 1122 1125 1128 1131 1134 1137 1140 1143 1146 1149 1152 1155 1158 1161 1164 1167 1170 1173 1176 1179 1182 1185 1188 1191 1194 1197 1200 1203 1206 1209 1212 1215 1218 1221 1224 1227 1229 1232 1235 1238

Family events Changes of Ecclesias�cal Hierarchs Building of churches Natural phenomena and disasters

0

2

4

6

8

diagram 5 Distribution of ‘non-political’ notes in Syn., 1115–1238

310

chapter 4

1240 1242 1244 1246 1248 1250 1252 1254 1256 1258 1260 1262 1264 1266 1268 1270 1272 1274 1276 1277 1279 1281 1283 1285 1287 1290 1292 1294 1296 1298 1300 1302 1304 1306 1308 1310 1312 1314 1316 1318 1320 1322 1324 1326 1328 1330

Family events Changes of Ecclesias�cal Hierarchs Building of churches Natural phenomena and disasters

0

1

2

3

4

5

diagram 6 Distribution of ‘non-political’ notes in N1, 1240–1330

311

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

1112 1114 1116 1118 1120 1122 1124 1126 1128 1130 1132 1134 1136 1138 1140 1142 1144 1146 1148 1150 1152 1154 1156 1158 1160 1162 1164 1166 1168 1170 1172 1174 1176 1178 1180 1182 1184 1186 1188 1190 1192 1194 1196 1198 1200

Family events Changes of Ecclesias�cal Hierarchs Building of churches Natural phenomena and disasters

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

diagram 7 Distribution of ‘non-political’ notes in the Hyp., 1110–1200

312

chapter 4

As it has been said in the previous subchapter, the absence of ‘non-political’ events (except family ones) from the annals for 1148–55 likely signifies not a break in continuous annalistic writing but the preferences of one particular annalist, the one associated with Abbot Feodosii II (before 1148–56). In general, those three diagrams150 demonstrate that, although annalists in Rus followed somewhat similar guidelines concerning the circle of events to be reported, and this circle, generally, included family events, changes of ecclesiastical rulers, building of churches, and natural phenomena, sometimes the content of the annals reduced to only the main topic: political and military events. The analysis of the circle of events reported by letopisi leads to the following conclusions: 1. The main topic of all letopisi lies within the sphere of politics (successions of princes, their rivalry, their relations with each other and with the city communities, as well as inner and external wars). Notes or extended narrations on such events make up a half or even more of all the items of all the four texts analyzed. In terms of volume the weight of political items is even bigger. And in some sections of those texts such items are the only content. 2. Nevertheless, such topics as changes of ecclesiastical rulers, natural phenomena, family events of Rurikids, and building of churches also are typical to all the texts analyzed. The frequency of notes belonging to those groups varies substantially, both in space and in time, as the diagrams above show. This variation partly can be explained by the unevenness of the very process of keeping annals (entries created retrospectively are likely to report politics only), and partly by the difference between the guidelines preferred by local traditions or by individual annalists. 3. The specificity of PVL is that of a formative period: later annalists’ guidelines became more traditional, the practice became more routine, and the content became more uniform. 4. The Novgorodian annals are unique in their attention to the inner politics of the city: they report changes of city magistrates and the inner conflicts. The other texts speak mostly about Rurikid princes, and the Novgorodian annals also are concerned with the figures of the Novgorodian inner politics (as also will be shown in the next subchapter). The special attention of the Novgorodian annals to the construction of churches may be of the 150 For more diagrams, covering also PVL and Laur., see: Guimon, “What Events Were Reported”.

313

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus table 14

A comparison of the content of the annals of England, Ireland and Rus

Political and military events (including changes and deaths of rulers, wars, conflicts and revolts, peaceful agreements, changes of city magistrates) Events in ruling families (births, deaths of women, marriages etc.) Ecclesiastical events the conversion into Christianity and the spread of writing changes and deaths of ecclesiastical hierarchs building of churches translations of relics and similar events Natural phenomena, omens, and disasters phenomena which were not disasters (eclipses etc.) disasters (fires, floods, famines, pestilences etc.) Construction of fortresses and bridges Movements of lay and church hierarchs Deaths (except those of rulers and church hierarchs) Chronology and computus Events outside the annalist’s own country Other Total:

England

Ireland

Rus

1189 (47.9%)

3737 (54.8%)

1263 (58%)

31 (1.2%)

37 (0.5%)

193 (8.9%)

499 (20.1%) 43 (1.7%)

1502 (22%) 7 (0.1%)

377 (17.3%) 10 (0.5%)

418 (16.9%)

1441 (21.1%)

182 (8.4%)

29 (1.2%) 9 (0.4%)

24 (0.4%) 30 (0.4%)

173 (8%) 12 (0.6)

137 (5.5%)

371 (5.4%)

197 (9.1%)

75 (3%)

210 (3.1%)

77 (3.5%)

62 (2.5%)

161 (2.4%)

120 (5.5%)

24 (1%)

10 (0.1%)

35 (1.6%)

29 (1.2%)

7 (0.1%)

24 (1.1%)

68 (2.7%)

514 (7.5%)

6 (0.3%)

13 (0.5%) 270 (10.9%)

34 (0.5%) 365 (5.4%)

2 (0.1%) 32 (1.5%)

221 (8.9%) 2481

239 (3.5%) 6816

47 (2.2%) 2176

314

chapter 4

same nature: the building was sponsored, in very many cases, by powerful participants of the Novgorodian politics, and was a significant aspect of the inner life of the city.151 It would be interesting to look at the content of Rus letopisi in a comparative perspective.152 It is possible to undertake a similar procedure with some foreign annalistic traditions. In our joint paper with Zoia Metlitskaia153 we compared the circle of events reported by the annals of three countries: Anglo-Saxon England, Ireland, and Rus (see Table 14).154 The following observations can be made. Firstly, the key groups of events reported by annalists are the same in all the three traditions. Political and military events form a majority in all the three traditions, although in the Rus annals their weight is the biggest. Secondly, the annals of Rus pay much more attention to family events and building of churches, than the English and the Irish ones. The weight of natural phenomena and disasters also is bigger in the Rus annals (mostly due to disasters: the weight of celestial omens and the like is approximately the same: 3–3.5%). Changes of church hierarchs, to the contrary, are reported by the English and Irish annals much more often than by the Rus ones. In general, those figures make one think more of the similarity than of the differences of those three annalistic traditions. 4.4

Who Could Be Mentioned in the Annals, and Why: Non-Rurikids in letopisi

Princes belonging to the Rurik dynasty are the main actors in all early Rus letopisi. Also, much is reported about ecclesiastics (bishops, abbots, etc.). In many cases city communities (such as the Kievans, the Novgorodians etc.) play a role

151 See on this form of rivalry: Aleksei A. Gippius, “Sopernichestvo gorodskikh kontsov kak faktor kul’turnoi istorii Novgoroda XII–XIII vv.,” in Spory o novgorodskom veche: Mezhdistsiplinarnyi dialog: Mat-ly kruglogo stola, Evropeiskii un-t v Sankt-Peterburge, 20 sentiabria 2010 g., ed. Mikhail M. Krom (Saint-Petersburg: Izd-vo EUSPb), 2012, 121–35. 152 See also a brief comparison of the content of the Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod with that of three strictly contemporary sections of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and with the Chronicle of Ireland in subchapter 3.7. 153 Delivered in the 7th International Chronicle Conference in July 2014 in Liverpool, but not yet published. I quote here this paper by Dr Metlitskaia’s kind permission. 154 In table 14 we counted the items of manuscripts A, C, D, and E of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the Irish Annals of Tigernagh (text for 431–1178) and Annals of Ulster (annals only for 431–1130), and Rus letopisi: PVL, Laur. (after PVL), Hyp. (for 1110–1200), and Syn. (and so, the firgures for Rus differ from those in table 13 above, although not crucially).

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

315

of collective actors.155 All this is more or less obvious. More interesting, to my mind, is to follow in which cases other individuals (not Rurikids, not ecclesiastics, and not foreigners) had chances to be mentioned in Rus annals. From this point of view all the early156 annalistic material can be divided into three domains: 1. the early section of PVL (up to the mid-11th century); 2. the Novgorodian annals from the 1110s; 3. all other texts (that is, the rest of PVL, the Kievan Chronicle, the Northeastern material in Laur. and LPS).157 The early section of PVL (up to the mid-11th century). All, or almost all, the names of non-Rurikids mentioned in this part of PVL were, no doubt, taken from oral tradition. The occurrences of non-Rurikids in the narration of the early princes can be united into several groups. 1. ‘Princes’ (князья) not belonging to the Rurik dynasty which overwhelmed: brothers Kii, Shchek, and Khoriv, and their sister Lybed’ (Кий, Щек, Хорив, Лыбедь—legendary founders of Kiev mentioned in the introduction of PVL), Askold and Dir (princes of Kiev killed by Oleg, s.a. 862, 866, 882), Mal (prince of the Drevliane killed by Princess Olga, s.a. 945), Rogvolod (prince of Polotsk killed by Vladimir, s.a. 980), Tury (Туры, eponymous prince of Turov, just mentioned s.a. 980). 2. Military commanders usually labeled as voevoda (воевода, i.e. ‘leader of warriors’): Sveneld (s.a. 945, 946, 971, 972, 975, and 977), Blud (s.a. 980), Volchii Khvost (i.e. Wolf’s Tail, s.a. 984), Budy (s.a. 1018), Vyshata and Ivan Tvorimirich (both s.a. 1043). This list will be incomplete without Dobrynia, Vladimir’s maternal uncle and closest confidant (s.a. 970, 980, 985), who, no doubt, also had the status of voevoda.158 It must be noted that the text of N1Y (which reflects, as many scholars think, the Initial Compilation of the 1090s) presents a somewhat more 155 See an analysis of the functions of such collective actors in the Novgorodian annals: Guimon, “Community names.” 156 In this subchapter I won’t analyze any 14th century material. 157 A fourth domain would be the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle which mentions numerous local non-Rurikids, but, as it is a very specific text, not belonging to letopisi proper, it won’t be discussed here. See a biographical dictionary of 95 non-Rurikids mentioned in that source: Adrian Jusupowić, Elity ziemi Halickiej i Wołyńskiej w czasach Romanowiczów (1205–1269). Studium prosopograficzne (Kraków: Avalon, 2016). 158 Dobrynia is called voevoda only in Laur. s.a. 1128 where again a legendary story about Vladimir is retold. However, there can be little doubt that Dobrynia’s function at Vladimir’s court did not differ much from that of Sveneld at the courts of his father and grandfather. See: Aleksandr E. Presniakov, “Kormilets, voevoda, tysiatskii,” Izvestia Otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnisti Imperatorskoi Akademii nauk 13, book 1 (1908): 156.

316

chapter 4

coherent picture in what concerns voevodas. According to N1Y, Oleg (in PVL, the first prince who united Novgorod and Kiev) was no more than Prince Igor’s voevoda. Immediately after reporting Oleg’s death N1Y introduces Igor’s new voevoda Sveneld159 who served Igor and later his son Sviatoslav. After Sviatoslav’s death his son Iaropolk had voevoda Blud, and his son Vladimir was always supported by Dobrynia, surely also his voevoda. Blud was a bad voevoda, who betrayed Iaropolk (s.a. 980), and Dobrynia was a good one: due to his help and advice Vladimir became prince of Novgorod, and later of Kiev (s.a. 970, 980).160 In N1Y, thus, one can trace a certain view of history: each of the early princes had an important voevoda near him. This view can be paralleled to the so-called Introduction to the Initial Compilation as well as to the annal for 1093: in both princes are recommended to follow the advice of wise men. This view must be attributed to the compiler of the Initial Compilation of the 1090s,161 although it is more than probable that at least some of the stories of those voevodas go back to the Oldest Tale. Several other people are mentioned in PVL in connection with those voevodas. S.a. 945–6 Sveneld is mentioned twice in pare with Asmud, who is labeled as kormilets (кормилец, i.e. the one who feeds, rather, a tutor) of young Prince Sviatoslav. Two sons of Sveneld are mentioned: Mistisha (s.a. 945) and Lut (s.a. 975162). When explaining the relationship of Vladimir and Dobrynia (s.a. 970) the annalist names Vladimir’s mother Malusha, and her (and Dobrynia’s) father Malko of Lubech. 3. Several prominent 11th-century inhabitants of Kiev are mentioned when the annalist tries to explain the location of certain objects in past times: he says that the tomb (presumably tumulus) of Askold used to be where now is Olma’s court (s.a. 882),163 and that the early fortress used to be on hilltop, where now are the courts of Gordiata and Nikifor, the prince’s court was where now are the courts of Vorotislav and Chudin, and in the place of another prince’s court now is that of Demestik (s.a. 945).164 Some of the owners of those courts are known to live in the 1060s–70s, and thus those topographic comments must be attributed to an author of that time.165 159 160 161 162 163 164 165

PSRL, 3, 109. Ibid., 121, 124, 126–7. Gimon, “Ian’ Vyshatich,” 107–10. The fragment is quoted on p. 112. PSRL, 1, 23. Ibid., 55. See chapter 2, note 99.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

317

4.

The narration of the martyrdom of St. Princes Boris and Gleb s.a. 1015 contains six names of the murderers as well as one name of a faithful servant of Boris who was killed together with him. The Novgorodian annals.166 From the early 12th century the Novgorodian annals (as reflected in both versions of N1, Syn. and N1Y) start to mention names of numerous Novgorodians (of course, mostly noble ones). In the annals from 1113 to 1274167 I counted 222 such occurrences.168 Most of them can be classified into several groups. 1. Changes of posadniks. As it has been already said,169 the annals of Novgorod (unlike those of Kiev and the Northeast) in the 12th and the 13th centuries regularly report changes of the city magistrates: posadniks. Although the chain of such notes is not absolutely uninterruptable,170 one can be sure that all, or almost all, persons who held this office are mentioned in that capacity. 2. Changes of tysiatskys. The annalists follow changes of tysiatskys much less systematically than those of posadniks. There are only 8 notes on changes of tysiatskys, all in the annals for the 13th century, starting from 1219 (although the institute of tysiatsky existed at least from the late 12th century). In all those cases changes of tysiatskys are reported in addition to those of posadniks. 3. Deaths of Novgorodians who were neither posadniks nor tysiatskys at the moment of death. There are only six such notes, all in the text for the 13th century. In three cases those deceased were former posadniks (s.a. 1206, 1231, 1257). When reporting their death the annals title all the three ‘posadniks’, although they had been dismissed from that office earlier. This is interesting, as we know from other data that posadnik became a lifelong title only in the mid-14th century.171 The other three notes are dedicated to members of one family, the Malyshevichi: s.a. 1207 the annals report 166 Here I give a brief summary of my Russian-language paper (Gimon, “V kakikh sluchaiakh imena novgorodtsev popadali na stranitsy letopisi”) where one can find a complete list of occurrences of non-Rurikids in the Novgorodian annals and a more detailed discussion. 167 That is, from the start of regular updating of the annals up to the beginning of the lacuna in Syn. 168 This is the quantity of occurrences, not of names: for example, if the annalist lists Novgorodians killed in a battle, this is counted as one occurrence. 169 In subchapter 4.3. 170 In some notes only the dismissed (or deceased) posandik is mentioned, or only the newly appointed one, and not both of them as in the majority of cases. Only three times changes of posadniks are completely omitted: the previous note says one person was elected posadnik, and the next one speaks of the end of the office of another person. 171 Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki, 270–9.

318

4.

5.

chapter 4

the death of Proksha, son of Malysh, s.a. 1243 the death of Viacheslav, son of Proksha, is reported, and s.a. 1247 N1 says that Konstantin, son of Viacheslav, died. We do not know much about this family, but the very fact that their deaths are so systematically reported by the annals speaks in favor of their importance in Novgorodian society. We know, however, that Malyshevichi sponsored the building of the church of St. Forty Martyrs in Nerevsky End of Novgorod—and this was the church near which the veche (assembly) of this Novgorodian district gathered.172 Also, we know that three times Malyshevichi were among the envoys representing Novgorod in negotiations with princes—and they presumably represented the Nerevsky End in those negotiations.173 It seems probable that those six deaths (three of former posandiks and three of Malyshevichi) were reported because of the status of the deceased: they all presumably were leaders (starosta) of Novgorodian districts (‘ends’).174 However, only two particular annalists reported such events: those of Archbishop Mitrofan (annals for 1200–11) and of Archbishops Spiridon and Dalmat (annals for 1226–74). Mentions of posadnik as a kind of official head of the city. S.a. 1165 it is said that an archbishop was consecrated in the time of a certain prince and a certain posadnik. S.a. 1167 the annalist says that for a certain period Novgorod stayed without a prince—only with posadnik Iakun. S.a. 1169 and 1224 the Novgorodians are said to be ready to resist an attack and to support their posadnik. In 1226 a posadnik took part in the election of the abbot of St. George’s Monastery, and in 1274 a posadnik conveyed to the Novgorodians the will of the deceased archbishop about his successor. In 1264, 1268, and 1272 the Novgorodians, ‘having thought together with posadnik’ (‘сдумавше с посадником’), took decisions as to invite or to expel a prince. The commanders of military expeditions. 14 times the annals mention Novgorodians who functioned as military commanders—both in raids undertaken with or without a prince. It is interesting that some of such commanders are not mentioned in the annals in any other capacity.

172 The sponsoring of the church by Malyshevichi is mentioned s.a. 1199, 1211, 1227. An assembly near the church is described s.a. 1218. 173 S.a. 1224, 1229, 1236. 174 On the existence of such a position as early as in the 12th–13th centuries see: Aleksei A. Gippius, “O neskol’kikh personazhakh novgorodskikh berestianykh gramot XII veka,” in NGB, 11, 179–80.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

6.

319

Envoys, representatives, or hostages. 34 times the annals list envoys (in some cases probably hostages) being representatives of Novgorod in negotiations with princes. 7. Victims of somebody’s aggressive actions inside Novgorod. 20 times the annals say that one or several Novgorodians were killed, expelled from the city, arrested, or their courts were ravaged, by some other Novgorodians, or, even more often, by the Novgorodians as a collective actor. At the same time names of the aggressors are given seldom. However, names of such people are given s.a. 1208, 1215, and 1226. Also, s.a. 1215 a collective actor is mentioned: ‘prusi’ (‘пруси’), i.e. dwellers of Prusskaia Street, killed certain Ovstrat and his son Lugota, and brought their bodies into the ditch. In some cases, it is obvious that the annalist sympathizes the victims; in three cases, to the contrary, he obviously thinks that those punished were traitors; in two cases he says that they were considered traitors but distances himself from this charge. It is very important that five times separate notes (items of the annalistic text) are specially dedicated to murders of Novgorodians.175 8. Victims of princes’ actions. 10 times the annals report that a prince arrested certain Novgorodians, or planned to do so. 9. Traitors. 8 times the annals report names of traitors of Novgorod (or of those whom the annalist so consider). 10. Those killed in battles. The annals name Novgorodians killed in 17 battles (from 1 up to 14 names per battle). In the account of the battle of Rakovor (Rakvere, Wesenberg) s.a. 1268 not only 14 killed Novgorodians but also 3 missing ones are listed. Sometimes the annalist lists a few names, and then adds something like ‘and 4 others’, or ‘and many good men’, and so on. Very often the annalist specifies the social status of the killed or his dwelling place.176 11. The commissioners of the building of churches. The majority of notes on the building of churches specify the commissioner.177 In part of the cases princes or church hierarchs played this role. However, in 23 cases the works were sponsored by Novgorodians (in one case by a tysiatsky; never by an actual posadnik, but many times by former or future ones; four times by a pare of brothers; two times by women). Also, in 5 cases the sponsor is a group of Novgorodians (either a family, or dwellers of a street, or a professional group). 175 See details: ibid., 313–6. 176 See details: ibid., 318–22. 177 See subchapter 4.10.

320

chapter 4

12. Women named after their fathers or husbands. The annals report names of no one Novgorodian woman (if not to count some abbesses). However, some women are mentioned for they married princes or founded monasteries, they are always named after their fathers and/or husbands, for example s.a. 1197: In that same year the wife of Polud, son of Gorodsha, the daughter of Zhiroshka,178 founded the monastery of St. Euphemia in Plotniki.179 Въ то же лѣто постави манастырь святыя Еуфимия въ Плътьникихъ Полюжая Городьшиниця Жирошкина дъци.180

It is a question whether to treat such mentions as those of women or of men. The former answer seems still more appropriate. 13. Courts mentioned. 8 times the annals mention courts of certain Novgorodians as topographical landmarks: 6 times when reporting fires, once as a place where a church was founded, and once when speaking of the arrival of a prince to Novgorod.181 14. Other contexts are difficult to classify, but they are not numerous. S.a. 1116 and 1132 posadniks of Pskov and Ladoga, towns subordinate to Novgorod, are mentioned (in 1116 the posadnik of Ladoga built new town walls; in 1132 both posadniks were appointed). The annal for 1188 reports a trade conflict with Scandinavians in which the latter arrested Novgorodian merchants for the blame of a certain Khoruzhko182–probably the only merchant whose name is mentioned in the Novgorodian annals. In 1211 a Novgorodian was sent by a prince to build fortresses. Also, s.a. 1211 the annals say that a certain Dobrynia Iadreikovich arrived from Constantinople—but immediately after that he is said to be elected the archbishop (with monastic name Antonii). In 1228 Archbishop Antonii was restored, and two Novgorodians were entrusted to guard him. The annal for 1233 mentions the chief of the garrison of a small fortress, who was attacked by Germans (of the Livonian Order) and imprisoned by them. Once an architect of a church is mentioned, and once a painter. 178 I.e. this woman was daughter of Zhiroshka and wife (rather, widow) of Polud, son of Gorodsha. 179 Plotniki (i.e. the Carpenters) was an area on the Trade Side of Novgorod, the nucleus of the district later known as the Plotnitsky End. 180 PSRL, 3, 43. 181 The cases when somebody’s courts were deliberately ravaged have been treated above. 182 See: NGB, 8, 172–4.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

321

In the first case the person in question is mentioned only in N1Y, and in the second case the name is present only in Syn. As both are in the same annal (for 1196) one can guess that those were glosses in the manuscript of the Archiepiscopal Annals. An icon-painter is mentioned also s.a. 1230, but in another context: he was a watchman of a common grave in the time of a famine. Finally, accounts of inner conflicts in Novgorod s.a. 1230 and 1232 mention many Novgorodians, and it is difficult to classify their functions. Mentions of non-Rurikids are the most numerous in the sections of the Novgorodian annals for the late 12th and the early 13th century. However, most of the 13 types of contexts listed above are characteristic to the annals of Novgorod during all the period studied.183 So, the guidelines of the Novgorodian archiepiscopal annalists did not change very much throughout the 12th and the 13th centuries. The annals of Kiev and the Northeast. In non-Novgorodian letopisi nonRurikids are mentioned relatively seldom. For example, in the very extended text of the Kievan Chronicle (Hyp.’s annals for the 1110s–90s occupying some 440 columns in the classical edition of 1908) I counted only 184 mentions of non-Rurikids. In PVL’s annals for 1050–1110 there are 44 mentions. In the section of Laur. reflecting the annals of the Northeast (annals for 1156–1305) nonRurikids are mentioned only 39 times. The original section of LPS (annals for 1206–14) mentions non-Rurikids three times. The most often non-Rurikids are mentioned in the following functions. 1. Military commanders. Rurikid princes commanded most military operations reported by Rus annals. However, rather often letopisi mention that a non-Rurikid either was entrusted to command a military expedition without a prince, or accompanied a prince during a campaign and played some important role. In PVL, the Kievan Chronicle, and Laur. being a military commander is the most frequent reason for non-Rurikids to be mentioned (21,5% of all cases). There are sections in the annals where the weight of this group of occurrences is even bigger: PVL’s annals for 1095– 1109 (6 of 12 occurrences of non-Rurikids, if not to count the Tale of the Blinding of Vasilko s.a. 1097 which has a somewhat autonomous position in the annals), Hyp.’s annals for 1180–1200 (16 of 25 occurrences), Laur.’s annals for 1156–74 (4 of 6 occurrences). 2. Envoys. Annals often describe negotiations between Rurikid princes (and, more seldom, other actors such as foreign rulers and city 183 See a table in: Gimon, “V kakikh sluchaiakh imena novgorodtsev popadali na stranitsy letopisi,” 329–30.

322

3.

4.

chapter 4

communities),184 and often report envoys’ names. The role of envoy often was played by younger princes, or by ecclesiastics (bishops, abbots). However, non-Rurikid nobles also were entrusted such missions. It is interesting that mentions of non-Rurikids as envoys are distributed unevenly in the annals. For example, 12 of 29 such envoys’ names given by the Kievan Chronicle are concentrated within one annal, that for 1159. Also, 6 names are mentioned s.a. 1164–74. On the contrary, the annals for 1146–55, containing the most detailed descriptions of envoys’ missions and a great number of texts of ‘messages’,185 report names of non-Rurikid envoys only 5 times.186 An interpretation of this increase of naming messengers in 1159 and the following annals will be suggested below. In any case, this can be a characteristic feature of one or two scribes, continuing the Kievan annals in the second half of the 12th century. Laur. mentions non-Rurikid envoys only four times, in the annals for the very beginning of the 13th century (s.a. 1200, 1204, and twice s.a. 1207). Those killed in battles and prisoners of war. Naming non-Rurikids killed in battles is not very characteristic to non-Novgorodian annals. However, one finds 3 such occurrences in PVL, 4 in the Kievan Chronicle, 5 in Laur., and 1 in LPS. As for prisoners of war, such occurrences are even more seldom (see table 15 below)—if not to count the annals for 1159–80 in the Kievan Chronicle, where 18 non-Rurikid prisoners of war are mentioned. It seems that naming of prisoners of war (as well as of envoys) was a characteristic feature of one or two Kievan annalists. Criminals and betrayers are mentioned mostly in the accounts of the crimes against princes: the murders of Iaropolk Iziaslavich (s.a. 1086), Andrei Bogolubskii (s.a. 1175), and the blinding of Vasilko (s.a. 1097). A somewhat similar case is the account of killing of captured Cumanic ruler Itlar by Prince Vladimir Monomakh (s.a. 1095). The annalist certainly was aware that Vladimir’s action was morally questionable, and because of this the annals name as many as four non-Rurikids who persuaded Vladimir to kill Itlar and/or performed this. It looks as if the annalist tried to shift the responsibility for the murder from the prince to several non-Rurikids.187 Also, the names of people whose activities the annalist regards as treasonous are mentioned in some other accounts,

184 See subchapter 4.7 on the texts of the ‘messages’ often quoted by the Kievan Chronicle. 185 See subchapter 4.7. 186 Including the famous very detailed description of Petr Borislavich’s mission to Galich s.a. 1152, see above, note 89. 187 See more in detail: Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “Ne-Riurikovichi v ‘Povesti vremennykh let’.” Istoriia: Elektronnyi nauchno-obrazovatel’nyĭi zhurnal 1 (34) (2015): 35, http://history

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

323

mostly in the annals for the middle and the second half of the 12th century in the Kievan Chronicle. On the other hand, in the accounts of murders of princes (Iaropolk Iziaslavich in 1086, Igor Olgovich in 1147, Andrei Bogolubskii in 1175) one finds names of those who tried to prevent those crimes, or were killed together with their princes, or transported the body of the murdered prince (that is, were brave enough to render the last honor to the victim of the crime). Other contexts are even less frequent. They are summarized in Table 15. Several general conclusions can be made. 1. The early sections of PVL (up to the mid-11th century) are different from the rest of the early Rus annals as they pay much attention to voevodas, military commanders helping legendary princes. Also, those annals name some local princes not belonging to the Rurik dynasty and some owners of Kievan courts which are landmarks explaining where some events took place in the past. All this goes back to oral tradition, and thus has nothing common with the functions of non-Rurikids in later annals, reporting events, contemporary or nearly contemporary to the writer. 2. The annalistic writing of Novgorod from the 1110s on is concerned with non-Rurikids, and the annalistic writing of Kiev and the Northeast generally is not. While the latter reports only the deeds of Rurikid princes and (collectively) urban communities, the former follows the activities of a certain circle of noble Novgorodians as well. They are said to occupy important posts, to take significant decisions, to sponsor building of churches, to become victims of somebody’s aggressive actions, to be killed in battles, etc. On the contrary, non-Rurikids in non-Novgorodian annals are mentioned more or less occasionally, almost no attempt to follow their deeds in detail can be traced. There are long sections in some of the annals in which no one non-Rurikid is mentioned. Generally speaking, only for the Novgorodian annalists the circle of actors constantly includes laymen not belonging to the Rurik dynasty. 3. Nevertheless, some of the typical contexts of mentioning of nonRurikids are common for different annalistic traditions, although in the Novgorodian annals occurrences are more numerous. The annals mention non-Rurikids as military commanders, envoys, those killed in battles, criminals and traitors—not to count some less frequent contexts. 4. The annalists in all cities found significant to write down names of those whom they considered traitors or criminals, especially those involved .jes.su/s207987840000950-4-1. Nevertherless, in spite of this shifting of responsibility, one can regard this narration as critical to Monomakh (Shepard, “History,” 344).

324 table 15

chapter 4 Contexts in which non-Rurikids are mentioned in the annals of the South and the Northeast

Functions of non-Rurikids

PVL, 1050–1110

Hyp., 1111–1200

Laur., Total 1156–1305 & LPS, 1206–14

military commanders envoys those killed in battles prisoners of war those arrested or punished by princes criminals and betrayers those opposing crimes or murdered together with a prince those transporting the body of a killed prince those giving bad advice to princes those giving good advice to princes those entrusted to build or to administrate towns phrasings like ‘in the time of …’ fathers of princes’ wives those whose death is reported as a separate event owners of courts mentioned (often as ravaged) other Total:

 6  5  3  1 –

 42  29   4  22   3

10  7  6  3 –

58 (21.5%) 41 (15.2%) 13 (4.8%) 26 (9.6%) 3 (1.1%)

13 –

 24   7

 4 –

41 (15.2%) 7 (2.6%)

 2

  1

 2

5 (1.9%)

–

  2

 4

6 (2.2%)

 2

–

–

2 (0.7%)

 2

  4

 2

8 (3%)

 2

–

 2

4 (1.5%)

–  1

  2   1

– –

2 (0.7% 2 (0.7%

 3

  7

–

10 (3.7%)

 4 44

 36 184

 2 42

42 (15.6%) 270

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

5.

4.5

325

into crimes against princes. The earliest example is the account of the murder of saint princes Boris and Gleb in 1015, but names of criminals and traitors can be found in many annals of Kievan, Novgorodian, and Northeastern origin. This tendency can be paralleled to the inscription discovered in Pereyaslavl-Zalessky in 2015. The text, inscribed on the outer wall of the church, lists the murderers of Prince Andrei Bogolubskii (giving more names that are known from the annals) and curses them.188 This inscription shows, even more clearly than the annals, that the Rus found it necessary to record, and even publicly record, the names of those blamed in the most severe of crimes. Formulas like ‘in the time of’ mentioning magistrates such as posadnik or tysiatsky are not numerous in the annals, but they are present in PVL, Laur., and N1, and so must not be regarded as something isolated. Such formulas are typical for another kind of texts: colophons in Old Rus manuscripts;189 they can be met in letopisi, but often without references to non-Rurikids (only to princes and church hierarchs).190 How Were the Annals Maintained and Revised? Did They Circulate in Copies?

Annalistic writing is a general term designating different kinds of scribal activity. Firstly, there is the writing of a text afresh, that is, either updating the annals year by year, or describing events of distant past on the basis of oral tradition. Secondly, there is creating of a new version of the annals. In the Russian scholarly tradition such new versions are usually called ‘compilations’ (своды). This word presupposes the use of more than one written source, but one can well imagine a scribe editing the annals without usage of any additional sources. As I have already said, Alan Timberlake has suggested a fitting English term for this kind of activity: editorial events.191 Thirdly, there is copying, that is, creating a new manuscript with no intention to change the text. Fourthly, changes could be made in an already existing manuscript: scribes could make glosses, erasures, insertions, they could replace quires, and so on. Those kinds of activities can be divided only analytically, of course. For example, a copyist could 188 Aleksei A. Gippius and Savva M. Mikheev, “Nadpis’ ob ubiistve Andreia Bogoliubskogo iz Spaso-Preobrazhenskogo sobora v Pereiaslavle-Zalesskom,” Drevniaia Rus’: Voprosy medievistiki 3 (69) (2017): 31–2. 189 Stoliarova, Drevnerusskie nadpisi, 87, 94, 110–2, 115–9. 190 For example, in note on building of churhces in N1 s.a. 1133, 1167, 1185, 1196. 191 See chapter 2, note 43.

326

chapter 4

make minor changes in the text; an editorial event could concern only a part of a manuscript (the other part remaining intact); an annalist making contemporary records could at the same time alter something in the previous text; etc. Here I will discuss more in detail some of the typical operations made by the scribes of the annals. Contemporary recording events is best studied in relation to Novgorod. The Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod, probably the longest continuous annals of Rus, have been discussed in detail above.192 Starting in the 1110s, those annals were kept more or less contemporarily until the 15th century. In most of the cases a new archbishop entrusted keeping of the annals to a new person, probably acting as archiepiscopal secretary as well. The records were not always strictly contemporary: sometimes events of several subsequent years were described at one sitting. However, some of the annalists, as far as one can judge, updated the annals once a year or even more often. Those annals could be partly revised (for example, the text for the 12th century was revised c. 1199), but anyway they continued to be updated. In most of the cases the archiepiscopal annalists updated their manuscript with original records but in the early 13th century one can trace borrowing of material from the annals of the Northeast, both used in the course of yearly updating of the annals and inserted into the already written text. As it has been said above, this diverse picture can be well paralleled to the practices of updating annals in medieval West.193 More hypothetically, the correlation between the changes of church hierarchs (bishops of Rostov and abbots of the Kievan Cave Monastery) can be traced in relation to the text of PVL for the late 11th and the early 12th centuries, of the Kievan Chronicle for the 12th century, and of Laur. for the late 12th and the early 13th centuries.194 This implies that in Kiev and Rostov the annals were also kept on a yearly basis, even though only revised versions of those annals are available to us now. The only pre-1400 example of contemporary annalistic records extant in original are the entries for 1330–52 in the additional leaves of Syn. (Figures 19– 20). They were also discussed in detail above.195 Only the first two continuations (for 1330–3) look like an attempt at systematic annal keeping. The remaining three additions (for 1337, 1345, and 1352) are occasional, they do not form a continuous set of annals; they are written without a layout, and letters 192 193 194 195

Subchapter 3.5. Subchapter 3.7. Subchapter 4.2. Subchapter 3.8.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

327

of all the three are radically different in size. It is clear that this was an attempt at updating the manuscript of the annals belonging to St. George’s Monastery near Novgorod—the Archiepiscopal Annals were kept at the same time in a much more regular way. However, the additions of Syn. give some idea of the degree of irregularity that was possible in the annalistic writing of Rus. Perhaps, an example of ‘secondary keeping of annals’, that is, of annals which were updated from time to time borrowing material from other, more authoritative, annals can be found in Pereyaslavl-upon-Dnieper. The text of Laur. for the 1110s–50s is akin to that of Hyp., but differs from it in many respects: Laur. is much shorter, there are differences in year-dates (the usage of the March or the ultra-March styles196), in treating of many events, and, finally, Laur. sometimes contains additional information concerning Pereyaslavl-upon-Dnieper. On the one hand, Laur.’s readings are often clearly primary,197 but, on the other hand, it is more or less obvious that Hyp. goes back to the main annals of Kiev, and Laur. reflects their Pereyaslavl recension.198 The complexity and unevenness of the interrelations of those two texts provokes an idea that the annals of Kiev were not redacted in Pereyaslavl in one sitting, but were used from time to time to update a local manuscript of the annals. This idea, however, needs further concretization. Again, the 14th-century additions of Syn. give another example of an attempt at ‘secondary keeping annals’—however, only once a portion of text from the Archiepiscopal Annals was copied into Syn.: the text for 1332–3; other additions are independent. We do not know if those who updated annals used drafts. Theoretically, writing of drafts (on parchment? birchbark? wax tablets?) is quite possible,199 especially in the cases of extended entries, such as, for example, the Kievan annals for the middle of the 12th century or the Novgorodian annals for the early 13th century. However, it is, I am afraid, impossible to check this.200 It has been argued that isolated annalistic records in other manuscripts could play 196 See appendix 1. 197 See: Nasonov, Istoriia, 87–101; Tatiana L. Vilkul, “O proiskhozhdenii obshchego teksta Ipat’evskoi i Lavrent’evskoi letopisi za XII v. (predvaritel’nye zametki),” Palaeoslavica 13 (2005): 21–80. 198 This was best shown in Nasonov, Istoriia, 81–7, 97–9, 108–11. 199 On drafts in English and Scottish annalistic writing see: Gransden, Legends, 235–6; Broun, “Creating,” 147–8. 200 Slips of pen can be treated as proofs that a text has been copied from a draft. However, one almost never can exclude the possibility that a slip of pen originated later, when transcribing the text. So, this method would work only when dealing with records extant in original. The only pre-1400 example of such records, the additions of Syn., are too irregular to suppose a usage of drafts (see subchapter 3.8).

328

chapter 4

the role of such drafts,201 but almost all such records dated before 1400 have no textual correspondence with the extant annals. The only exclusion is the late 12th-century notes from the Annunciation Monastery near Novgorod—but in that case the records in a manuscript of monastic rule clearly are extracts from the annals, not their drafts.202 Editorial events were an essential part of the process of annalistic writing. Indeed, the annals were edited or renovated from time to time. However, it seems that Shakhmatov and post-Shakmatov studies of Rus letopisi exaggerated the role of this kind of annalistic activity.203 The perception of annalistic writing as mainly a chain of subsequent editorial events is an overcomplication: it is clear now that the bulk of text known as the annals of Kiev (from the second half of the 11th century), Novgorod, and the Northeast primarily goes back to the annals kept continuously. The work of those annalists who revised previously existing material and created compilations also was, as far as one can judge, quite diverse. Let us discuss some of the examples (not all of them as many editorial events postulated by scholars are highly hypothetical constructs, and it is difficult to approach them via a comparison of available texts). If one agrees that PVL of the 1110s was preceded by the Initial Compilation of the 1090s,204 the comparison of PVL (as reflected by its five ‘classical’ witnesses) and N1Y (reflecting Initial Compilation) gives much material on the work of the scribe of the 1110s (Nestor? Silvestr?). Unfortunately, his work can be traced in detail in relation to the text up to 1016 only.205 Oleg Tvorogov best followed the changes made to the text;206 a detailed study of those changes in account of the ‘call of the Varangians’, that is, of the Rurik dynasty’s origin, has been undertaken by Petr Stefanovich.207 The composer of PVL appears to have changed much in the text of the Initial Compilation. He added a new introductive (non-annalistic section), changed much the chronological framework, used additional Byzantine sources, introduced the texts of the Rus-Byzantine treaties, made Oleg prince instead of Prince Igor’s voevoda (military commander), inserted some accounts based upon oral tradition, etc. Even though 201 Bobrov, Novgorodskie letopisi, 249. 202 See subchapter 3.9. 203 See introduction. 204 See subchapter 2.2. 205 I supposed that the NS-chronicles in their entries for the 1020s–40s reflect the Initial Compilation (see: Gimon, “Sobytiia,” 674–6), but the matter is still too hypothetical for the present discussion. 206 Tvorogov, “Povest’ vremennykh let,” 3–26. 207 Stefanovich, “ ‘Skazanie o prizvanii variagov’,” 533–61.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

329

the Initial Compilation was an earlier text, the usage of additional sources made the information and dates of PVL sometimes more reliable (for example, Oleg indeed was prince, as witnessed by his treaty with Byzantium). So, in the case of PVL we met a serious literary enterprise, in fact a creation of a new chronicle, even though largely based on a previously existing text. The redactions of PVL (if they existed) also are editorial events partly available to scholars as we can analyze the variant readings of the five witnesses of PVL, as well as some other data.208 However, the changes made by the ‘second’ redaction are virtually invisible to a scholar,209 and thus one is free to suspect that there was no ‘second’ redaction, and Abbot Silvestr, whose colophon speaks that he ‘wrote’ the annals in 1116, was either a mere copyist, or, on the contrary, the one responsible for PVL as the first editorial event. The ‘third’ version is much more traceable. The redactor altered text, both in principal moments (such as the title of PVL or the tale of the call of the Varangians s.a. 862) and in matters of style, as well as introduced some new material, mostly notes on late 11th and early 12th-century events absent in the ‘first’ version of PVL. It is quite possible that those additions were glosses, and so one must not rule out the possibility that the whole ‘third version’ was no more than a series of alterations and inserts in the manuscript of PVL.210 The Novgorodian compilation of c. 1095 (or c. 1115)211 was a much simpler enterprise than PVL. In fact, the compiler just copied the text of the Initial Compilation (maybe, with a few Novgorodian inserts) up to 1016. After that he had no desire to copy the Kievan source in full (as the Novgorodian history, in his perspective, from 1016 on was different from the Kievan one). As he had no comparable Novgorodian material in front of him, he continued the annals with short excerpts from the Kievan annals and sometimes supplemented them with local Novgorodian annalistic records. This primitive, asymmetric structure of the compilation is preserved in Syn. The Novgorodian compiler of the 1160s (who, as far as one can judge, replaced only some of the quires of the manuscript of the Archiepiscopal Annals) tried to straighten the structure of the 11th-century section of the annals. He introduced the text of the laws (Russkaia Pravda) s.a. 1016, and borrowed some material on 11th-century events from PVL and from the local oral tradition. However, the resulting text (one can observe it in N1Y) is far from even and 208 See subchapter 2.1. 209 As there is no witness going back directly to the ‘first’ redaction. 210 If so, Laur. does not reflect the second version, but, on the contrary, goes back to a copy of PVL made earlier than those alterations. 211 See subchapter 3.3.

330

chapter 4

symmetric, it still has a lot of ‘empty years’, and switches from one source to another are clearly visible.212 After 1199 the text of the Archiepiscopal Annals for the 12th century was rewritten and slightly edited, as the comparison of surviving texts shows: some notes on events of local importance were omitted, verbose datings were abbreviated, some details of recent events were inserted. It is not impossible that this editorial episode was in fact identical to that of ‘the 1160s’ (and so all the manuscript was replaced after 1199) but here the question remains open.213 It is probable that an annalistic text similar to the earliest Novgorodian compilation once existed in Pereyaslavl-upon-Dnieper. At least, some of the additional notes of the ‘third redaction’ of PVL are concerned with Pereyaslavl. Those notes are inserted into the text not always at the end or, say, the beginning of annals. On the contrary, some of them seem to have been put on their appropriate place in the chronological order of events. This implies, that the source from which those notes were borrowed was a chronicle akin to PVL but with local additions. It seems probable that in Pereyaslavl, as in Novgorod, in the late 11th century, a local compilation was made based on the Kievan annals with some local additions.214 And, as the Novgorodian compilation was updated around 1115, these Pereyaslavl annals later could be updated with the use of Kievan material. The Kievan compilation of c. 1198, or the Kievan Chronicle, created in the Vydubichi Monastery near Kiev, was another thing. Rather, this was a phenomenon akin to PVL: a large-scale literary enterprise, in the course of which the previously existing text of the Kievan annals was widely reworked, and several additional sources were used. For part of its text a comparison with Laur. is possible, and observations can be made on the usage of translated sources (such as translations of Byzantine historiographical works). Due to this, Tetiana Vilkul has been able to show how the Kievan compiler not only made additions to the previously existing text, but also amplified it, changed the order of passages and events, shifted political accents. Vilkul says that the basic two methods of the compiler were, firstly, building the text from already existing fragments, and, secondly, significant reworking and appending, introducing new blocks of text. The first technique dominated in the relatively brief text up to the mid1140s; then the compiler switched to the second technique.215

212 See on the work of the annalist of the 1160s: Gippius, “K istorii,” 34–68, and subchapter 3.3. 213 See subchapter 3.1. 214 See: Gimon, “‘Ipat’evskie’ dopolneniia,” 279–94. 215 Vіlkul, Letopis’, 232–299, generalization on p. 265.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

331

However, it is very interesting that the compiler of the Kievan Chronicle reworked the text for most of the 12th century, but left intact, or almost intact, the earlier section of the annals (that is, the text of PVL). A possible explanation for this would be as follows: the Vydubichi Monastery already possessed a manuscript of the annals. This was the work done by Silvestr, the abbot of the house, in 1116 (no matter whether he was the author, an editor, or a copyist). So, the task of the compiler of c. 1198 was to supply the text of 1116 with a continuation.216 Maybe, the text of PVL was not even rewritten: new quires could be simply added to it, or a ‘second volume’ could be produced. Whatever the case, the example of the Kievan Chronicle shows (even more demonstrably than the example of the Novgorodian compilation of the 1160s which is still a scholarly reconstruction) that an editorial event, even such a large-scale one, did not necessarily concern all the annalistic text from the beginnings of Rus up to the time of the compiler. There can be little doubt that an important editorial event took place in the Northeast of Rus, probably in Vladimir, c. 1205 (or, according to some scholars, later, around 1212 or 1214). An older stage of the text is reflected by Laur., and the results of re-working are seen in Radz., MA, and LPS (the interrelations between the latter three are more of a problem). The degree of re-working of the previously existing material was not large-scale, but some political accents in the text were clearly shifted (as the comparison of texts shows). For example, the editor omitted a mention of Prince Vsevolod ‘the Big Nest”s blinding of two captured princes in 1177, added systematically Vsevolod’s name to the deeds of his elder brother Mikhalko, etc.217 It is interesting that in three centers of annalistic writing, in Kiev, Novgorod, and Vladimir, editorial events took place at approximately the same time: around 1200. This could be a result of a certain fashion, or, maybe, a competition. Prince Rurik Rostislavich of Kiev, Prince Vsevolod the ‘Big Nest’ of Vladimir, and the archbishop of Novgorod, looking at each other, all sponsored renovating of the local annals.218 Rich material concerning editorial events in the annalistic writing can be found in the 15th-century material. On the one hand, there are such complicated and large-scale editorial enterprises as the creation of the chronicles of the Novgorodian-Sophian group (that is, several stages of compilative work done in 216 Compare Vadym Aristov’s idea that the Kievan Chronicle was designed a continuation of PVL (Aristov, “Svod,” 113, 117). 217 See: Iakov S. Lur’e, “O proiskhozhdenii Radzivilovskoi letopisi,” Vspomogatel’nye istoricheskie distsipliny 18 (1987): 64–83. 218 See: Gimon, “Sozdanie,” 104–11.

332

chapter 4

Novgorod, Moscow, and, maybe, the Trinity Monastery of St. Sergii, during the first half of the 15th century).219 On the other hand, MA is a late-15th-century example of a rather primitive compilation: the scribe just copied one source, then switched to another one, and so two times; those switches being even visible in the manuscript.220 In any case, the 15th-century material, however interesting it may be, cannot be simply extrapolated to the earlier annalisticwriting. 15th-century annalistic compilations (except the early 15th-century Trinity Chronicle burnt in 1812) are written on paper. This made an editorial event a much cheaper enterprise than in the previous period when expensive parchment was in use. The very fact that more than twenty 15th-century annalistic manuscripts are extant, and only two ones survive from the ‘parchment’ period, does not speak in favor of the legitimacy of such extrapolation. Future studies, maybe, will throw additional light on the work of 11th- to 14th-century editors and compilers. Now it is obvious that their work could vary from large-scale reworking of previously existing material to quite simple operations. Also, it is clear that it did not necessarily touch all the text from the beginnings of Rus up to the time of the annalist’s work. On the contrary, some sections of the text could remain intact, maybe even were not rewritten. Copying of the annals. The only two surviving pre-1400 manuscripts of the annals, Syn. and Laur., roughly can be described as ‘copies’. Syn. (Figures 11– 12, 16) is a copy of the Novgorodian annals made by one scribe, in one sitting c. 1234. C. 1330 it was updated by another scribe—again as a copy of the Archiepiscopal Annals for the years between those two dates. This copy was made for St. George’s Monastery near Novgorod. Some continuations, partly original, were made later on three additional leaves at the end of the book. The analysis of variant readings shows that in both parts of the main body of Syn. the scribes did not intend to edit the text. Only a little part of variant readings can reflect deliberate changes made by them. The first scribe abbreviated the text when approaching the end of his work to keep within the last quire. Besides this, he made only few minor deliberate changes in the text. Even less can be said of changes made in the text by the second scribe. He, as his predecessors did, made some abbreviations, but apart from this, almost never intervened into the text.221 Laur. (Figure 6) is a copy of an annalistic manuscript that covered events up to 1305. The copy was made in 1377 by three hands (two main ones, and one additional). The production of this manuscript was ordered, as the colophon 219 See chapter 1, note 151. 220 Boris M. Kloss, “Predislovie k izdaniiu 1997 g.,” in PSRL, 1, K. 221 See subchapters 3.1, 3.8.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

333

says,222 by the prince of Suzdal and Nizhny Novgorod, and blessed by a bishop. Again, Laur., can be compared with the reconstructed text of the Trinity Chronicle (that is, mainly, with the Symeon Chronicle and the quotations made by Nikolai Karamzin223) which went back to the same exemplar: the manuscript of 1305. The comparison shows that the scribes of Laur. made almost no deliberate changes were made to the text.224 It is interesting that, when copying his exemplar, the last scribe of Laur., Monk Lavrentii, sometimes left blank space into which later one could write some lacking information. S.a. 1218, after the account of the death and the burial of Prince Konstantin, it is said: ‘and at all the years of Konstantin’s [life] were’ (‘бѣ же всѣх лѣт Костянтиновых’), and then a space is left for writing a figure.225 S.a. 1224 a military raid is reported, and a line and a half are left blank—to write in future the destination of the raid.226 S.a. 1231 Monk Lavrentii left a space for writing the precise date of an event,227 and s.a. 1248 he said that an event took place ‘on the day Saint Someone’ (‘на память святого имярекъ’).228 In those cases the information in question either lacked in the exemplar or was unreadable, and the scribe noted this and intended to fulfill those gaps in future.229 So, Laur. and Syn. are both examples of copies of the annals, the scribes of which had no intention to alter the text much, but sometimes could make deliberate minor changes, as well as, in the case of Laur., leave task for themselves or for their followers as to write into the annals some lacking information. Alterations in already existing manuscripts. The clearest example of such alterations in pre-1400 material are the two pro-Moscow corrections in Syn., made between 1333 and 1337, and discussed in detail above.230 However, it is 222 See quotation on p. 293–4. 223 See chapter 1, note 138. 224 Gelian Prokhorov (“Kodikologicheskii analiz Lavrent’evskoi letopisi,” Vspomogatel’nye istoricheskie distsipliny 4 (1972): 77–103) has attempted to prove the opposite via a codicological analysis of Laur. However, the absence of substantial textual difference between Laur. and the Trinity Chronicle speaks against such a possibility, see: Lur’e, Obshcherusskie letopisi, 30–2. 225 PSRL, 1, 444, note Г. 226 Ibid., 447, note Г. 227 Ibid., 457, note Д. 228 Ibid., 471–2. 229 Similar cases can be found in the English annals. For example, in MS. C of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, in its last entry for 1066, twice a blank space is left—for writing the destination of a military march and a quantity of ships (ASC, 5, 120–1, notes 17, 25). On the same practice in 13th-century England see: Gransden, Legends, 232–3. 230 Subchapter 3.8, p. 252–3.

334

chapter 4

worth thinking that such alterations could be made in manuscripts that have not survived, and that some of the variant readings of the extant texts can be explained in this way. Some suggestions can be made about glosses and alterations in the Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod.231 Oleg Tvorogov argued that several additional notes of Hyp. in comparison with Laur. and Radz. were glosses in the original,232 and this seems likely.233 In Laur. s.a. 1231 a note on the birth of Boris, son of Prince Vasilko, interrupts an otherwise coherent account dedicated to Bishop Kirill I,234 and an explanation would be that this note was a gloss in the exemplar. One can proceed with such examples. Although all those examples (except the two pro-Moscow corrections in Syn.) relate to non-extant manuscripts, and thus are hypothetical, there can be little doubt that glosses, erasures, inserts, replacement of leaves and quires were normal practices in early Rus annalistic writing. This not only seems natural in ‘parchment’ times when the creation of a fully new book was a very expensive enterprise, but also finds numerous parallels abroad. If speaking only of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, many examples of such corrections in the extant manuscripts can be given. MS. A is full of additional notes inserted later than the bulk of the text was written; some passages were erased; the yearnumbers in the book also were altered several times.235 Alterations of yearnumbers are also found in MS. C.236 In MS. D a quire was replaced.237 Many small alterations are found in MSS. E,238 and so on. Did the annals circulate in copies? This question is of principal importance for our understanding of the functions of those texts. Some of the views concerning the functions of letopisi (as written for propaganda, for education, for entertainment) presuppose that those texts existed in multiple copies and were read by a relatively wide circle of people. However, such an assumption is not based on any positive evidence. The opposite extreme is Igor Danilevskii’s idea that the annals were kept in secret. He cites late 16th-century English diplomat Sir Jerome Horsey, who mentioned that the chronicles of the Muscovites were written and kept in secret.239 However, as far as I know, there is no pre-1400 evidence for this. 231 See subchapter 3.5. 232 Tvorogov, “Sushchestvovala li tret’ia redaktsiia,” 207. 233 Gimon, “ ‘Ipat’evskie’ dopolneniia,” 284–5. 234 PSRL, 1, 457, note И. 235 See: ASC, 3, xcviii–xcix; Dumville, Wessex and England, 99–102. 236 ASC, 5, liv–vi, 43–4, 51–3. 237 Ker, Catalogue, 254; Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 410–2. 238 ASC, 7, footnotes. 239 Danilevskii, Povest’, 265.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

335

On the contrary, annalistic traditions of different centers interacted, many scribes participated in annalistic writing, a copy and a series of excerpts of the Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod were made for local monasteries, and so on. The annalistic writing was too much a branched phenomenon to be something kept in secret. The only two extant pre-1400 manuscripts of letopisi, Syn. and Laur., are indeed copies, made from non-extant exemplars. But for whom were those copies made, and from which exemplars? In the case of Syn., the exemplar was no less than the Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod, and the copy was made (and after a century updated) for St. George’s Monastery, which was second important religious house of Novgorod after the cathedral of St. Sophia (where the exemplar was kept). For a smaller house, the Annunciation Monastery, situated not far from St. George’s, it was sufficient to place brief excerpts from the Archiepiscopal Annals on the last page of a copy of monastic rule.240 Laur. was a copy from an exemplar ending with the annal for 1305, but the copy was made as late as in 1377. Perhaps, there was an intention to continue it with the annals for later years, but this was never done. The book probably was produced for the Cave Monastery of Nizhny Novgorod, so not for the place where the original was owned.241 Dionisii, who blessed the writing of Laur., is titled ‘the bishop of Suzdal, [Nizhny] Novgorod, and Gorodets’. We do not know if the manuscript was written for the bishop or for the monastery (by the way, founded earlier by the same Dionisii). In any case the production of Laur. cannot be regarded as an element of the circulation of the annals, the book was copied for a certain high-rank religious institution. It is impossible to find out how many manuscripts of the annals were written in Old Rus or, say, existed simultaneously at a certain time. As far as one can judge, a creation of a new manuscript was undertaken either to deeply rework the previously existing annals (as in the case of the Initial Compilation, PVL, or the Kievan Chronicle of c. 1198), or simply to renovate the manuscript (as probably in the case of the Novgorodian editorial event of c. 1199), or (as in the case of Syn. and Laur.) for certain ecclesiastical institutions to obtain their own book of annals. Those purposes could be present in combinations. For example, the first annalistic manuscripts of Novgorod, Pereyaslavl-upon-Dnieper, or Rostov (whenever exactly they were written) performed at the same time the 240 Subchapters 3.8–3.9. 241 Arsenii Nasonov (Istoriia, 169–91) points out that annalistic notes from Nizhny Novogorod appear in some compilations from the mid-14th century, and so Laur. was not the first manuscript of the annals in this town. According to Nasonov, Laur. was a copy, made as a material to be used for creating a local annalistic compilation (which, perhaps, was never done).

336

chapter 4

first and the third task: local episcopal sees needed a book of annals, and, naturally, this was not simply a copy of annals from outside but a text with at least some local additions. The Kievan Chronicle of c. 1198 and the Vladimir compilation of 1205 probably performed the third task (the Vydubichi monastery of Kiev and the Nativity of St. Mary Monastery of Vladimir thus obtained books of annals), but the first task as well. In any case, nothing speaks in favor of wide circulation of copies of the annals. Rather, each annalistic manuscript in the ‘parchment’ period was a unique book, often the only book of annals owned by a religious house. A special problem is the fortune of ‘detritus’242 manuscripts (in the cases when new, edited manuscripts of the annals were produced for the same religious house). The only case when one can speak of this with some degree of certainty is again in Novgorod: Syn. up to 1199 reflects the text of the Archiepiscopal Annals as it was before the editorial event of c. 1199. So, the scribe of Syn. copied the ‘detritus’ text until it ended, and from that point started to copy the official manuscript of the Archiepiscopal Annals.243 And, what is important, Syn. is not identical to the ‘detritus’; it is a new manuscript, produced c. 1234. Thus, the ‘detritus’ was not destroyed after the editorial work of c. 1199 had been completed, and later, c. 1234 it was offered to those who decided to create a manuscript of the annals for St. George’s monastery. But they did not simply continue this manuscript with new quires (as was done with Syn. in 1330), but copied it afresh. What was the subsequent fortune of the ‘detritus’, remains unknown. Aleksei Gippius argued that when PVL was composed in the 1110s the ‘detritus’ (that is, the manuscript of the Initial Compilation, or, as Gippius says, its first part, up to 1016), was sent to Novgorod and was used there as a base for the local annals.244 I do not fully agree with this argument: as I suppose,245 the first annalistic compilation in Novgorod was created earlier, around 1095, when the original manuscript of the Initial Compilation was not yet ‘detritus’. On the other hand, it is not impossible, that Silvestr of Vydubichi was responsible for the composition of PVL in the 1110s, and if so, the original manuscript of the Initial Compilation easily could remain in the Kievan Cave monastery and continue to be updated by its monks. The problem of ‘detritus’ texts in the Kievan annalistic writing needs further investigation.

242 243 244 245

Again a term suggested by Alan Timberlake (“Older and Younger Recensions,” 8 ff.). See subchapter 3.1. Gippius, “K probleme II,” 22, note 14. See subchapter 3.3.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

337

To sum up, the annalistic writing was a diverse activity, in which both, yearly updating and editorial events, were essential elements. If, nevertheless, to chose which of those two elements was more important (or, rather, primary in comparison to the other), I would rather say that it was contemporary recording of events. This element demonstrates the greatest stability: the annals were kept continuously in Kiev (probably in the Cave Monastery) during the second half of the 11th and all of the 12th century, in Novgorod (under the patronage of the archbishops) from the early 12th up to the 15th century, in Rostov (probably under the patronage of bishops) from the second half of the 12th century again up to the 15th century246—not to mention other places (such as Pereyaslavl-upon-Dnieper or Chernigov) where annals also probably were kept but did not survive in any consistent form and the cities in which annalistic writing emerged in the late 13th or the 14th century (Pskov, Tver, Moscow). Editorial events were also an integral part of the process, but they were more of an unstable phenomenon, largely dependent on the initiative of particular lay or church rulers, and, perhaps, on a sort of fashion: several editorial events took place in the 1090s and the 1110s: in Kiev, Novgorod, maybe in Pereyaslavl’-upon-Dnieper, and then around 1200 (in Kiev, Novgorod, and Vladimir). As it has already been said,247 if editorial events were onetime enterprises commissioned by lay or ecclesiastical hierarchs, the contemporary recording events was a permanent prerogative of certain religious institutions such as the highly authoritative and autonomous Kievan Cave Monastery or (archi)episcopal sees in other cities of Rus. The Novgorodian material also shows that, while the cathedral church of St. Sophia was the home of the main annals, some of the suburban monasteries wanted to have annalistic texts in their libraries. If for the leading monastery, St. George’s, a full copy was needed, a smaller Annunciation Monastery was happy with a short set of excerpts. St. George’s Monastery also demonstrated interesting efforts to contribute into annalistic writing: to write ‘annalistic’ graffiti on the walls of its church (in the 12th and the early 13th centuries) and to make unsystematic additions at the end of Syn. (in the 14th century). Those efforts, however curious they are, were, of course, something marginal in comparison to the continuous keeping annals by archiepiscopal scribes.

246 The continuous annals of Rostov from the 13th up to the early 15th century are reflected (although probably in abbreviated form) in MA and some other texts. 247 Subchapter 4.2.

338 4.6

chapter 4

The Annals and Legal Texts

As it has been said at the beginning of this chapter, scholars argued several times that Rus letopisi had some kind of juridical importance. This is no more than a plausible hypothesis. However, it is interesting to look at the interaction of letopisi and purely judicial texts in real manuscripts. Such an interaction is attested in several forms. Firstly, legal texts sometimes are incorporated into the annalistic text. PVL s.a. 907, 912, 945, and 971 contains the texts of treaties between the princes of Rus and Byzantium, probably taken from a Byzantine cartulary and certainly translated from Greek.248 Most probably, they were introduced in the 1110s, when PVL in its ‘classical’ form was being compiled, and they had not been present in earlier pieces of historical writing.249 Although we do not know the exact time of the translation (it was not necessarily the time of the composition of PVL), it is more or less certain that the chronicler of the 1110s regarded those texts as juridical artifacts important for the positioning of Rus’s past in connection to Byzantium, or simply as valuable and rare written document about the 10th-century history of Rus. Russkaia Pravda in its Shorter Version (Kratkaia Pravda) is placed in N1Y after the description of events of 1016. It is said that Iaroslav the Wise, having defeated Sviatopolk ‘the Accursed’, granted law to the Novgorodians. Then the laws are presented: in fact four documents, the second of which is explicitly attributed to Iaroslav’s sons (the Iaroslavichi) who in 1016 had not yet been born. It was probably the Novgorodian oral tradition that labeled those four documents ‘Iaroslav’s charters’, and that is why they were introduced into the annal for 1016 by the chronicler of the 1160s.250 In any case, just as the Rus—Byzantine treaties, Kratkaia Pravda was introduced into the annals not because it still was a valid legal document, but rather because it was regarded as a valuable confirmation of the deeds of a great ruler of the past. Scholars have tried to find in early Rus annals other juridical texts, or their fragments, or summaries. For example, the description of Iaroslav the Wise’s bequest of cities to his sons (in the narration of Iaroslav’s death in PVL s.a. 1054) has been regarded either as a transcript of written will, or as an official record of the will promulgated orally.251 According to Aleksei Iurasovskii, one can trace 248 See chapter 1, note 45. 249 See subchapter 2.2. 250 See subchapter 3.11. 251 See: Mikhail B. Sverdlov, “‘Zaveshchanie’ Iaroslava i nasledovanie kniazheskikh stolov v russkom gosudarstve X—serediny XI v.,” in Norna u istochnika Sud’by: Sb. st. v chest’

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

339

148 judicial fragments in early Rus annals (including the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle). Iurasovskii included into this total 80 ‘diplomatic letters’, as well as some notes on treaties concluded, and so on.252 In each of the cases suggested by Iurasovskii the usage of real judicial document by the annalist is possible, but in most of the cases the opposite possibility is no less probable: the annalist could write down what was said (decided, concluded, remembered) orally, or he could know of the existence of the document (or oral statement) but had no chance or no desire to copy it verbatim. I will return to this problem in the following subchapter, where I will discuss so-called princely ‘messages’, or ‘diplomatic letters’, so numerous in the Kievan Chronicle. Some passages in the annals are not necessarily transcripts of legal documents but can be regarded as quasi-documents: in the absence of established traditions of documentation, letopisi could be regarded as a place appropriate for writing down something juridically significant. This idea was expressed best by Simon Franklin.253 This may concern not only politics (recording precedents, misdeeds, official statements, negotiations, etc.) but also property rights. A very good example has already been mentioned above:254 s.a. 1158 the Kievan Chronicle carefully lists lands and sums of money donated at different times to the Kievan Cave Monastery by a deceased princess, her father, and her husband. It has been supposed that the annalist used either the house register of donations, or some documents from the ‘personal archive’ of the princess,255 but the existence of such documentation in the 12th century is doubtful. A simpler explanation would be that the donations were reported in the annals because the annals themselves were regarded as a means of preservation of juridically significant information—and/or as an appropriate place to write down somebody’s pious deeds. Secondly, historical and judicial texts could be transcribed separately, but be included into the same manuscripts. One of the earliest Rus legal collections, the Novgorodian (Synodal) Kormchaia (Nomocanon) contains a short historical text: the Brief Chronicle of Patriarch Nikephoros with its Rus continuation.256 The two earliest extant manuscripts of letopisi proper (Syn. and Laur.) do not contain anything apart the annals. The manuscripts of the

252 253 254 255 256

E.A. Mel’nikovoi, ed. Tat’iana N. Dzhakson [Jackson] (Moscow: Indrik, 2001), 349–50 (the author allows both possibilities). Aleksei V. Iurasovskii [Yurasovsky], “Gramoty XI—serediny XIV veka v sostave russkikh letopisei,” Istoriia SSSR 4 (1982): 141–50. Quoted in subchapter 4.1, on p. 282–3. In subchapter 4.2, on p. 297. Artamonov, “Polotskie kniaz’ia,” 176. See subchapter 1.5.

340

chapter 4

15th century demonstrate that letopisi and legal texts easily could be neighbors. The best example is Com., one of the two mid-15th-century manuscripts of N1Y, which contains a collection of lists (of princes, bishops, dioceses, Novgorodian city magistrates, and towns), the annals, and legal texts.257 Lists of rulers, just as legal texts, could either be introduced inside the annals, or adjoin to letopisi. The annal for 989 in N1Y contains lists of princes, church hierarchs, episcopal sees, and Novgorodian posadniks. This non-narrative insert s.a. 989 is a clear parallel to the introducing of Russkaia Pravda s.a. 1016. Both ‘non-narrative’ inserts were, most likely, made by the same chronicler (in the 1160s),258 and so we have a very early example of a combination of annals, lists, and laws. The same combination can be found in an Anglo-Saxon manuscript: MS. A of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 173). The book contains, exactly as Com., the annals, laws, and lists. Lists were added to the manuscript later, after 1000. The interrelations of the annals (the first portion written around 900 and was continued by many hands) and the laws are debated.259 Anyway, the manuscript as we have it combines the same three kinds of texts. Other, rather archaic, parallels one finds in medieval Sweden. As Thomas Lindkvist points out, the earliest laws of the provinces of Sweden constituted their ‘legal communities’ which implied inter alia a ‘common past’.260 Indeed, the earliest laws of Gotland (extant in a mid-14th-century manuscript but probably composed earlier) are followed by a historical narrative known as Guta saga which ‘could be seen as the historical background to the emergence of the Gotlandic community’s constitutional framework’, that is, the voluntary nature of the islanders’ treaties with the king of Sweden and the bishop of Linköping, the autonomy of the island, the amount of annual tribute to the king and the yarl of Sweden, ‘the fact that the Gotlanders had once Christianized themselves’, etc.261 This can be (roughly) compared with the contents of the early section of the annals of Novgorod, at least of the annal for 257 All printed in: PSRL, 3. On the story of the making of this manuscript see: Bobrov, Novgorodskie letopisi, 68–70, 73–4. 258 Grinev, “Kratkaia redaktsiia.” 259 See: Malcolm B. Parkes, “The palaeography of the Parker manuscript of the Chronicle, laws, and Sedulius, and historiography at Winchester in the late ninth and tenth centuries,” Anglo-Saxon England 5 (1976): 149–71; Dumville, Wessex and England, 124–39. See also: ASC, 3, xix–xx. 260 Thomas Lindkvist, “The Making of Legal Communities: Royal, Aristocratic, and Local Visions in Sweden and Gotland, Thirteenth–Fourteenth Centuries,” in Imagined Communities on the Baltic Rim, from the Eleventh to Fifteenth Centuries, ed. Wojtek Jezierski and Lars Hermanson (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2016), 245–77. 261 Ibid., 260–2, quotations from p. 261.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

341

1016 which describes the role of the Novgorodians in Iaroslav the Wise’s victory over Sviatopolk and the subsequent grant of privileges to Novgorod. It was this very annal, that the editor of the 1160s found necessary to combine with the collection of laws associated with Iaroslav, the Kratkaia Pravda. Another law-code of a Swedish province, the 13th-century Västgöta Law, is accompanied by a collection of lists, both geographical (lists of mountains, forests, and waters, outlining the boundaries of Västergötland) and historical (lists of kings of Sweden, bishops of Skara, and lawspeakers of Västergötland). Those officials ‘are named and remembered in short notices written probably in the mid-thirteenth century’.262 This piece of historical writing (probably the earliest in Sweden263) again is a clear analogy to the earliest Novgorodian lists, probably being an earliest attempt at coherent history of Novgorod as a community opposed to Kiev.264 The combination of annals and lists is explainable in terms of historiography: lists give a general framework, a sequence of rulers, and the annals present more detailed (though less coherent) information on events. Together they supplement each other, as they did, perhaps, in Novgorod in the 1090s.265 The combination of history (represented by annals and lists) and laws is more surprising, at least for modern eye. Lindkvist’s idea of forging a community (through common law and common past) seems a plausible explanation here. The Novgorodian chronicler of the 1160s, who introduced lists and laws into the annals, probably regarded both as key ancient documents important for Novgorod as a community. 4.7

Princely ‘Messages’ in the Annals

The Kievan Chronicle (i.e. the annals of Hyp. from the 1110s to the 1190s) is known to quote many ‘messages’ that were sent by Rurikid princes to each other with envoys (more seldom foreign rulers, basically kings of Hungary, or Rus nobles, or city communities, can be one of the sides of such ‘correspondence’; the other side necessarily is a Rurikid). I counted 270 such ‘messages’ in the Kievan Chronicle, with a length from just a few words up to 308 words.266

262 263 264 265 266

Ibid., 263–6, quotation from p. 264. Ibid., 264. See subchapter 3.2. Subchapters 3.2–3. PSRL, 2, 429–30.

342

chapter 4

A nice example of a short ‘message’ is the famous first mention of Moscow s.a. 1147: And Iurii, having sent [an envoy to Sviatoslav], said: ‘Come to me, brother, to Moscow’. И приславъ Гюргии рече: ‘Приди ко мнѣ, брате, въ Московъ.’267 And here is a more extended example, s.a. 1151: On the morrow Iziaslav sent to Vyshgorod268 to his father269 Viacheslav, and said to him: ‘Father, I bow to you. And as God deprived me of my father Mstislav, and you are my father, and I bow to you now: I first have committed a sin, and I repent of this. And again, when God allowed me to defeat Igor near Kiev, I haven’t give honor to you, and later, when near Tumashch. And now, father, I repent of all this before God and before you. If, father, you will forgive me that, God will forgive me as well. And now, father, I give you Kiev. Come and sit on the throne of your grandfather and your father.’ Утрии же день Изяславъ посла у Вышегородъ къ отцю своему Вячеславу, и рече ему: ‘Отце, кланяю ти ся, а чо ми Богъ отца моего Мистислава отял, а ты ми еси отець. Ныне кланяю ти ся: съгрѣшилъ есмь и первое, а того ся каю. А изнова, коли ми Богъ далъ побѣдити Игоря у Кыева, а я есмь на тобѣ чести не положилъ, а потомъ коли у Тумаща. Ныне же, отце, того всего каюся пред Богомъ и пред тобою. Оже ми, отче, того отдаси ты, то и Богъ ми отдасть. Нынѣ же, отче, осе даю ти Киевъ. Поеди, сяди же на столѣ дѣда своего и отца своего.’270 Such texts, as the one quoted above, often contain formulas of greeting, as well as many other expressions that should be regarded as formulas of political etiquette. The most important question scholars ask about those texts is whether 12thcentury princes exchanged written letters, or they sent to each other envoys

267 268 269 270

Ibid., 339. Town to the North of Kiev. In fact to an uncle. PSRL, 2, 417–8.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

343

with oral messages learnt by heart.271 Some of the scholars regard the ‘messages’ of the Kievan Chronicle as transcripts of real diplomatic letters.272 This view was specially advocated by Boris Rybakov,273 Aleksei Iurasovskii,274 and, especially, Vera Franchuk.275 The most significant is the study by Vera Franchuk who created a catalogue of about 200 ‘epistles’ of the Kievan Chronicle, and described the structure of those texts, many of their etiquette formulas, and other features of their language. Most recently, this approach was supported by Oleg Kupchinskyi who included some of princely ‘messages’ of the Kievan and (mostly) the Galician-Volhynian chronicles into his edition of the charters of South-Western Rus.276 Other scholars insist that the ‘messages’ were oral, but annalists tended to write them down as accurately as possible. This view’s best advocate was Dmitrii Likhachev, who tended to reconstruct the Old Rus ‘diplomatic etiquette’ including the rituals of sending and reception of envoys.277 Simon Franklin insists that there is nothing in the ‘messages’ of the Kievan Chronicle ‘that might not be derived either from hearsay or from the personal accounts of the various envoys’. However, according to Franklin, the very inclusion of the ‘messages’ into the annals was of ‘archival’ importance.278 One can find a detailed and convincing criticism of the case presented by Rybakov and his followers in a paper by Iaroslav Daskhevich. The scholar supports Likhachev’s view that the diplomatic negotiations were primarily oral. Dashkevich supposes that written diplomatic documents indeed existed but those were letters of credence (of course, not transcribed by annalists). The essence of the sender’s message probably was transmitted orally. Dashkevich provides examples of such a practice both in the Medieval West and 17th-century Ukraine. The author suggests continuing the discussion of some questions concerning the diplomatic practice in early Rus, including the degree of accuracy of the 271 See a review of historiography up to the mid-1980s: Franchuk, Kievskaia letopis’, 109–12. 272 For example, they are extensively quoted in this capacity by Vladimir Pashuto in his classic book on Old Rus foreign policy (Vneshniaia politika, 169–77 et al.). 273 Boris A. Rybakov, Drevniaia Rus’: Skazaniia, byliny, letopisi (Moscow: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1963), 316–36; idem, Russkie letopistsy, 284–6. 274 Iurasovskii, “Gramoty;” idem, “K voprosu o stepeni autentichnosti vengerskikh gramot XII v. Ipat’evskoi letopisi,” Drevneishie gosudarstva na territorii SSSR 1981 (1983): 189–94. 275 Franchuk, Kievskaia letopis’, 122–54, 158–81. 276 Oleg A. Kupchyns’kyi, Akty ta dokumenty Halyts’ko-Volyns’koho kniazivstva XIII—pershoï polovyny XIV stolit’. Doslidzhennia. Teksty (L’viv: Naukovo t-stvo im. T. Shevchenka, 2004), 207–349. 277 Dmitrii S. Likhachev, “Russkii posol’skii obychai v XI–XIII vv.,” Istoricheskie zapiski 18 (1946): 42–55. 278 Franklin, ‘Literacy and Documentation,’ 22.

344

chapter 4

transmission of oral messages in the annals.279 Aleksei Pautkin aptly summarized the view that the ‘messages’ within the Kievan Chronicle are oral ones: Let us imagine the process of the handover of a diplomatic message. An Old Rus ruler, surrounded by his councilors, ⟨…⟩ pronounces the words which the envoy, standing in front of him, has to learn by heart and handover to the addressee without changes. At the court of the addressee everything will repeat visa versa: the envoy will speak, and the ruler and the councilors surrounding him will listen attentively to his every word to be able to give an adequate answer. This is a kind of situation in which an annalist, whose purpose is to record a judicially significant document in the strictest way, has the best chance to fulfill his task. Whatever side he supported, whether he personally was present at the reception of the envoy or not, he had several potential sources for obtaining and checking information, and those sources were official.280 Andrei Zalizniak demonstrated that linguistically the ‘messages’ of the Kievan Chronicle differ from the rest of its text. Their language in some respects is close to that of birchbark documents and other non-Church Slavonic texts. The crucial feature, which brought Zalizniak to this conclusion, is the position of enclitics, generally different in the ‘messages’ and in the annalistic text proper.281 Zalizniak himself hesitated as to consider the very messages as ‘written’ or ‘oral’. In one book the scholar wrote that the ‘princely messages … are quoted literally (maybe using directly the documents in question), and not paraphrased in the annalist’s style’.282 In a later work, however, he wrote: ‘… these are not, of course, real princely documents transcribed into the annals, but in this case the annalists intervened into the style of the messages in a much less degree than in other chronicles.’283 Aleksei Gippius discussed the ‘messages’ in the Kievan Chronicle when speaking of the beginnings of birchbark correspondence. He thinks that even 279 Iaroslav R. Dashkevich, “Spornye voprosy diplomaticheskoi praktiki Drevnei Rusi,” Istoriia SSSR 4 (1991): 100–11. 280 Aleksei A. Pautkin, Besedy s letopistsem: Poetika rannego russkogo letopisaniia (Moscow: Izd-vo Mosk. un-ta, 2002), 152–3. 281 Andrei A. Zalizniak, ‘Slovo o polku Igoreve’: Vzgliad lingvista (Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2004), 51, 63; idem, Drevnerusskie enklitiki (Moscow: Iazyki slavianskikh kul’tur, 2008), 23–4, 194–5. 282 Zalizniak, ‘Slovo o polku Igoreve’, 51, note 6. This phrase remained intact in the third edition of Zaliznyak’s book: Andrei A. Zalizniak, ‘Slovo o polku Igoreve’: Vzgliad lingvista, 3 ed., suppl. (Moscow: Rukopisnye pamiatniki Drevnei Rusi, 2008), 55, no. 6. 283 Zalizniak, Drevnerusskie enklitiki, 24.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

345

in the case of early birchbark letters the oral message pronounced by the envoy was most important, and written documentation was necessary ‘not to lose the information or to confirm the authenticity of the message.’284 Maria Lavrenchenko says that the question whether the ‘messages’ were oral or written cannot be answered with full certainty. However, it is obvious that the annalists describe the process of negotiations via envoys as an oral, public ritual. The publicity of the negotiations and the high social status of the envoys (younger princes, bishops, nobles) as well of those who attended worked as warranties of the agreements achieved. It is quite possible that the envoys had written texts with them, but oral element was in any case more important. Written form, on the contrary, could be used for secret negotiations. At the same time, as Lavrenchenko points out, Zalizniak’s linguistic observations prove that the ‘messages’ are not a literary construct, but a historically reliable record of real negotiations.285 Tetiana Vilkul, on the contrary, in her study of quotations from translated texts in the Kievan Chronicle pointed at 10 such quotations inside the ‘messages’.286 She concludes that, probably, the ‘messages’ were a creation of the compiler of the Kievan Chronicle, who quoted translated texts extensively, and the very idea of extended princely epistles could be prompted by Alexandria or other translated narratives.287 Lavrenchenko replies to this saying that Greek literature could indeed prompt to the annalists the very idea of quoting messages, although the messages themselves, at least in most cases, tend to report real negotiations.288 Considering Lavrenchenko’s position as the most balanced at the moment, I would like to add some new considerations to this discussion. 1. The Kievan Chronicle (as we have it in Hyp.) shares much of its text with Laur. Up to 1156 Laur. is a somewhat a shorter version of the same annals (most probably, a recension of Kievan annals made in Pereyaslavl-upon-Dnieper). After 1156 also there are many common fragments. As shown by Arsenii Nasonov and Tetiana Vilkul, in many cases

284 Aleksei A. Gippius, “Nabliudeniia nad etiketnymi formulami berestianykh pisem,” in Stereotipy v iazyke, kommunikatsii i kul’ture. Sb. st., ed. Liudmila L. Fedorova (Moscow: Izd-vo RGGU, 2009), 288–91, quoted p. 291. 285 Mariia L. Lavrenchenko, “Obrashcheniia i dogovornye formuly v dialogakh Riurikovichei (po materialam Kievskoi letopisi)”, in Polska, Ruś i Węgry: X–XIV wiek, ed. by Dariusz Dąbrowski, Adrian Jusupović, and Teresa Maresz (Kraków: Avalon, 2018), 159–63, 168, 176. 286 Vіlkul, Letopis’, 268–93. 287 Ibid., 313–4. See also: Aristov, “Problemy.” 131, 133. 288 Lavrenchenko, “Obrashcheniia,” 163.

346

chapter 4

Laur.’s readings are primary in comparison to those of Hyp.289 Of 160 ‘messages’ contained by the Kievan Chronicle up to 1156, 25 are reflected by Laur. as well. Of those 25, in 19 cases the texts of the ‘messages’ almost do not differ. Another 7 ‘messages’ are shared by Laur. and Hyp. in the annals for the 1170s. Although the most extended and outstanding ‘messages’ of the Kievan Chronicle are absent from Laur., the presence in it of at least some of the ‘messages’ makes it very probable that they were not an invention of the Kievan compiler of c. 1198, but a feature of the Kievan annals kept throughout the 12th century. This contradicts Vilkul’s observations on quotations from foreign sources inside the ‘messages’. However, in 9 of 10 cases described by Vilkul no more than two or three words overlap.290 Although Vilkul insists that those are really quotations and not random coincidences (and presents case in support of such a view), this material in any case is less representative, than 19 + 7 ‘messages’ that coincide verbatim in Hyp. and Laur. Even if Vilkul is right in what concerns the quotations, this scarce material cannot prove that compiler of c. 1198 composed all (or most of) the princely ‘messages’ in the Kievan Chronicle. 2. At least twice the same ‘messages’ are quoted by Laur. and Hyp. with substantial differences, which certainly are the results of deliberate revision.291 Whatever variant is in fact primary in those two cases, it is obvious that the ‘messages’ were revised by one of the annalists of the 12th or, the latest, the early 13th century. So, at least in some cases the accuracy of the transmission of ‘messages’ could be violated. 3. In one case Hyp. and Laur. report the same ‘message’ independently (that is the event described is no doubt the same, but there is no verbatim correspondence between the two chronicles neither in the ‘message’ itself, nor in this section in general), see Table 16. The two texts do not contradict each other from the point of view of the content. However, the ‘message’ looks rather different in the two versions. So, at least one of the two annalists (if not both of them) did not transcribe verbatim the real letter (or oral message) but instead reported its basic sense in his own words.292 289 Nasonov, Istoriia, 91–2, 100–1; Vіlkul, Letopis’, 234–67. 290 The only case of a longer passage ovelapping see: Vіlkul, Letopis’, 281–282; PSRL, 2, 629. I should stress that I speak here only of the quotaions inside the ‘messages’. Otherwise, the material presented by Vilkul is solid. 291 PSRL, 1, 335, 345; 2, 443, 478, s.a. 1151 and 1155. 292 This observation was made for the first time by Lavrenchenko, in a paper not yet published.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus table 16

347

Rurik’s ‘message’ to Vsevolod in Hyp. and Laur.

Hyp., s.a. 1195

Laur., s.a. 1197

And Rurik started to think with his brothers and his men, and sent to Vsevolod, saying him: ‘As Roman has negotiated with the Olgovichi and instigates them against Kiev and all the offsprings of Vladimir,a and you are, brother,b the eldest among us, the offsprings of Vladimir, think and worry about the Rus Land, and of your honor, and of ours.’ And he sent to Roman, his son-in-law, his men, and denounced him, and threw to him the charters of the cross.c

And Rurik sent to great prince Vsevolod, saying: ‘Brother and kinsman!e Roman has betrayed us and has kissed the crossf to the Olgovichi. And, brother and kinsman, send and throw to them their charters of the cross. And saddle horses yourself.’

И поча Рюрикъ думати с братьею своею и с мужи своими, и посла ко Всеволоду, повѣдая ему: ‘Ажь Романъ прислалъся ко Олговичемь и поводить и на Кыевъ и на все Володимере племя, а ты, брате, в Володимери племени старѣи еси насъ, а думаи гадаи о Рускои земли и о своеи чести и о нашеи.’ А к Романови посла ко зятю своему мужи своя, обличи и и повѣрже ему крестныя грамоты.d

Рюрикъ же посла к великому князю Всеволоду, река: ‘Брате и свате! Романко от нас отступилъ и кресть цѣловалъ къ Олговичем. А, брате и свате, пошли грамоты хрьстныѣ, поверзи имъ, а сам поиди на конь.’g

a Here the descendants of Vladimir Monomakh (including the addresser and the addressee) are opposed to the Olgovichi, the descendants of Monomakh’s cousin Oleg Sviatoslavich. b In fact a great uncle. ‘Brother’ is an etiquette form of address meaning the approximate equality of the two princes. c I.e. written treaties. See the next subchapter. ‘Sending’ and ‘throwing’ of such charters obviously means their denunciation. d PSRL, 2, 686. e Old Rus ‘сват’ (svat) meaning ‘father-in-law of one’s son or daughter’. Rurik’s son Rostislav had married Vsevolod’s daughter. On ‘brother’ see above, note b. f That is, concluded a treaty. g PSRL, 1, 413.

4.

It has been noticed by many scholars that the ‘messages’ are distributed unevenly throughout the text of the Kievan Chronicle. They start to occur only from the annal for 1140,293 are the most numerous s.a. 1146–55 (on

293 Not to count a very brief example s.a. 1135.

348

chapter 4

average, 14,9 ‘messages’ per annal), and are less numerous in the rest of the 12th century annals (on average, 2,4 ‘messages’ per annal), as shown in Figure 23. Boris Rybakov and Vera Franchuk explained this supposing that most of the ‘messages’ go back to one of the Kievan Chronicle’s sources—the chronicle of layman, boyarin Petr Borislavich, himself a princely envoy in 1152.294 However, as it has already been said,295 there was no chronicle of Petr Borislavich, but, on the contrary, it is likely that the basic source of the Kievan Chronicle were the annals the Kievan Cave Monastery kept during the 12th century. The zone of the largest concentration of ‘messages’ (annals for 1146–55) corresponds with the office of Abbot Feodosii II. We do not know for sure when he became the abbot, but s.a. 1148 he is already mentioned in the Kievan Chronicle in this capacity— as a participant of a diplomatic mission!296 He died in 1156, as Laur. reports.297 So, probably Feodosii or somebody of his circle was responsible for the large-scale introduction of ‘messages’ into the Kievan annals. 5. Of 270 ‘messages’ within the Kievan Chronicle it is only in 94 that neither the addresser nor the addressee was prince of Kiev in the moment of sending. Even more, of those 94 in 28 cases either the addresser or the addressee became prince of Kiev within the same year,298 and in 12 cases—in the following year. In such cases it well may be that the annals actually were updated not immediately after the sending/ receiving of the ‘message’ but at some chronological remove, when the addresser or addressee had already sat on the Kievan throne. So, it seems that the Kievan Chronicle, in most cases (although not always), reports the negotiations of actual princes of Kiev. 6. Vera Franchuk has noticed that sometimes one can follow features of individual ‘epistolary styles’ of certain princes. For example, the ‘messages’ of Viacheslav Vladimirovich are long and sophisticated, and those of Iurii Dolgorukii are laconic.299 I can add to this a couple of observations. Of 6 ‘messages’ starting with the formula of greeting ‘May God help you’ (‘Богъ ти (вы) помози’) 4 belong to Viacheslav Vladimirovich. And of 17 ‘messages’ from Viacheslav only those 4 have a proper formula of greeting. So, ‘May God help you’ can be regarded as the greeting 294 See above, note 89. 295 Subchapter 4.2. 296 PSRL, 2, 366. 297 PSRL, 1, 346–7. 298 Speaking more precisely, Hyp. reports his becoming prince of Kiev within the same annal. 299 Franchuk, Kievskaia letopis’, 145

349

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

1112-1113 1114-1115 1116-1117 1118-1119 1120-1121 1122-1123 1124-1125 1126-1127 1128-1129 1130-1131 1132-1133 1134-1135 1136-1137 1138-1139 1140-1141 1142-1143 1144-1145 1146-1147 1148-1149 1150-1151 1152-1153 1154-1155 1156-1157 1158-1159 1160-1161 1162-1163 1164-1165 1166-1167 1168-1169 1170-1171 1172-1173 1174-1175 1176-1177 1178-1179 1180-1181 1182-1183 1184-1185 1186-1187 1188-1189 1190-1191 1192-1193 1194-1195 1196-1197 1198-1199 0

10

20

30

figure 23 Distribution of ‘messages’ in the Kievan Chronicle

40

50

350

7.

8.

chapter 4

formula preferred by Viacheslav. Also, of the two ‘messages’ addressed by Cumans to Rus princes one has a greeting formula, which has no parallels in Rus texts: ‘We are asking about your health’ (‘Прашаемъ здоровия твоего’).300 This wording appears to be a translation of a real Turkic greeting formula.301 By this moment I have been speaking only of ‘messages’ proper, that is, of pieces of text transmitted over a distance. However, the Kievan Chronicle is full of ‘speeches’ in which the speaker and the addressee were situated one in front of the other. It seems that the annalists themselves did not counterposed those two types of direct speech: in both cases they considered important to write down what was said or stated. For example, s.a. 1147 the annalist describes in detail the synod of bishops which decided whether to elect Kliment Smoliatich to Metropolitan. The case was a delicate one (metropolitans of Kiev traditionally were appointed by patriarchs of Constantinople, and the election of Kliment contradicted this tradition). Some bishops supported Kliment, others objected. The annalist quotes the speeches of both sides, so presenting their positions and argument.302 S.a. 1150 the annalist quotes extensively the speeches of the leaders of a military campaign with details of planned operations,303 and so on. It must be said that the Kievan Chronicle is not absolutely unique in this respect. PVL as well as other later annals also quote speeches of princes and other characters, and sometimes ‘messages’ transmitted over a distance.304 But it is evident that from the 1140s the Kievan Chronicle starts to quote speeches and ‘messages’ as extensively as no other early Rus chronicle. As it has been noticed above,305 in the annals for 1146–55, those with the biggest concentration of ‘messages’, only five times non-Rurikids are mentioned as envoys. On the contrary, in the following annals such names start to be reported much more often: s.a. 1159 as many as 12 times the annalist mentions non-Rurikids as envoys, other 6 names are given s.a. 1164–74. It seems, that about that time the Kievan annalists decided

300 PSRL, 2, 341. 301 See: Timofei V. Gimon and Vladimir V. Tishin, “Tiurkskaia formula privetstviia v drevnerusskoi letopisi (posol’stvo polovtsev k Sviatoslavu Ol’govichu v 1147 g.),” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2019–20 (2020), 267–96. 302 PSRL, 2, 340–1. 303 Ibid., 413–5. 304 See, for instance, the description of negotiations between Vasilko and Davyd through the author of the narration, certain Vasilii, in PVL s.a. 1097 (PSRL, 1, 265–6). 305 Subchapter 4.4.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

351

that naming the envoys would be somewhat a simpler way of recording negotiations than to reproduce ‘messages’. The names of the messengers (as those of testimonies of a legal transaction) would guarantee the authenticity of what is written about the negotiations. If so, we see a trend towards an ‘archaization’: written documents are replaced with the mentioning of the key participants of the event. However, later the situation changes again: after 1174 no non-Rurikid envoys are mentioned, but ‘messages’ are quoted quite often. All those observations imply that the ‘messages’ of the Kievan Chronicle are not (or at least not only) a phenomenon of literature. Their primary function was to record real negotiations, statements, and decisions of political actors (first of all, Rurikid princes, the participants of the incessant rivalry for Kiev). From the 1140s the scribes continuing the annals of Kiev (presumably located in the Cave Monastery) started to write down such texts, although they could do it with various intensiveness and, quite possibly, not always immediately and verbatim. One cannot completely rule out the possibility that the compiler of the Kievan Chronicle c. 1198 edited or even created afresh some of the ‘messages’. As Tetiana Vilkul noticed, in four ‘messages’ from Iziaslav Mstislavich (prince of Kiev) to his younger brother Rostislav (prince of Smolensk) s.a. 1147 and 1152306 the latter is called a senior not only of Smolensk but also of Novgorod (things are presented as if Iziaslav is the ruler of the southern part of Rus, and Rostislav controls all the northern part). This is an anachronism: in 1147 Novgorod was ruled by another their brother, Sviatopolk, and in 1152 Iaroslav, son of Iziaslav himself, was the Novgorodian prince. As Florent Mouchard shows, this anachronism can be explained by political attitudes of the compiler of c. 1198 who worked under the patronate of Rurik, son of aforementioned Rostislav.307 Although there easily can be more examples of such editorial intervention into the ‘correspondense’ of the Kievan Chronicle, the considerations presented above overbalance. I believe that the bulk of the ‘messages’ goes back to the contemporary Kievan annals and tend to represent real political negotiations. Unfortunately, I have no answer to the main question: whether the messages were written or oral. It may be significant that the annalists when introducing ‘messages’ almost never use words implying their written nature (such as ‘to write’, написати, or ‘document’, грамота). Such words are used only three 306 PSRL, 2, 347, 359, 455, 459. 307 Vilkul, “Litopys Sviatoslava Ol’hovycha,” 64, note 5; Floran Mushar [Florent Mouchard], “Mezhdu bratom i synom: Ob obraze Rostislava Mstislavicha v Kievskoi letopisi,” Ruthenica 10 (2011): 137–46.

352

chapter 4

times but in all three cases the messages in question were secret ones sent by non-Rurikids (and in one case it is even a ‘forged letter’, грамота ложная).308 This can imply, as Maria Lavrenchenko thinks,309 that the bulk of the ‘messages’ (those between princes) were oral. On the other hand, Vera Franchuk pointed at several ‘messages’ in which the very envoy is mentioned in third person, which seems nonsense in an orally transmitted text.310 Franchuk thinks that the word ‘рѣчь’ (i.e. ‘speech’) which is in the annals the most common designation of ‘messages’ means ‘written letter’311—but it can equally mean ‘oral message’. All the descriptions of sending and receiving envoys in the Kievan Chronicle can be interpreted as describing purely oral procedures—but there is nothing in them excluding the possibility of a written letter (most probably, a written letter read aloud at the ceremony of the reception of envoy). After all, birchbark correspondence had existed in Rus by the 1140s for about a century. Birchbark documents demonstrate a variety of forms of the interaction of oral and written—from fully written messages to just short messages confirming the proxy of the messanger to convey an oral message312—a variety quite possible in the negotiations of the princes as well. It is probable that the very difference between oral and written messages was not of principal importance in the 12th century: the ritual, the pronouncing of message in public, and the high status of envoy were of primary importance—and the letter (if it existed) was needed as a memorandum and/ or confirmation.313 And also the reality easily could be diverse: – an envoy could have a written letter with him, – an envoy could have no written letter with him, – an envoy could have a sort of proxy or letter of credence but convey the main message orally. And an annalist could: – either transcribe a real letter, – or record strictly what had been said aloud by the envoy, – or report the general idea of the message in his own words (imitating the style of such messages and using authentic political formulae), – or (it is not impossible but must be specially proved) forge a message. Anyway, the introduction of ‘messages’ into the Kievan annals from the 1140s is an interesting phenomenon, which finds some significant parallels. 308 PSRL, 2, 501, 523, 549. See also Franklin, ‘Literacy and Documentation,’ 22–3. 309 See above, note 285. 310 PSRL, 2, 374, 420, 421; Franchuk, Kievskaia letopis’, 123–4. 311 Franchuk, Kievskaia letopis’, 122–5. 312 See: Schaeken, Voices on Birchbark, 139–58. 313 See the words of Gippius, above, p. 344–5.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

4.8

353

The 1130s–40s as a Crucial Period in the Documental and Annalistic Writing

The 1130s and the 1140s were an important period in the history of document writing in Rus. Before that time, we know nothing of any legal documents (such as land grants, treaties, wills, etc.) apart from the 10th century Rus-Byzantine treaties, and the laws (Russkaia Pravda and church statutes).314 In the period mentioned the situation changes. The earliest Novgorodian charters, granting lands, incomes, and privileges to religious houses date from the 1130s (including the earliest extant Rus single-sheet document on parchment, the Mstislav’s Charter of c. 1130).315 The Sviatoslav Olgovich’s Statute (Ustav), which is the first extant document to regulate the incomes of the Novgorodian episcopal see, was issued in 1137.316 The birchbark document no. 739 (datable to 1137–8) is, almost certainly, the earliest known princely dispositive letter. It concerns the payment of church tithe.317 Valentin Ianin has shown that after 1136 posandiks’ seals disappear for a while, although princes’ seals continue to be used. At first sight this contradicts with what we know of the political history of Novgorod, but Ianin explains the revival of princely seal in terms of the establishment of the joint court of prince and posadnik. The seal is thus not a privilege of prince, but a mean of control over prince in the hands of posadnik (or, wider, of Novgorod as a political body).318 All this makes an impression that the 1130s were a time of innovations in the world of official documents.319 The earliest legal documents from Smolensk date from approximately the same time. A group of four related charters issued in the benefit of the episcopal see of Smolensk survive in a 16th-century manuscript. Three documents of this ‘Smolensk dossier’ date from c. 1136–50.320 Simon Franklin observes

314 Sometimes the ‘will’ of Iaroslav the Wise (in PVL s.a. 1054) is regarded as a formal document (see above, note 251). 315 GVNP, 139–41, no. 79–82. On the dates of these documents see: Ianin, Novgorodskie akty, 135–8, no. 62–5. See also Figure 3. 316 Iaroslav N. Shchapov, ed., Drevnerusskie knjazheskie ustavy XI–XV vv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1976), 147–8. 317 NGB, [10], 37. 318 Ianin, Ocherki, 31–4. 319 However, PVL mentions s.a. 996 a charter issued by St Vladimir in favour of the Desiatinnaia Church, which is probably identical to the architype of the Vladimir’s Statute (see subchapter 2.5). 320 Printed in Shchapov, ed., Drevnerusskie knjazheskie ustavy, 140–6. See also Franklin, ‘Literacy and Documentation,’ 28.

354

chapter 4

that the production of the Novgorodian charters and the Statute, and of the Smolensk documents, falls: … within the spheres of activity of two men who were arguably the most distinguished, and without doubt the most outspokenly Byzantinophile, bishops in twelfth-century Russia: Manuel [Manuil] of Smolensk (1136– after 1156) and Niphon [Nifont] of Novgorod (1131–56). Manuel was himself a Greek. Niphon, a respected authority on canon law, was perhaps a Russian, but worked tirelessly to uphold the interests of the partriarchate of Constantinole, with which he had unusually close contacts. Together Manuel and Niphon were the most vigorous defenders of patriarchal authority in the cause célèbre of 1147, when a synod of the bishops of Russia decided to consecrate its own metropolitan without patriarchal blessing …321 The role of those bishops is explicitly stated in some of those documents, and Franklin argues that they were probably involved in the production of the remaining ones. Although the extant few texts are not necessarily all that once had been produced, the existence of those two clusters of documents points at the probable role ‘played by the Byzantine or Byzantinophile clergy in introducing documentary practices to Russia.’322 Franklin goes further, and says that four of the five princes involved into the production of those documents belonged to one family: those were Mstislav, son of Vladimir Monomakh, and three his sons: Vsevolod, Iziaslav, and Rostislav.323 We have no extant legal documents produced in that time in Southern Rus. However, from the 1140s the Kievan Chronicle starts to mention from time to time krestnye gramoty (‘крестные грамоты’, ‘the charters of the cross’), i.e. written treaties supplementing the traditional ritual of ‘kissing the cross’ that always accompanied agreements between princes of the Rurik dynasty.324 Here again Franklin points at a possible foreign influence: … three out of the first four recorded krestnye gramoty ⟨…⟩ are produced in the context of the struggle for Galich in the southwest, and on each occasion the nexus of treaties involves not only Russian princes but also the king of Hungary (who periodically occupied Galich) and—at any rate in the first two cases—the Byzantine emperor. ⟨…⟩ The conditions 321 322 323 324

Franklin, ‘Literacy and Documentation,’ 29. Ibid., 29–30. Ibid., 31. See: Ibid., 23–4, 27, 31; Franklin, Writing, 173; Franchuk, Kievskaia letopis’, 113–22.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

355

in Galich, sandwiched as it was between Kiev, Hungary, and Byzantium, were perhaps ideal for the local assimilation of habits acquired in foreign relations.325 At the same time, Franklin says that ‘no fewer than six of the seven krestnye gramoty’ are connected with the same princely family as the Novgorodian and Smolensk documents.326 Nevertheless, of course, “the rise of documentation cannot be attributed solely to ‘influences’ or to actions of particular individuals. We must consider the circumstances”.327 I quoted Franklin’s argument so extensively because it seems that the 1130s and the 1140s also were a crucial time for the annalistic writing, at least in Kiev and Novgorod. As for Kiev, Franklin himself wrote in a footnote that the great concentration of princely ‘letters’ in the Kievan Chronicle from the 1140s could be explained by Prince Iziaslav Mstislavich’s concern ‘that his diplomatic activities were chronicled rather more systematically than was normal.’328 As it has been shown above,329 the annalistic writing was likely not patronized by Prince Iziaslav (Franklin refers here to Boris Rybakov’s opinion that it was330), at least directly. Rather, the annals were kept in the Kievan Cave Monastery, and if one person was responsible for the increase of quoting of princely ‘letters’, this was Abbot Feodosii II.331 In any case, the very increase in that time is obvious (see Figure 23 above). One feature of the Novgorodian annals can be paralleled to this. In the annals for 1132, 1136, 1148, and 1154 one finds accusations of princes that look like a presentation of an official opinion of Novgorod: [1134] In that same year Vsevolod went to Rus,332 to Pereyaslavl, upon command of Iaropolk,333 though he had kissed the cross334 to the Novgorodians as “I want to die in your [city]”. 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332

Franklin, ‘Literacy and Documentation,’ 27. Ibid., 31. Ibid., 32. Ibid., 32, note 103. Subchapter 4.2. See above, note 89. Subchapter 4.2. Here this name is used in its narrow sense: lands in the middle course of Dnieper, around Kiev. 333 Vsevolod’s uncle, prince of Kiev after the death of Mstislav, Vsevolod’s father, earlier in the same year. 334 I.e. had sworn an oath.

356

chapter 4

Въ се же лѣто ходи Всѣволодъ въ Русь Переяславлю, повелениемь Яропълцемь, а целовавъ крестъ къ новгородцемъ, яко “хоцю у вась умерети”. In the year 6644 [1136], the 14th year of indiction, the Novgorodians gathered the dwellers of Pskov and Ladoga, and decided as to expel their prince Vsevolod. And they put him under arrest in bishop’s court with the wife, the children, and the mother-in-law, on the 28th of May. And guards guarded him day and night with arms, 30 men a day. And he sat [arrested] for 2 months, and they released him from the city on the 15th of July, and they accepted Vladimir, his son, [as prince]. And they proclaimed his335 blames as follows: “1. he does not take care of smerds;336 2. ‘why did you want to sit in Pereyaslavl?’;337 3. ‘you went out of the battle ahead of all’;338 [4.] and this is too much: at first having ordered us to support Vsevolod, then he orders to retreat”.339 They did not let him go, until the other prince arrived.340 Въ лѣто 6644. Индикта лѣта 14, новгородьци призваша пльсковиче и ладожаны и сдумаша, яко изгонити князя своего Всѣволода, и въсадиша въ епископль дворъ, съ женою и съ дѣтьми и съ тьщею, мѣсяця маия въ 28; и стражье стрежаху день и нощь съ оружиемь, 30 мужь на день. И сѣде 2 мѣсяця, и пустиша из города июля въ 15, а Володимира, сына его, прияша. А се вины его творяху: 1, не блюдеть смердь; 2, “чему хотелъ еси сести Переяславли”; З-е, “ехалъ еси съ пълку переди всѣхъ, а на то много; на початыи велевъ ны, рече, къ Всѣволоду приступити, а пакы отступити велить”; не пустиша его, донелѣже инъ князь приде. The accusations s.a. 1148 and 1154 are articulated less explicitly, but, together with those s.a. 1132 and 1136, they show that the annals continued to record Novgorodian claims to princes:

335 336 337 338 339

Of Vsevolod. That is, of free peasants. This is a reference to the events and to the accusation of 1132. This is probably about Vsevolod’s cowardice in the Battle of Zhdania Gora in January, 1135. I.e. Vsevolod was inconsistent in relationship with Vsevolod, son of Oleg, of Chernigov. See a comment on those blames in: Vilkul, Liudi i kniaz’, 294. 340 Sviatoslav, son of Oleg.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

357

[1148] In that same autumn Iziaslav sent from Kiev [to Novgorod] his son Iaroslav, and Novgorodians accepted him, and [Iziaslav] withdrew Sviatopolk [from Novgorod] because of his malignance, and gave him [the city of] Vladimir. Тои же осени присла Изяслав ис Кыева сына своего Ярослава, и прияша новгородьци, а Святопълка выведе злобы его ради и дасть ему Володимирь. [1156] And then Rostislav went from Novgorod to Kiev to the throne, having left his son Davyd in Novgorod; and the Novgorodians got angry at him341 as he did not make them order,342 but disrupted [them] even more. And they showed way to his son343 after him. Тъгда же иде Ростислав из Новагорода Кыеву на столъ, оставивъ сына Давыда Новегородѣ; и възнегодоваша новгородци, зане не створи имь ряду, нъ боле раздьра, и показаша путь по немь сынови его. In 1132, as Aleksei Gippius has shown, the annalist changed. Whether this was a transfer of the annals from princely patronage into the hands of Bishop Nifont, or simply a change of episcopal annalists,344 it is certainly not a coincidence that the change of author exactly precedes the first accusation of Prince Vsevolod. This was the atmosphere of the conflict between Novgorod and the prince that provoked Nifont both to change the annalist and to write down the official accusation. So, Nifont played an important role both, in the political life of Novgorod (at least, in 1136 when Vsevolod was imprisoned ‘in bishop’s court’) and in the introduction of written practices in Novgorod. One of those practices was the recording of official statements of the Novgorodian community in the episcopal annals. It would be an oversimplification to attribute all the innovations in the written culture of Novgorod in the 1130s to Nifont (as well as such innovations in Kiev to Abbot Feodosii II, or in Smolenk to Bishop Manuil). Rather, the 1130s and the 1140s seem to be the time when rights, privileges, and mutual positions 341 Rostislav. 342 Old Rus ‘рядъ’ (ryad) can mean ‘order’ or ‘agreement’, the second translation also being possible. 343 I.e. expelled him. 344 Subchapter 3.4.

358

chapter 4

of the actors of Rus politics (such as princes, city communities, and the main religious houses) started to be regarded as worth recording. This tendency partly can be explained in terms of the ideas of Byzantinized high-rank clerics, but it is worth saying that the very political situation in Rus changed. In Kiev, after three relatively stable reigns (those of Vladimir Monomakh [1113–25], and his sons Mstislav [1125–32] and Iaropolk [1132–9]) the period of intensive rivalry started. During the rest of the 12th century princes in Kiev changed very often, representatives of different branches of the Rurik dynasty alternated, some persons sat on the throne of Kiev for two or three times,345 and wars for the Kievan throne became routine. Relatively long reigns in the 12th century were exclusions, and the shortest reign (of brothers Mikhalko and Vsevolod, later known as the ‘Big Nest’) lasted only from the 18th of February to the 24th of March, 1173. The same was true for Novgorod. In 1095–17 Mstislav, son of Vladimir Monomakh, ruled there, in 1117–36 Mstislav’s son Vsevolod sat on that throne. In 1132 (as has been said above) there was a serious conflict between Vsevolod and the city, but he continued to be the local prince until his expulsion in 1136 (those events used to be called in historiography ‘the Novgorodian revolution’). From 1136 on, and during the rest of the pre-Mongolian period, princes in Novgorod changed very often, and, as in Kiev, representatives of different branches of the Rurikids alternated, so that none of the political centers of Rus had permanent control over Novgorod. Not only princes, but also posadniks (city magistrates) changed in Novgorod very often. It is generally assumed that this reflected the rivalry of both, different branches of the Rurik dynasty and several groups within the Novgorodian aristocracy, based in different parts (‘ends’) of the city. This rivalry, often violent,346 made the offices of Novgorodian prince and posadnik very instable. It seems natural that in such conditions religious houses wished to obtain written guarantees of their rights, privileges, or possessions. And it is explainable that in the same conditions the annals started to be regarded as a record of precedents, deeds, statements, and so on, of the participants of this permanent political rivalry.347 This tendency certainly was common for Kiev and Novgorod, but details differed. In Novgorod, the writing down of political 345 For example, Iurii Dolgorukii was prince of Kiev three times, between 1149 and 1157. 346 See, for example, a detailed account of an inner conflict in Novgorod s.a. 1218 (PSRL, 3, 58–9). 347 Compare Mark Aleshkovskii’s idea that only in the 12th century, ‘because of great wave of indestine wars of princes, the very need arose in the recording of the rights of those princes, the time of their rule, and the makeup of their possessions, in the reasoning of their actions’ (Aleshkovskii, Povest’ vremennykh let, 296–7).

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

359

statements, although it had started earlier, was lesser in scale than in Kiev, and stopped soon.348 However, the annals of Novgorod recorded actions, merits, and blames not only of Rurikid princes, but also of the elite of local society. On the contrary, the annals of Kiev from the 1140s started to record political statements, discussions, and negotiations much more intensively, and did not stop to do so during all the rest of the 12th century, but they were interested almost exclusively in the deeds of the Rurikids. And it is natural that in both cases this record was in the hands of relatively autonomous religious agencies. In Novgorod, the steadiest institution, standing somewhat above the rivalry of the parties inside and outside the city, was the (archi)episcopal see.349 The Cave Monastery near Kiev was an ancient and authoritative religious house, well-known center of writing. Contrary to other suburban monasteries of Kiev (such as the Vydubichi one), it was not affiliated with any particular branch of the Rurikids. If my hypothesis that the annals were kept in the Kievan Cave Monastery throughout the 12th century is correct, it makes a good parallel to the role of the (archi)episcopal see in keeping the annals in Novgorod. 4.9

Political Evaluations in the Annals: Kiev Up to the 1130s and the Northeast

As it has been shown in the previous subchapter, from approximately the 1130s–40s the annals of the two main centers of Rus—Kiev and Novgorod— started to be a record of political actions and political statements (although certainly not only of them) kept by relatively independent ecclesiastical institutions, but what about earlier texts (those of the 11th and the early 12th centuries), as well as the annals of Northeastern Rus?350 Kiev in the last decades of the 11th century. Letopisi as a genre emerged in the second half of the 11th century in the Kievan Cave Monastery. As Jonathan Shepard rightly observs, the annals as well as some hagiographic texts show this monastery’s ‘claim amounting to special moral authority to comment’ on political matters, to a role of ‘keeper of the conscience of the princes’.351 For example, Feodosii I, the abbot of the Cave Monastery, according to his Life, 348 After the portion of text written by Nifont’s annalist (annals for 1132–56) we do not see such passages for several decades. 349 See at the beginning of chapter 3. 350 The material from other centers is too scarce and/or problematic to be discussed here. 351 Shepard, “History,” 344–5 ff.

360

chapter 4

said that Sviatoslav (in 1073–6) was sitting on the throne of Kiev ‘not by law’, and ‘even after reluctantly agreeing to let Sviatoslav’s name be mentioned in the liturgy, Feodosii still had the “Christ-loving” Iziaslav named in first place, as being the legitimate prince of Kiev’.352 The political system after the death of Iaroslav the Wise (1054) is known as the Triumvirate of Iaroslav’s sons: Iziaslav, Sviatoslav, and Vsevolod, sitting in Kiev, Chernigov, and Pereyaslavl-upon-Dnieper, respectively. As far as one can judge, up to the late 1060s this system operated effectively. In 1067, according to PVL, Vseslav of Polotsk, great-nephew of the members of the Triumvirate, ‘started war’ (‘заратися’) and captured Novgorod.353 The Triumvirate later defeated Vseslav. The winners pledged (‘kissed the cross’) to Vseslav not to do evil to him personally, but, as the annalist explicitly says, broke their own oath and imprisoned him. In the next year (1068) the Triumvirate was defeated by the Cumans—‘because of our sins’,354 and, in this same year a revolt exploded in Kiev. The Kievans freed Vseslav from the prison and made him their prince. Iziaslav fled to Poland.355 The annalist certainly sympathizes to Vseslav, saying again that all this happened because Iziaslav had broken his oath.356 In the next year (1069) Iziaslav, with the help of Bolesław II of Poland, came to Kiev, and Vseslav escaped. With the mediation of his brothers, Iziaslav was restored in Kiev without bloodshed, but having entered Kiev he killed and blinded many Kievans, including those whom he ‘killed without a guilt, having made no investigation’ (‘без вины погуби не испытавъ’).357 So, in the account of the events of 1067–9 the annalist accuses Prince Iziaslav of Kiev instead of the fact that he obviously was writing within his realm. On the other hand, as the same annalist says, in the time of the revolt Iziaslav’s retinue advised him to kill Vseslav in a treacherous way—and Iziaslav refused to do so.358 Later, in the account of Iziaslav’s death in battle (s.a. 1078), the annalist’s tone is very sympathetic to Iziaslav who is said to have died ‘for his brother’ (‘за брата своего’).359 352 Ibid., 348. This should have been in 1073–4 (between Sviatoslav’s usurpation of Kiev and Feodosii’s death). 353 See on the memory of this event subchapter 3.11. 354 PSRL, 1, 166–7. 355 Ibid., 170–1. 356 Ibid., 172. 357 Ibid., 174. 358 Ibid., 171. 359 Ibid., 202. Jonathan Shepard supposes that those moral evaluations are later amplifications made ‘to serve as prelude to the Chronicle’s discursive treatment of oaths on the Cross in its entries for the 1090s’ (Shepard, “History,” 347). This is not impossible, but, in the absence of additional evidence in favour of such amplification, a simpler hypothesis

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

361

It is very important that in the annals for 1067–9 the annalist quotes direct speeches from each of the parties several times: the princes, the Kievans, and Iziaslav’s men. For example, the sons of Iaroslav kiss the cross to Vseslav in 1067 saying: ‘Come to us, as we won’t do evil to you’ (‘прииди к намъ яко не створимъ ти зла’), and then they imprison him.360 This resembles the annals of the Kievan Chronicle for the 1140s and later: describing conflicts the annalist tends to record carefully what was said by its participants, although quoting is not so large-scale as in the 12th century.361 So, as early as in the 1060s, in a situation of a conflict (or, rather, when reporting a recent conflict), the annalist took the position of an independent record keeper who registered what was done and said, and did not hesitate to evaluate some of the actions even of the actual ruler. The same can be found in some of the following annals. S.a. 1073 the annalist criticizes the two younger brothers, Sviatoslav and Vsevolod, for breaking their father’s and God’s precept and expelling Iziaslav from Kiev.362 This comment is in accord with the above-cited testimony of Abbot Feodosii’s Life about his treatment of this event.363 In 1075 Sviatoslav, still sitting in Kiev, welcomed German envoys and boasted about his treasures. He died in the following year, and, as the annalist stresses, his possessions were dispersed.364 After Sviatoslav’s death in 1073 Vsevolod became the prince of Kiev. In 1085 his nephew Iaropolk, son of Iziaslav, started war against him, ‘having listened to evil advisers’ (‘послушавъ злых свѣтникъ’). Vsevolod’s army was stronger, Iaropolk fled to Poland, his mother and wife as well as the retinue of Iaropolk were brought to Kiev. In the following year (1086) Iaropolk returned to Rus, but was killed by a certain ‘accursed Neradets’ (‘от проклятаго Нерадьця’). The body was brought to Kiev, and Vsevolod buried him with honor.365 This Iaropolk was a benefactor of the Kievan Cave Monastery, as we learn from the record of his daughter’s death s.a. 1158.366 The annalist’s position is somewhat pacificatory. Bad advisers are blamed for Iaropolk’s desire to make war against Vsevolod. And a bad guy, a non-Rurikid Neradets, is blamed for Iaropolk

360 361 362 363 364 365 366

would be that moral evaluations belong to a contemporary. There can be little doubt that at least the bulk of PVL’s narration on the events of the late 1060s is a contemporary record (ibid., 346–7). PSRL, 1, 167. This similarity has already been noticed: Franchuk, Kievskaia letopis’, 152 ff. PSRL, 1, 182–3. Note 352. PSRL, 1, 198–9. Ibid., 205–7. PSRL, 2, 492–3.

362

chapter 4

murder—quite possibly to drop the charge from Vsevolod. Somewhat similar is the account of the murder of Itlar s.a. 1095: several non-Rurikids are made to be responsible for that action in order to deflect the charge from Vladimir Monomakh.367 The necrologue of Vsevolod s.a. 1093 is a notable piece of political writing. The annalist’s tone is sympathetic to the deceased prince, but he, at the same time, criticizes Vsevolod for dispensing lands to his nephews, for hearing the advice of ‘the young’ (‘уных’), and not of the wise old men, and for allowing to ‘the young’ to do iniquity.368 The new prince, Sviatopolk, son of Iziaslav, shortly after that is blamed for the same: he imprisoned Cumanic envoys, ‘not having consulted his father’s and his uncle’s big retinue, but he consulted [only] those who came with him’ (‘не здумавъ с болшею дружиною отнею и строя своего, но свѣтъ створи с пришедшими с нимъ’).369 Then the annalist reports Sviatopolk’s expedition against the Cumans, quoting several times advice given to the prince by ‘the wise men’ (‘мужи смыслении’), and those ‘unwise’ (‘несмыслении’). Sviatopolk’s choice was different in different cases, but finally he ignored the advice of the ‘wise’, following the desire of the Kievans, decided to cross River Stugna during high water, but was defeated on the opposite bank. When retreating back across the river, many warriors died, including Rostislav, Sviatopolk’s nephew.370 This annal for 1093 is assumed to be the last in the Initial Compilation, and the opposition of ‘the wise’ and ‘the young’ also is found in its supposed preface (now the preface of N1Y).371 In more general terms the author’s position in this annal continues that of several annals from the late 1060s: the annalist is basically loyal to the princes of Kiev, but feels free to criticize them if they act wrongly. S.a. 1094–5 the annalist condemns Oleg, son of Sviatoslav, for his unjust behavior in relation to other princes.372 However, s.a. 1096 a war of Oleg against Iziaslav, son of Vladimir Monomakh, is reported. The annalist quotes the message of Oleg to Iziaslav claiming from him to go out from Murom. The author comments that Oleg ‘was right in this’ (‘правъ бѣ в семь’). Oleg won the battle, and Iziaslav was killed in it. Oleg did not stop with this and occupied the Rostov Land—and this was unjust, according to the annalist. This provoked a war between Oleg and Mstislav, other Vladimir Monomakh’s son, in which Oleg’s behavior also was dishonest. Finally, Oleg was defeated in battle. Thus, 367 368 369 370 371 372

See subchapter 4.4, p. 322. PSRL, 1, 215–7. Ibid., 218. Ibid., 218–21. PSRL, 3, 103–4. PSRL, 1, 226, 229–30.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

363

in this account the annalist again occupies a position of independent judge: he, of course, does not like Oleg, but acknowledges his rightness at the beginning of the conflict. It is worth mentioning, that in this account quite extended princely messages are quoted several times.373 So, as the entries for the late 1060s, this account s.a. 1096 anticipates the annals of the Kievan Chronicle from the 1140s.374 In the next annal, for 1097, the annalist quotes extensively the agreement concluded by the princes in Lubech, about the possessions of each.375 And immediately after this he turns to reporting a terrible crime: the blinding of Prince Vasilko by Sviatopolk and Davyd. In this well-known account the author evidently tries to shift much of the blame from Sviatopolk, the Prince of Kiev, to Davyd, whose bad advice Sviatopolk trusted (although Sviatopolk’s culpability, of course, is also beyond doubt). This account is continued by a narration of subsequent events up to 1100 (and mentioning even an event of 1112), all contained within one annal. I have already discussed this Tale of the Blinding of Vasilko as an example of a narrative that outgrew the annalistic form. This continuation was added, as Aleksei Gippius shows, by another author, at the stage of editing PVL in the 1110s.376 For us now it is important, that this Tale (and especially its continuation) again anticipates the Kievan annals of the mid-12th century, as it not only narrates in detail the interrelations of princes, but quotes messages and reports the details of negotiations, some of which were conducted through the author of the continuation, whose name was Vasilii.377 The evident sympathy of this continuation to Vladimir Monomakh and a greater hostility to Sviatopolk can be explained by its writing already after 1113, in which Sviatopolk died and Vladimir sat on the throne of Kiev. In any case, the text represents the same manner of reporting events: as careful record of deeds and statements of the parties. A remarkable detail is that Vasilko himself, the innocent victim, who is obviously praised in the Tale, and to whom the author (Vasilii) is personally close, is blamed for taking revenge 373 PSRL, 1, 236–40. 374 It is interesting that such a detailed account is dedicated to a war at a remote periphery of Rus. An explanation may lay in the text itself: ‘Oleg ordered to burn the town of Suzdal. Only the monastic court of the [Kievan] Cave Monastery rested, and the church, that is there, of St Dimitry, which [Metropolitan] Efrem had given [to the monastery], and with villages’ (‘Олег же повелѣ зажещи Суждаль город, токмо остася дворъ манастырьскыи Печерьскаго манастыря, и церкы, яже тамо есть, святаго Дмитрея, юже бѣ далъ Ефрѣмъ и с селы’, PSRL, 1, 238). 375 PSRL, 1, 256–7. 376 See chapter 1, note 229. 377 PSRL, 1, 262–73. The similarity of the Tale with the Kievan annals from the 1140s has already been noticed, see: Likhachev, Russkii posol’skii obychai, 42–3 ff.

364

chapter 4

on guiltless people: ‘And Vasilko ordered to slaughter all, and he took revenge on the guiltless, having shed innocent blood’ (‘И повелѣ Василко исѣчи вся, и створи мщенье на людех неповинных, и пролья кровь неповинну’).378 The execution of two men by the sons of Vasilko is called ‘the second revenge, which was not good to be done for God is to be the avenger’ (‘2-е мщенье … его же не бяше лѣпо створити, да бы Богъ отместник былъ’).379 To sum up, the annals of the Kievan Cave Monastery which lay behind PVL’s text for the last decades of the 11th century contain several detailed accounts of political conflicts in which the annalist takes a position of independent judge, sometimes differently evaluating actions by the same prince (generally ‘bad’ Oleg can conduct a just war, generally ‘good’ Vasilko can take a revenge on the guiltless, and so on). In some of those accounts direct speech of princes is quoted widely. Therefore, the quoting of princes’s ‘messages’ and statements was not completely an innovation of the 1140s: in some respects this was the feature of the annals of the Cave Monastery already in the second half of the 11th century.380 Maybe, this was an essential feature of letopisi when they emerged as a genre, or even one of the reasons of their emergence. The Kievan annals for the 1100s–30s. The annals for the 1100s are more loyal to Vladmir Monomakh than to Sviatopolk,381 but it is impossible to say whether or not this loyalty is due to the revision of the text after 1113. Otherwise, those annals are not rich in political evaluations. During the 1110s the content of the Kievan annals as reflected by Hyp.382 gradually changes. The entries become more laconic, with less detail and 378 PSRL, 1, 267. 379 Ibid., 268. 380 Shepard (“History,” 349) says that the monks ‘may not have maintained a tradition of nuanced narratives of the deeds of princes throughout the twelfth century’. However, different evaluations of actions by the same prince are characteristic for the annals for the 1140s and later years. See, for example, Vilkul’s observation that such ‘inveterate traitors’ as Vladimir and Iziaslav, sons of Davyd, who changed their allies several times, at one of the moments pronounce, s.a. 1149, highly moral words explaining their loyality to Iziaslav, prince of Kiev. Vilkul attributes such a nuanced and non-straightforward position to the compiler of the Kievan Chronicle (Tatiana L. Vilkul, “‘A dusheiu ne mozhem igrati’,” in Chernihiv u seredn’ovichniǐ ta rann’omodernyǐ istoriï Tsentral’no-Skhidnoï Ievropy: Zb. naukovykh prats’, prysviachenyǐ 1100-littiu pershoï litopysnoï zhadky pro Chernihiv, ed. by Oleksandr B. Kovalenko (Chernihiv: Desnians’ka pravda, 2007): 287–92). 381 PSRL, 1, 275–7, 279. 382 Laur. for those years contains a highly abbreviated version of the same text. As for political evaluations, it contains some of those also contained by Hyp. (listed below), but also says that Mstislav ruled ‘with meekness’ (‘с кротостью’, PSRL, 1, 295), and an excursus on the legendary roots of the conflicts between the princes of Polotsk and the descendants of Iaroslav the Wise is given s.a. 1128 (PSRL, 1, 299–301).

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

365

rhetoric, they become very similar to the 12th-century Novgorodian annals. They describe the relatively stable reigns of Vladimir Monomakh (1113–25), and his sons Mstislav (1125–32) and Iaropolk (1132–9). Political evaluations in those annals are relatively rare, one can only find: – glorification of Vladimir Monomakh,383 and Iaropolk;384 – criticism of those against whom princes of Kiev undertook expeditions (that is, justification of those actions).385 S.a. 1128 it is reported that Mstislav, to prevent a bloody conflict, broke his own oath. He was authorized to do so by a council of ecclesiastics, but still regretted it during all his life.386 A detailed description here must not be treated, of course, as an independent position of the annalist—rather, as a justification of Mstislav’s decision. So, for somewhat three decades the annals of Kiev stopped to be regarded as an independent record of princely deeds. This is explicable in the situation of a monocracy of Vladimir Monomakh and two his sons; political rivalry stopped, for a while, to be a feature of Kievan politics. When, in the 1140s, the rivalry renewed, the annalists not only returned to their previously occupied position of (quasi)independent recorders, but outdid their late 11th-century predecessors by introducing more documentary elements into the annalistic text: first of all, numerous princely ‘messages’. It must be stressed that annalistic writing in Kiev by no means stopped in the absence of political rivalry. The 1110s, the early years of Vladimir Monomakh, were the time of the composition and the revision of PVL. And it is evident from Hyp.’s text for the 1110s–30s that during those years the annals were updated quite carefully; events of different types were recorded387 (including, of course, political and military ones). The annalists of the Kievan Cave Monastery,388 thus, continued to do their job but, in a new situation, avoided political evaluations and concentrated on simple recording of events. The very volume of entries is smaller in those years—in comparison both to the previous and to the following annals of Hyp.

383 PSRL, 2, 288 (s.a. 1123, in relation to an inner war), 289 (s.a. 1126, in necrologue; Hyp. follows the ultra-March style here). 384 Ibid., 290 (s.a. 1126, in relation to his war against the Cumans, yet in the reign of his brother Mstislav), 299–300 (s.a. 1136, in relation to his peace-making in an inner war). 385 Ibid., 282 (s.a. 1116), 287 (s.a. 1123), 293 (s.a. 1130). 386 Ibid., 291. 387 See above, diagram 7. 388 Those, patronized by abbots Prokhor and Timofei, see subchapter 4.2.

366

chapter 4

The Northeast. The Northeast of Rus, or the Rostov Land389 (which later would become the center of the emerging Muscovite State), was in preMongolian time a remote periphery. However, some of the local princes were extremely powerful and either took part in the rivalry for Kiev (as Iurii Dolgorukii, the ‘Long Hands’, d. 1157), or preferred to reside in the Northeast but influenced the politics of the South, as Iurii’s sons Andrei Bogolubskii (the ‘God-Loving’, ruled in 1157–74), and Vsevolod Bolshoe Gnezdo (the ‘Big Nest’, ruled in 1176–1212). Such long and stable reigns had little in common with the situation of permanent rivalry for Kiev and Novgorod in the 12th century. We have no traces of Northeastern annals from the time of Iurii Dolgorukii.390 The annals for the reign of Andrei Bogolubskii survived in Laur. and Hyp. (in the latter because of the fact that the Kievan compiler of c. 1198 used a Northeastern source). Nobody can guarantee that all the annalistic records made in Andrei’s time have survived, but let us analyze the available material. From as early as the annal of 1157391 the glorification of Andrei becomes one of the most remarkable features of the Northeastern annals. Very often he is titled as ‘pious’ (‘благовѣрныи’), ‘God-loving’ (‘боголюбивыи’), ‘Christ-loving’ (‘христолюбивыи’), and the like.392 Elements of panegyric to the prince are included into some of the accounts of his deeds. Or, sometimes the annalist devotes long passages to justification of Andrei’s actions that may seem questionable. The ravaging of Kiev initiated by Andrei (s.a. 1168) is explained as made ‘for their sins, and most of all for the metropolitan’s injustice, as at that time he had interdicted Policarp, the abbot of the Cave Monastery …’ (‘за грѣхы ихъ, паче же за митрополичью неправду, в то бо время запрѣтилъ бѣ Поликарпа игумена Печерьского …’).393 The expulsion of Bishop Feodor (Feodorets) of Rostov by Andrei (s.a. 1169) is justified by listing his misdeeds and blames.394 The metropolitan of Kiev cruelly punished Feodor, and the 389 Also known as Suzdal Land, Rostov-Suzdal Land, or Vladimir-Suzdal Land. Its main urban centers were Rostov, Suzdal, and Vladimir, now well known to tourists as the cities of the ‘Golden Ring of Russia’. 390 A few notes in Laur. and Hyp. up to 1154 dedicated to events in the Northeast easily could be written down in the South. The first notes certainly made in the Northeast are found in Laur. s.a. 1155 and 1156: in them the South (‘Rus’ in narrow sense) is mentioned as if from a distance. Mikhail Priselkov (Istoriia, 108–9) and Arsenii Nasonov (Istoriia, 85, 121) drew the boundary even later, in 1157. 391 The short panegyric to Andrei s.a. 1157 is certainly a retrospective one, as it mentions his building enterprises done ‘after his father’s death’ (‘по смерти отца своего’) (PSRL, 1, 348). 392 Ibid., 351, 352, 353, etc. 393 Ibid., 1, 354. 394 Ibid., 355–7.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

367

annalist concludes that the Rostov Land was rescued from this heretic by ‘the strong hand and the high muscle, the righteous caesar’s395 hand of the faithful and pious prince Andrei’ (‘рукою крѣпкою и мышцею высокою, рукою благочестивую цесарскою правдиваго и благовѣрнаго князя Андрѣя’).396 In the same annal the expedition against Novgorod led by Andrei’s son, Mstislav is reported. The army caused much harm to the Novogordian Land but finally was defeated by the Novgorodians. The annalist does not deny this fact, but speaks of the misdeeds of the Novgorodians, for which this harm was done, and points out that God punished them ‘deservedly, by the hand of pious prince Andrei’ (‘по достоянью, рукою благовѣрнаго князя Андрѣя’), but, by his mercy, saved the very city.397 So, the level of praise the prince received in the annals of Andrei is unprecedented (not to mention the tale of his murder,398 in which, of course, he is glorified as prince-martyr). The level of glorification granted to Vsevolod the ‘Big Nest’ is even greater. His succession to Vladimir, after his brother Mikhalko’s death, is reported in Laur. s.a. 1177. Again, he is very often labeled as ‘pious’, ‘Christ-loving’, ‘pious and Christ-loving’, and so on.399 The annalists, speaking of his desire not to shed blood, use the wordings ‘being good-hearted’ (‘благосердъ сыи’),400 ‘Prince Vsevolod, pious and God-fearing, did not wish to do so’ (‘князю Всеволоду, благовѣрну и богобоязниву, не хотяше того створити’),401 and the like.402 In 1177 ‘the people of Rostov and the boyars’ were punished ‘deservedly, by the hand of pious prince Vsevolod’ (‘по достоянью, рукою благовѣрнаго князя Всеволода’). Vsevolod’s military actions are, of course, justified by references to previous wrongs of those whom Vsevolod attacked.403 The annalists of Vsevolod’s time like to rant about the role of the ruler appointed by God.404 It is interesting that the annals of this period praise not only Prince Vsevolod, but also the bishops of Rostov Luka and Ioann.405 It is also interesting that from 1195–7 the annals of the Northeast start to follow the politics of the South of Rus. Vsevolod the ‘Big Nest’, according to the Northeastern annals, played the role of arbitrator in this politics: he put Rurik 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405

On caesar’s title in Rus, see chapter 1, note 257. PSRL, 1, 357. Ibid., 361–2. Ibid., 367–71 (s.a. 1175); PSRL, 2, 580–95 (Hyp.’s version is more extended). PSRL, 1, 408 (s.a. 1190), 409 (s.a. 1192), 411 (s.a. 1194, three times), 412 (s.a. 1195), etc. Ibid., 380 (s.a. 1177). Ibid., 385 (s.a. 1177). Ibid., 388 (s.a. 1181), 401 (s.a. 1186), 404–5 (s.a. 1187), 421 (s.a. 1205). Ibid., 386 (s.a. 1178), 400–3 (s.a. 1186), 429–30 (s.a. 1207), 434 (s.a. 1208), etc. Ibid., 381 (s.a. 1177). Ibid., 390–2 (s.a. 1185), 407 (s.a. 1189), 408 (s.a. 1190), 411 (s.a. 1194), etc.

368

chapter 4

Rostislavich on the throne of Kiev in 1196, supported him in 1197, forgave him for his ravaging of Kiev and restored him in this city in 1203, helped to establish peace in 1204, rescued him from captivity in 1205, interfered into the struggle in 1207.406 Such a role of Vsevolod is recognized by the Kievan annals for the 1190s as well,407 but it is important that for the annalists of Rostov the South was a part of their oecumene, in which Prince Vsevolod was the most powerful figure. The annals of Rostov become, for some time, registers of the deeds of the most powerful princes of the South. Interregna, however, are described differently. During the first interregnum, after the murder of Andrei Bogolubskii, two tandems of princes fought for power in the Rostov Land: Mstislav and Iaropolk, sons of Rostislav, Andrei’s brother, on the one hand, and Mikhalko and Vsevolod, Andrei’s younger brothers, on the other. The annalist certainly sympathizes with the latter two princes, who finally won the struggle (Mikhalko died soon, and Vsevolod became the only ruler). The annals for 1175–7 in Laur. somewhat look like the annals of Kiev: they are full of statements and ‘messages’, as if they were independent records of political interrelations. Then, in those annals (contrary to the text before and after) the dwellers of cities (towns) are actors taking decisions. Basically, the ‘elder’ communities (the inhabitants of Rostov and Suzdal) support Mstislav and Iaropolk, and the ‘younger’ communities (the dwellers of Vladimir and Pereyaslavl-Zalessky) support Mikhalko and Vsevolod. The author of those annals evidently supports the latter couple, and sharply criticizes ‘the Rostovians’, or ‘the people of Rostov and the boyars’.408 Those collective actors pronounce speeches, give promises and break them, exactly as the princes do. The annalist records all this, but does not hide his own position— that of the winner. Vsevolod the ‘Big Nest’ died in 1212. The following years were a time of conflict between his sons. What about the annals one might ask? Firstly, as I have already said,409 the annals bifurcated (probably following the bifurcation of the episcopal see in 1214). We have two independent annalistic descriptions of the events of 1206–14, the one (extant in Laur.) supporting Konstantin of Rostov, and the other (extant in LPS) supporting Iurii of Vladimir and Iaroslav

406 Ibid., 412–3, 419, 420–1, 429–31, etc. 407 PSRL, 2, 666–7, 679, 683, 689, etc. 408 The connection of the annals with the see of Rostov so can be challenged. However, the see is addressed sometimes as that of ‘Rostov, and Vladimir, and Suzdal, and all the Land of Rostov’ (PSRL, 1, 391), or simply of ‘Vladimir and all the Land of Rostov’ (ibid., 355), and so the annals could actually be kept in Vladimir. 409 Subchapter 4.2.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

369

of Pereyaslavl. The very fact of this bifurcation reflects the new political reality, so different from the monocracy of Vsevolod’s reign. Secondly, the content of the annals changed, and this change can be traced in both texts, although in different degree. Laur. from as early as the annal for 1206 (that is at the time when Vsevolod was still alive) starts to glorify Konstantin and to emphasize Vsevolod’s special feelings to him.410 S.a. 1206 Laur. contains a solemn description of Konstantin’s appointment the Prince of Novgorod, including a speech by his father Vsevolod: My son Konstantin, God has put on you seniority among all your brothers, and Great Novgorod has seniority among the thrones of all the lands of Rus … Сыну мои Костянтине, на тобѣ Богъ положилъ переже старѣишиньство во всеи братьи твоеи, а Новъгородъ Великыи старѣишиньство имать княженью во всеи Русьскои земли …411 Konstantin continues to be glorified in the following annals. S.a. 1207 it is said that Vsevolod moved Konstantin from remote Novgorod to Rostov. However, the annals for the years of the most intense conflict between the brothers, 1212–16, in Laur. are relatively calm. They do not report details of their rivalry, or their mutual claims. On the contrary, Laur., although obviously supporting Konstantin, reports the birth of Iurii’s son s.a. 1213. The case of LPS is absolutely different. According to LPS, Vsevolod before his death bequeathed towns to his sons: Konstantin received Rostov, Iurii received Vladimir, etc. Also, Vsevolod said to Iurii (the second-eldest son!): Be for them as if you were their father, and have them as I had them. ⟨…⟩ Ты имъ буди въ отца мѣсто, и имѣи я, яко же азъ имѣхъ я. ⟨…⟩412 After that, in the annals for 1213–4, LPS reports details of conflicts and negotiations of the brothers, including many speeches, or messages, in which they stated their mutual positions.413 Unfortunately, 1214 is the last year covered by 410 This is still in the section where Laur. shares its text with LPS, Radz., and MA, but those three contain a short note on Konstantin’s appointment instead of Laur.’s solemn narration. 411 PSRL, 1, 422. 412 PSRL, 41, 129 (s.a. 1213). 413 Ibid., 129–31.

370

chapter 4

LPS, but the material we have is enough to say that in the situation of intense political rivalry the annalist started to do the same as his 12th-century colleagues in Kiev and Novgorod (although the position of this annalist was by no means independent: he clearly supported Iurii and Iaroslav). After the annal for 1217 (in which the culmination of the conflict, the battle on River Lipitsa won by Konstantin is briefly reported414), Laur. returns to a style close to that of the annals for Vsevolod’s lifetime. Konstantin died rather soon after his victory (his death is reported s.a. 1218). After Konstantin’s death Iurii again succeeded to Vladimir (he was the prince there until the Mongolian invasion, and was killed in a battle against the Mongolians in 1238). Between 1218 and 1237 Laur. tends to be a chronicle of all the Northeast of Rus (the Rostov Land), reporting events concerning not only Iurii (as the Great Prince of Vladimir), or Rostov (as the place where the annals probably were kept), but also other towns, and other sons and grandsons of Vsevolod the ‘Big Nest’.415 Again, the annals do not quote messages or political statements, and in this respect they have nothing in common with the Kievan or Novgorodian annals discussed above, as well as with the annals of LPS for 1213–4. Conclusions. The annalists could occupy, basically, two kinds of political position: that of an independent recorder, who aims to make a record of deeds of all the parties, and that of the one glorifying his prince. The second position in proper form is represented only in the annals of the Northeast for the reigns of Andrei Bogolubskii, Vsevolod the ‘Big Nest’, and his son Konstantin. The first position has several variations, which include: – the early annalists of the Kievan Cave monastery who had political preferences but felt that they should evaluate independently the deeds even of the current prince of Kiev; – the Kievan annalists from the 1140s, who continued this tradition and enforced the quasi-documental element in the annals—but, of course, were not free of political preferences; – the Novgorodian annalists from the 1130s, who regarded themselves as independent (at least, in ideal) recorders of deeds of different princes and

414 One finds a much more detailed narration in N1 s.a. 1216 (PSRL, 3, 55–7), as the Novgorodian army participated in the battle on the side of Konstantin. 415 S.a. 1219 (the birth of Iaroslav’s son), 1220 (the death of Konstantin’s widow), 1224 (the construction of a church in Yaroslavl founded by Konstantin and finished by his son Vsevolod), 1234 (the construction of church by Sviatoslav, another of the brothers), etc. Laur. also reports changes of the bishops of both sees, of Vladimir (s.a. 1226–27) and Rostov (s.a. 1229–31), as well of the construction and decoration of churches by bishops of Vladimir (1225, 1238, 1237).

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

371

parties inside Novgorod, but were constantly loyal to the archbishops and to Novgorod as a political community; – the Northeastern annalists describing troublesome interregna, who were partisans of one party but who used the recording of deeds and statements of different parties as a mean of justifying the position they themselves shared. The Kievan annals of the 1110s–30s are an intermediate phenomenon. In the situation of the absence of political rivalry (in stable reigns of Vladimir Monomakh and two his sons) they mostly avoided political evaluations, and, at the same time, shifted their attention towards other, non-political, themes. The latter will be discussed in the following subchapter. 4.10

Ecclesiastical, Family, and Natural Events in the Annals

In the previous subchapters I discussed the ‘political’ content of the annals. However, a substantial part of annalistic notes are dedicated to other themes. Here we will look at four groups of annalistic notes: on the changes of ecclesiastical rulers, the building of churches, the family events of Rurikids, and natural phenomena and disasters. In sum, they make 37% of the total of items (see table 13 above). Some diagrams showing the distribution of those notes also were placed above (diagrams 5–7). Changes of ecclesiastical hierarchs. According to table 13, such notes make 7.6% of the total. This is surprisingly few: firstly, because there is no doubt that the annals were kept by clerics, and, secondly, in comparison with annalistic traditions of other countries (16.9% in Anglo-Saxon England, and 21.1% in Ireland, according to table 14 above416). Although the average weight of those notes is comparable in different texts (except PVL where only 3.7% of items are notes on changes of ecclesiastics), the makeup and the distribution of those notes are uneven. Changes of metropolitans of Kiev are reported by all the texts analyzed, but by none of them systematically. As a result, scholars do not even know all the dates of the metropolitans’ successions in the 11th to the 13th centuries (not to mention the polemics about the date of the foundation of the metropolitan see of Kiev).417 Even the annals kept in Kiev in the 11th and 12th centuries (at

416 And even more in the Chronicle of Ireland (28,1%) and in the contemporary sections of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (42,6%), see subchapter 3.7. 417 See: Poppe, “Mitropolity i kniaz’ia,” 446–71.

372

chapter 4

least in the version they are extant) report the history of the metropolitan see in a rather fragmentary way. On the contrary, the annals of Novgorod (from the early 12th century) and of Rostov (only from the late 12th century) systematically report changes of local ecclesiastical rulers: (arch)bishops of Novgorod, bishops of Rostov, and of Vladimir (from 1214 when the see of Rostov was divided). Once, s.a. 1198, the annals of Rostov report the accession of a bishop of Pereyaslavl-upon-Dnieper (a city closely connected to the Land of Rostov, and the bishop was, according to the annals, appointed by Vsevolod the ‘Big Nest’).418 After the Mongolian invasion such notes become more numerous: Laur. reports episcopal successions in Novgorod (1251, 1300, 1301), Sarai (1261),419 Riazan (1295). As for the annals of Kiev, they follow episcopal successions all over Rus from 1105 to 1144, and again from 1156 to 1190, but within the second of those intervals much less intensively: only five notes, if not to count those on the see of Rostov common with Laur. and probably taken from a Northeastern source. On the contrary, from 1105 to 1144 the Kievan annals contain 20 (or even 24420) notes on episcopal successions in 8 cities. However, in some cases only the deceased bishop, or only the new one, is named. And there is no mention of successions in Novgorod and Rostov. As for Rostov, we do not know which were the dates of successions, and cannot even be sure that the see was functioning at the time.421 But we know the dates of successions in Novgorod: N1 reports them in 1108–10 and in 1130–1,422 and they are not mentioned neither in Laur., nor in Hyp. Whichever could be the reasons of those omissions, they show that the recording of episcopal successions in the annals of Kiev of the 1100s—the early 1140s was far from systematic. Nevertheless, in that period there seems to be no gaps in reporting the successions of metropolitans. Rus annalists were even less interested in abbatial successions. In Kiev, where the main annals were probably kept in the Cave Monastery,423 the successions of its abbots are reported only from time to time, both in PVL and in the Kievan Chronicle.424 Apart from this only once the annals of Kiev report 418 PSRL, 1, 414. 419 The capital of the Golden Horde on the lower Volga River. 420 20 in Hyp. Laur. adds to this 4 additional notes on episcopal successions which also can go back to the main annals of Kiev. 421 Aleksandr V. Nazarenko, “Arkhierei Russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi (kon. X–ser. XIII v.),” in Makarii (Bulgakov), metropolitan, Istoriia Russkoi tserkvi, book 2 (Moscow: Izd-vo Spaso-Preobrazhen. Valaam. monastyria, 1995), 666. 422 PSRL, 3, 19, 22. 423 See subchapter 4.2. 424 Besides the narration on Feodosii I and his successors s.a. 1074, the annals as we have it report the following successions: 1088 (Nikon died), 1112 (Feoktist became bishop, Prokhor

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

373

a death of an abbess, of the Monastery of St. Lazar, who was 92 years old when she died. She had been a ‘saint in life’ (‘свята житьемь’), and had been a nun for 60 years. The annalist does not report her name (or it was missed by a copyist), or the name of her successor.425 In the annals of Rostov there are no notes on changes of any abbots. The Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod report successions of many abbots but mostly between 1162 and 1195, and even within this interval they hardly do this systematically. Only in the case of Anthony’s Monastery in the 12th century the fixation is nearly complete. After 1195 only successions in St. George’s (whose abbots by that time obtained the title of archimadrite) are reported, and again only from time to time, not systematically.426 The annalistic notes made in St. George’s in the 14th century (the additions of Syn.) do not tend to follow systematically the successions of archimandrites.427 The brief annals of the Annunciation Monastery of the late 12th century428 report the death of two archbishops, but do not mention any abbot of the house. It is obvious then, that the recording of successions of ecclesiastics was not essential for the Rus annals. Such events found their way into the annals, but those texts certainly were not regarded as a record of ecclesiastical successions—maybe, with the exclusion of the Kievan annals for 1105–44 and the Novgorodian annals for 1162–95, but even within those intervals the recording was far from systematic. Building of churches. According to table 13 above 11.1% of all annalistic items are dedicated to the building of churches (I also included into this category such events as repair works in churches, painting of church walls, construction of other ecclesiastical edifices, foundation of monasteries). The weight of such notes in the annals of Novgorod is much bigger (17.2%) than in other texts analyzed (from 4.8 to 7.7%). The interest to the building of churches is a special feature of Rus lepopisi in comparison to the annals of England and Ireland, in which such notes are extremely rare (1.2% and 0.4% respectively, according to table 14 above). In the annals of Novgorod, from the early 12th up to the 15th century the building of churches is reported often. Speaking of the building of stone churches, the Novgorodian annalists tended to report separately up to four events: the foundation, the beginning of the works, the end of the works, and

425 426 427 428

elected), 1126 (Prokhor died), 1156 (Feodosii II died, this note is only in Laur. but can go back to a Kievan record), 1182 (Polikarp died, Vasilii elected). PSRL, 2, 276 (s.a. 1113). See subchapter 3.6. Subchapter 3.8. Subchapter 3.9.

374

chapter 4

the consecration—although sometimes they reported all these stages as a single event.429 Not all the four episodes necessarily are mentioned: on the contrary, in most of the cases the annalists report two or three, and sometimes even one, of them. As for the third of those stages, the end of the works, it is not always possible to tell it from the statement of the act of building in general. The annalists use such verbs as ‘поставити’ (‘to erect’), ‘съвѣршити’ (literally: ‘complete up to the top’, which can mean both ‘to erect’ and ‘to finish’), etc. Table 17 presents some simple statistics. As there was a long break in building of stone churches after the Mongolian invasion (none are reported between 1233 and 1292), and as the style of reporting the construction differs greatly in the annals before and after this break, it seems legitimate to compare generalized figures for both periods. Firstly, it is evident from this table that in the post-Mongolian part of the annals attention shifts from the act of foundation to the end of construction or, rather, to the act of building in general. Secondly, the consecration of the church was not the main event to be reported in neither period, although it was recorded pretty often. Thirdly, the annals typically name the sponsor of the works, although not in all cases. In the pre-Mongolian period N1 mentions the sponsor of building of 82.8% of stone churches, and in the post-Mongolian period this percent is lower: only 62.9%. However, it was probably a feature of one individual annalist (the second annalist of Archbishop Aleksii) whose habit was not to mention the commissioners of the churches.430 If not to count 11 stone churches built from 1370 to 1386, the weight of stone churches whose sponsor is reported in the post-Mongolian annals will be almost the same as in pre-Mongolian ones: 76.5% (39 of 51). N1 (from 1133, although not in all periods) is the only text to report the construction of wooden churches (which formed, of course, the majority of churches once built). In total, the construction of 69 wooden churches431 is mentioned, in most cases as a single event, often as a list of several churches built within one year. The most important fact for us is that only in 25 cases, that is, in 36.2%, sponsors of building are named. Such a low percent (in comparison to the stone churches) reflects, of course, the lower level of events: 429 See: Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “Zakonomernosti v osveshchenii novgorodskimi letopistsami XII–XIII vv. faktov tserkovnogo stroitel’stva,” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2000 (2003): 326–45 (the analysis of the text for the late 13th and the 14th centuries is not yet published). 430 See subchapter 3.4. 431 In some cases the material is not explicitly named, and it would be more prudent to ascribe those churches to wooden (if there is no evidence that they were, nevertheless, stone).

375

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus table 17

Four episodes of the building of churches in the Novgorodian annals

Pre-Mongolian Of them Post-Mongolian Of them churches naming the churches naming the (1115–1233) sponsor (1292–1414) sponsor total of stone churches foundation beginning of the works end of the works/ works in general consecration

29

24 (82.8%)

62

39 (62.9%)

25 (86.2%) 4 (13.8%)

19 –

16 (25.8%) 1 (1.6%)

7 –

18 (62.1%)

9

57 (91.9%)

34

13 (44.8%)

1

21 (33.9%)

1

a construction of a stone church was a much more expensive and lasting enterprise. The Novgorodian annals mention sponsoring of the works by different kinds of persons: archbishops, princes, representatives of lay aristocracy, dwellers of certain streets or corporations of merchants (collectively), and so on. It seems that the naming of sponsor was important for most of the annalists, and that, in the situation of permanent political rivalry in Novgorod, there could exist a sort of competition of building enterprises of different parties.432 The building of a church was regarded as an act demonstrating one’s piety, capability, and maybe even some kind of prerogatives over the church or the monastery sponsored, and/or over the area in which it was erected.433 The recording of such acts in the annals patronized by archbishops seems natural. A more interesting question is: why are sponsors sometimes not mentioned? Perhaps, there is no general answer to this question, but answers are concrete in each case. The omission of the commissioner’s name can be explained, for example, in terms of the annalist’s bias: he (or his patron) did not wish to report a pious deed of somebody whom he disliked. Or, just the opposite, the omission can be explained in terms of extreme piety on the part of the commissioner who himself preferred to remain anonymous. Two notes of N1 seem to hint at such an explanation. S.a. 1262 the annalist says:

432 Compare conclusions by Aleksei Gippius (“Sopernichestvo”). 433 See above, notes 37–8.

376

chapter 4

In that same year Monk Vasilii erected the church of St. Basil [Vasilii], and God knows whether [at the expense] of himself or of Boris Gavshinich, but, Lord, forgive them both their sins, and St. Basil. Того же лѣта постави чернець Василии церковь святого Василия, а богъ его вѣсть, своимь ли или Борисовымь Гавшинича; но подаи, господи, имъ отдание грѣховъ, и Василии святыи.434 The annalist considered it important to write down even two names: those of the ‘official’ commissioner and of the man who, as the annalist probably knew, gave money but preferred not to advertize it. S.a. 1302 no sponsor is named, but there is a prayer for ‘them’, that is, one can guess, for the commissioners of the works. In that same year the church of Saint Michael435 in Michael Street was completed.436 O, Saint Michael, be helper to them and to those who come to this church! Того же лѣта свершиша церковь святого Михаила на Михаиловѣ улици. Святыи Михаиле, помощникъ имъ буди и потягнувшим въ церковь сию.437 One can only guess, which of those two motives (if any) made the annalist of the 1370s–80s not mention sponsors of churches at all. The absence of the name of the commissioner in most of the notes on wooden churches speaks against both possibilities: it appears, that, in the case of wooden churches, annalists recorded the fact of the construction rather than the act of sponsorship. Perhaps, the most difficult question would be: why write down the construction of a church at all, if the sponsor is not mentioned? It has been argued that the recording of precise dates was important for the rituals in the church438— but many of the notes that lack names of sponsors also lack precise dates. Maybe, a construction of a church was understood as pious deed of not only 434 435 436 437

PSRL, 3, 83. Michael the Archangel. The foundation is reported s.a. 1300, also without a name of sponsor. PSRL, 3, 331. I quote N1Y, as in Syn. (ibid., 91) the prayer is absent. Most probably, it was present in the Archiepiscopal Annals, and was, as some other rhetoric passages, omitted by the second scribe of Syn., as, for example, the prayer for the prince in the previous annal. See 3.1, p. 179–80. 438 See above, note 35.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

377

an individual but of the Novgorodians as collective actor?439 In any case, there can be no doubt that for the archiepiscopal annalists of Novgorod the building of churches (including even wooden ones) was one of the principal kinds of occurrences to be recorded. Almost the same can be said of the annalists of Rostov, who also reported the building of churches quite often. In Laur.’s annals for 1156–1263 of the total of 335 items 37 (11%) are dedicated to that topic. This is fewer than in the Novgorodian annals, but more than in the Southern ones. Laur. reports the construction of stone churches only. The annals of Rostov, as in the Novgorodian annals, in most of the cases440 name the sponsors of the works. However, in contrast to the annals of Novgorod, the sponsors include only princes and bishops (and in one case a princess, s.a. 1202), who are often praised for those pious deeds. Even more: the annals of Rostov, when mentioning a church (not necessarily speaking of its construction), often refer to its commissioner, e.g.: In the year 6681 [1173] pious Prince Mstislav, son of Andrei, died in the month of March on the 28th day, on Tuesday. And he was laid in [the church of] St. Virgin in Vladimir, in the church that his father Prince Andrei had founded. В лѣто 6681 преставися благовѣрныи князь Мстиславъ Андѣеевичь месяця марта в 28 день, во вторник. И положиша и у святое Богородици в Володимери, юже церковь учинилъ отець его князь Андрѣи.441 As for the annals of Kiev (both before and after the compilation of PVL in the 1110s), the weight of notes on the building of churches is relatively modest. The distribution of them is uneven. In PVL, apart from the narrations of the building of the main churches by Vladimir and Iaroslav, and other retrospective material, there are 9 notes dedicated to this theme in the annals for 1070–1108. All but one are dedicated to monasteries in and around Kiev, and one reports building in Pereyaslavl-upon-Dnieper (s.a. 1089). Sponsors are named 6 times (4 times those are church hierarchs, and two times the works were sponsored by princes). 439 In notes that do not name the sponsor, the verb is in 3rd plural, e.g.: ‘they erected’ (‘поставиша’). This can imply subjet ‘the Novgorodians’, as, for example, in the notes on the elections of posadniks (‘they gave the post of posadnik to …’, ‘даша посадничьство’), but also can be understood simply as an impersonal form. 440 In 28 notes of 37. 441 PSRL, 1, 365.

378

chapter 4

In the Kievan Chronicle (from 1111) there are 23 items dedicated to the building of churches. Of them 5 concern the Rostov Land, being borrowed from a Northeastern source. Of the remaining 18 items 11 are in the annals for 1113–44, that is, in the same zone where we have seen an attempt at systematic recording episcopal successions. 8 of those 11, as well as all the remaining 7, name sponsors, who are Rurikid princes in all cases. So, naming of sponsors is characteristic feature of the majority of notes on the building of churches in all the available early annalistic texts, although the ratio of such notes is radically different. The annals of Rostov are interested in the building of churches (as the annals of Novgorod), but reflect only the sponsorship of princes and church hierarchs (as the annals of Kiev), not of non-Rurikid aristocracy. The annals of Novgorod, contrary to other traditions, report the building of wooden churches, and in those notes they mention sponsors much more seldom. Finally, it must be stressed that the notes on the building of churches tend to be composed according a sustainable formulaic. It is different in the annals of different cities, and can vary in time, but the very tendency is quite remarkable. It can be traced at least on the Novgorodian442 and Northeastern443 material. Events in princely families. I included into this group notes on the births of princes’ sons and daughters, deaths of female members of the ruling dynasty,444 weddings, postrigi (cutting hair—a kind of initiation for princely boys), and the like. The average weight of those items is 7.2%, but it varies much: from 14.7% in the Kievan Chronicle and 11.2% in Laur. to 1.4% in the annals of Novgorod. The latter figure is expectable, for the position of princes in Novgorod was not strong; the princes changed often, and in the post-Mongolian period often did not live permanently in Novgorod. This is not a surprise, that the last such note (on the death of Prince Iaroslav Vsevolodich’s wife) is s.a. 1244. As for the annals of Kiev and Rostov, ‘family’ notes are more numerous. Notes on weddings, the most numerous ones, are distributed more or less evenly. Notes on the deaths of women and girls are also distributed evenly, but have some zones of concentration (for example, three notes in PVL’s annals for 1000–11, presumably going back to the earliest Kievan annals,445 and four 442 See: Timofei V. Gimon [Guimon], “Opyt formuliarnogo analiza letopisnykh izvestii o tserkovnom stroitel’stve (Novgorod, XII–nachalo XIII veka),” in Ad fontem—U istochnika: Sb. st. v chest’ S.M. Kashtanova, ed. Aleksandr O. Chubar’ian (Moscow: Nauka, 2005), 187–204. 443 Gimon, “K segmentatsii”. 444 But not of male members, as it is difficult to separate such events from ‘political’ ones. 445 Subchapter 2.4.

379

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus table 18

Distribution of notes on family events

birth of sons birth of daughters weddings divorce (?) tonsure of women death of women postrigi Total

PVL, 852–1110

Kievan Chronicle, 1111–1200

Laur., 1111–1305

N1, 1115–1414

Total

 8 – 12 –  1  8 – 29

14  3 39 – – 17  1 74

22  3 19  1 – 15  4 64

 3  1  6 – –  4  1 15

47  7 76  1  1 44  6 182

notes in PVL’s annals for 1107–9). The notes on the birth of children are largely concentrated in limited zones: 1. in PVL s.a. 1020–1036 (five notes on the birth of sons of Iaroslav the Wise);446 2. in Laur. s.a. 1186–1263 (notes on the birth of 7 sons of Vsevolod the ‘Big Nest’ in 1186–98, and then of 12 Vsevolod’s grandsons and more remote descendants, as well as of 2 Vsevolod’s granddaughters); 3. in Laur. s.a. 1299–1301 (the birth of 2 boys and 1 girl in Tver); 4. in N1 s.a. 1190–3 (the birth of 3 sons and 1 daughter of Prince Iaroslav Vladimirovich); all of those notes are in Syn. only, that is, they were considered needless by the editor of the Archiepiscopal Annals working c. 1199.447 One can add to this an interest to the birth of princes in some annalistic texts of the late 11th (?)—the early 12th century. Syn. has a unique note on of the birth of Sviatopolk (prince of Kiev in 1093–1113) s.a. 1050, which quite probably goes

446 There is a scholarly polemics on those notes: Tetiana Vilkul (“Daty rozhdeniia kniazhichei: starshie i mladshie Iaroslavichi,” Ruthenica 2 (2003): 108–14) insists that there is an unnatural periodic regularity in those births (and also some notes on death), and this implies that the dates are artificial, but objections exist: Nazarenko, Dostovernye godovye daty, 636–8. 447 Subchapter 3.1. For a more detailed analysis of notes on births see: Tat’iana A. Grazhdankina, “Svedeniia o rozhdenii kniazheskikh detei v russkikh letopisiakh XI– XIV vv.,” Istochnikovedcheskie issledovaniia 1 (2004): 44–63.

380

chapter 4

back to the Initial Compilation of the 1090s.448 PVL, instead of this note, has s.a. 1053 a note on the birth of the next Kievan prince, Sviatopolk’s cousin Vladimir Monomakh, in whose reign (1113–25) PVL probably was composed.449 Hyp. (the ‘third redaction’ of PVL) adds to this a note on the birth of Monomakh’s eldest son Mstislav s.a. 1076, as well as a note on the birth of Monomakh’s grandgrand-grandfather Sviatoslav s.a. 942.450 One also can recall that the interest to the birth of children in Tver around 1300 can be paralleled to notes on births in Tver in 1272 and 1298 in the series of annalistic records in Easter table, which probably had a Tver exemplar.451 So, such events as weddings and the deaths of women were not, perhaps, written down systematically, but are present in some amount in all the texts, excluding the Novgorodian annals after 1244. The births, on the contrary, became priority only for some of the annalists, and were largely ignored by many others. The interest to births was characteristic to those who described the times of Iaroslav the Wise, to some annalists of the early 12th century, to most of the annalists of the Northeast from 1186, and, surprisingly, for the annalist of Archbishop Martirii of Novgorod who recorded the birth of four children of Prince Iaroslav Vladimirovich. Natural phenomena, omens, and disasters. The average weight of those notes in the Rus annals is 10.6%. The difference between the particular texts is not so substantial here as in the previous cases: from 6.2% in the Kievan Chronicle to 14.5% in the annals of Novgorod. This is much more common than in the annals of England and Ireland (5.5% and 5.4% respectively, according to table 14 above).452 The annalists recorded solar and lunar eclipses, comets, earthquakes, fires, floods, pestilences, locusts, bad harvests, and other events, both being real disasters or just impressive phenomena. The most often recorded occurrences were fires (92 in total) and solar eclipses (28 in total). Notes on icon miracles, which I also included into this category, are pretty rare.453 The annalistic notes on natural events and disasters often include some commentary, from elementary comments (such as ‘for our sins’, ‘по грѣхомъ нашимъ’) to extended reflections about the significance of such events. The 448 449 450 451 452

PSRL, 3, 16. PSRL, 1, 160; 2, 149. PSRL, 2, 34, 190. On the ‘redactions’ of PVL see subchapter 2.1. See subchapter 1.5. It is, however, much bigger in the contemporary sections of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (13%), see table 6 in subchapter 3.7. 453 See, however, above (subchapter 3.4) on the interest to such miracles of a Novgorodian annalist active around 1400.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

381

annalists almost never postulate explicitly any connection between omens and other events.454 However, they probably often had some ideas about the meaning of omens: as warning, as God’s punishment, as presage of the Last Judgment, and so on.455 Although there are sequences of annals that report no natural events or disasters (for example, the Kievan Chronicle between 1145 and 1161), the quantity of those notes (10.6% of all items) and their relatively even distribution in all the texts speak in favor of their significance for the annalists. The intertest to such events probably is concerned with prognostics and eschatology. A key may lie in the following annalist’s statements: In which land the omen takes place, that land sees it, and another land does not see [it]. В которои любо землѣ аще будеть знаменье, то та земля и видить, а ина земля не видить.456 Those omens do not take place [at the same time] all over the earth, but in that land to which the Lord wants to do something. At that time [people] were saying to have seen darkness in Galich, and stars in the middle of the day, the sun having faded. But in the land of Kiev nobody saw [that] in that hour. Знамения же та не по всеи землѣ бывають, но нюже страну Владыка что хощеть навести. Тогда бо глаголахуть тму бывшюю в Галичи, яко и звѣзды видити, середѣ дни солнцю померькшю. В Киевскои сторонѣ никто же не види в тъ час.457 One can speculate that omens and disasters were registered as ‘biographical facts’ of either the land, or, rather, dwellers of its central city (for example, the Novgorodians), as a collective actor, or of the princes ruling this land.

454 Such cases are few, for example the solar eclipse of 1113 presaged the death of Prince Sviatopolk II of Kiev (PSRL, 2, 274–5). See also above, Figure 7. 455 See a detailed analysis of notes on natural events and disasters, and of their perception by annalists: Aleksei V. Laushkin, “Stikhiinye bedstviia i prirodnye znameniia v predstavleniiakh drevnerusskikh letopistsev,” Russkoe srednevekov’e 1 (1998): 26–58. See also: Pautkin, Besedy, 107–24. 456 PSRL, 2, 274–5. 457 Ibid., 655. See also: Laushkin, “Stikhiinye bedstviia,” 39–40.

382 4.11

chapter 4

Summary of the Data Obtained and Comparative Reflections

Now let us return to the question raised at the beginning of this chapter: what was the function (or functions) of the annals in early Rus? Even after the study undertaken, the question is not easy to answer. Let us summarize the data we have obtained. The main annals of Kiev, Novgorod, and Rostov were kept by religious institutions: the Kievan Cave Monastery, the archiepiscopal see of Novgorod, and the episcopal see of Rostov. In the cases of Kiev and Novgorod those institutions were relatively independent from lay politics. A high status and a considerable degree of autonomy of the Cave Monastery were recognized by secular rulers, as it is evident from a variety of sources. The main annals of Novgorod, kept systematically from the 1110s, were, no doubt, patronized by its (arch) bishops, whose function in Novgorodian politics (with its permanent rivalry of both, groups of local aristocracy and different branches of the Rurikid dynasty) was close to that of an arbitrator, and later even of a head of the state. One cannot say the same of the bishops of Rostov—and the annals of the Northeast are much more one-pointed than those of Kiev and Novgorod in their praising of local princes. Princes themselves certainly could act as sponsors of annalistic work, but it seems that their sponsorship concerned one-time enterprises, such as the creation of PVL, the Kievan Chronicle, or Vladimir compilation of c. 1206. The patrons of the main annals kept year by year were probably ecclesiastics. The keeping of contemporary records seems, thus, primary in relation to retrospective re-working of material. The keeping of the annals was not always regular, but, nevertheless, it tended to be contemporary. At the same time, a creation of a new annalistic manuscript, an editorial event, could be a significant enterprise, and the editing of text could be quite radical (including politically biased alterations). Sometimes such alterations were made as corrections or glosses in an already existing manuscript. As far as one can judge, letopisi were unlikely to circulate in numerous copies. On the contrary, each manuscript was percieved as (and in fact was) something unique. It is well illustrated by the situation in Novgorod: there were the main Archiepiscopal Annals which were kept year by year; there was Syn., a copy of those annals made for the second important religious house of Novgorod, and later updated; and there were short excerpts from the Archiepiscopal Annals made for an ordinary suburban monastery. The central topic of letopisi lies certainly in the sphere of politics. More than half of the items of all the main early annalistic texts report political events: successions and deaths of princes (and, in Novgorod, of city magistrates), conflicts, wars, rebellions, peace agreements, relations with the Tatars, and so on.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

383

In terms of volume the weight of those items is even bigger, as they are often quite extended and detailed. The most important is the fact that there are sequences of annual entries in which nothing or almost nothing is reported besides political events. Sometimes a possible explanation would be a long break in updating the annals: when writing retrospectively, an annalist was likely to recall the ‘political plot’ of the years he was going to describe, and not more discrete occurrences such as construction of churches, changes of ecclesiastics, eclipses, or fires. However, this explanation is not always valid. For example, it is not likely to explain the absence of ‘non-political’ notes in some sections of PVL for the late 11th century, or in the annals of the Kievan Chronicle for 1146–56, full of quasi-documental detail and precise dates.458 Rather, it can be said that some of the annalists did not consider writing down ‘non-political’ events as their essential task—although the majority certainly did. As the retrospective sections of PVL (going back to the Oldest Tale, or to √PP, or whatever) are dedicated primarily to the history of the Rurikid dynasty and the deeds of its representatives, the later annals report, first of all, the deeds of the princes. Collective actors (such as ‘the Kievans’ or ‘the Novgorodians’) supplement this picture. In Novgorod, apart from the deeds of princes and of collective actors (the Novgorodians, the dwellers of other towns and of districts of Novgorod),459 the deeds of representatives of the local aristocracy are reported. This is, perhaps, what sets the Novgorodian annalistic tradition (from as early as the 1110s) apart from those of the South and the Northeast. Non-Rurikids are mentioned there from time to time as well, but references to them almost never form systematic rows: they supplement the record of the Rurkids’ deeds but, as a rule, are not interesting to the annalists as such. Perhaps, only in the 13th-century Galician-Volhynian Chronicle they acquire a significance comparable to that they have in the Novgorodian annals. But the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle clearly does not belong to letopisi in the proper sense.460 Annalists in Kiev and Novgorod for most of the periods regarded themselves to some extent as independent recorders of deeds, misdeeds, and statements of the participants of political rivalries (only princes in Kiev, and both princes and local aristocrats or their groups in Novgorod). This feature is traceable already in PVL’s annals for the last decades of the 11th century, when the annalists of the Cave Monastery felt free to evaluate the actions of princes (including the current prince of Kiev), to differentiate explicitly their just and unjust 458 See above, table 13 and diagrams 5–7. 459 See: Guimon, “Community names.” 460 On the mentions of non-Rurikids in the annals see subchapter 4.4.

384

chapter 4

deeds. This tendency is often accompanied by large-scale quotes of princes’ direct speeches (that is, of their political statements expressed directly or via envoys). The author of the Kievan annals for 1146–55 (presumably, the annalist of Abbot Feodosii II of the Cave Monastery) not only reported political conflicts in an unprecedentedly detailed way, but also introduced the practice of extensive quoting princely ‘messages’ (their oral or, maybe, written statements transmitted with envoys), in which even the features of language and epistolary formula were preserved—as well as giving detailed descriptions of the sending and receiving envoys. This quasi-documentary practice remained a feature of the Kievan annals up to the end of the 12th century—as the political rivalry remained (with little breaks) the feature of the history of Kiev. The extant text of the Kievan Chronicle is, of course, that of the compilation made c. 1198 in the Vydubichi Monastery; it comprises fragments going back to other sources (different from the annals kept in the Cave Monastery) as well as passages written by the compiler himself. So, it is not absolutely safe now to make conclusions about the content of the 12th-century annals of the Cave Monastery. However, my working hypothesis is that they were kept throughout the century and tended to be a relatively independent record of the rivalry for the throne of Kiev—although different annalists could understand their tasks differently (what kinds of events to write down, how extensively to follow details of events and record ‘messages’, etc.). Of course, they could have their own political preferences, as did the annalist of 1146–55, who evidently supported in many cases Prince Iziaslav Mstislavich, but nevertheless, recorded the deeds and statements of his opponents as well. In Novgorod, the annalists started to write down changes of posadniks (from 1117) as well as the building of churches sponsored by Novgorodian nobles (from 1115). Those two kinds of notes are the first to contain names of local non-Rurikids; such references soon became frequent and regular. From 1132, when the annalist of Archbshop Nifont started his work, the Novgorodian annals became a record of official statements of Novgorod as a collective actor, first of all, of accusations of princes.461 This was one step more towards the Kievan model of annalistic writing as an independent record of deeds. However, in the case of Novgorod, this record was independent from princes and groups of local aristocracy, but probably not independent from the decisions of Novgorod as collective actor. This is another essential difference between Kievan and Novgorodian annalistic writing of the 12th century. 461 Subchapter 4.8.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

385

The 1130s–40s were an important period in the development of documental writing in Rus: diplomas and statutes were issued by princes in favor of church institutions, and written treaties between princes started to be mentioned in the annals. The writing down of messages and statements in the annals demonstrates the same tendency—although it was, at the same time, a reinforcement of the tendency unique to letopisi from the very emergence of the genre. So, the annals in Kiev and Novgorod were regarded as a record of actions and statements of the participants of political process. However, this is not a sufficient answer to the question raised in this chapter. Firstly, we do not know how this record was to be used. Secondly, this function explains only a part of the content of the annals, although a significant part. Thirdly, there were periods and places for which such a statement would be certainly wrong. Let us start from the third point. The Kievan annals for the 1110s–30s lack independent political evaluations, and this has a simple explanation: from 1113 to 1139 there was no (as far as we know) political rivalry for Kiev. On the contrary, the reigns of Vladimir Monomakh and his two elder sons, Mstislav and Iaropolk, were stable. It this situation the Cave Monastery had no chance or desire to criticize the rulers of Kiev, and a criticism of their remote opponents is not, of course, an independent position. It is important that there are no grounds to speak of a decline of Kievan annalistic writing at that time. The annals certainly were maintained, different kinds of occurrences were recorded, often with precise dates, only the volume of entries became relatively small. Some kinds of events in that period were reported even more systematically than before and after, namely episcopal successions and the building of churches. The annalistic writing in the Northeast can be traced from 1156. The annals for the stable reigns of Andrei Bogolubskii (1157–74) and Vsevolod the ‘Big Nest’ (1176–1212), as well as some of the annals written under Vsevolod’s eldest son Konstantin (d. 1218), demonstrate an unprecedented level of glorification of the prince. The annals for those periods make an impression of a servile record of ruler’s deeds (including his military achievements, building of churches, and so on). However, those annals contain notes on various kinds of events, and, from the point of view of the circle of events reported, they are not that different from the Novgorodian annals during the same period. The genre and some of the guidelines are clearly the same, but the political function is different: glorifying instead of independent recording. At the same time, during interregna, that is, after the murder of Andrei (in 1174–6) and after the death of Vsevolod (in 1212–6), the Northeast of Rus became an arena of rivalry between different representatives of the dynasty (who, by the way, found support in different towns of the region). The annals

386

chapter 4

for those periods are closer to those of Kiev (as they follow actions and statements of the parties) but the annalists do not tend to be independent; they clearly are partisans of one of the sides. Lay politics was not the only content of letopisi. What about the aims of the recording of other kinds of events? Although sometimes the annals pay special attention to issues of ecclesiastical politics,462 it is mostly represented by brief notes on the succession of hierarchs. In many cases the reporting of such successions is far from systematic, as it was the case, for example, in the annals of Kiev.463 The greatest events in the history of Rus church hierarchy (such as the foundation of the metropolitan see in Kiev, and later in Chernigov and Pereyaslavl, the obtaining by the Novgorodian bishops of the archiepiscopal title, and by the abbots of some monasteries the title of achimandrite) are not reported by letopisi as such,464 and scholars need to find out the dates of those events based upon indirect data.465 So, the history of the church was not, at least for most of early annalists, the essential topic, and the recording of the successions of church hierarchs was limited if not sporadic. However, it became nearly essential during limited periods: in Kiev in the 1110s–the early 1140s, and in Novgorod in the 1160s–90s. On the contrary, the construction of churches (and similar acts of piety such as foundation of monasteries) was essential for the annalists in Novgorod and the Northeast. The majority of notes name the sponsor, and so those notes can be regarded as records of deeds (of the plurality of actors in Novgorod, and of princes and bishops in the Northeast). In Kiev such notes are few, but they also are present and, in most cases, name the sponsors. However, there are a number of notes not mentioning the commissioner, only the fact of the building (especially this concerns Novgorodian records on the construction of wooden churches). In some cases, the lack of sponsor’s name can be explained in terms 462 See, for example, the account of the discussion concerning Kliment Smoliatich s.a. 1147 (PSRL, 2, 340–1), the accounts of troublesome cases connected with bishops of Rostov s.a. 1164, 1169, 1228 (PSRL, 1, 351–2, 355–7, 452), the accounts of elections of the archbishops of Novgorod s.a. 1193, 1229, etc. (PSRL, 3, 68, 231–2), and so on. 463 See subchpapter 4.10. 464 The only exclusion is the note of N1 that in 1165 ‘the bishop [Ilia] was authorized to be archbishop by the metropolitan’ (‘повелено бысть владыцѣ архиепископьство митрополитомь’, PSRL, 3, 32). However, we know for sure that at least one of the earlier Novgorodian bishops, Nifont, was titled archbishop, and so we do not know what exactly happened in 1165 (see chapter 3, note 7). 465 See, e.g., on the foundation of the Archimandritia of Kiev: Iurii A. Artamonov, “Vremia i obstoiatel’stva vozniknoveniia pervoi russkoi arkhimandritii,” Drevniaia Rus’: Voprosy medievistiki 4 (70) (2017): 120–9.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

387

of the sponsor’s extreme piety, or in terms of the annalist’s bias against him, but it is not impossible that, at least in Novgorod, the construction of churches was regarded as collective merit of the city community. Notes on family events are not very numerous, and partly, perhaps, should be understood in the context of the recording of political events (mainly notes on marriages which, of course, were important political acts). However, the distribution of notes on the birth of children (mainly of boys) speaks in favor of special significance that such notes had in some periods and places (but not always and everywhere). It was important to record the date of birth of some 11th- and early 12th-century princes, and it was especially significant to record births for the annalists of the Northeast from the times of Vsevolod the ‘Big Nest’. From 1186 the description of the prince’s deeds and the glorification of him was supplemented by a careful record of the birth of his sons. It should be stressed here that a great deal of notes in Old Rus letopisi report somebody’s death. Those vary from short obituary notes to extended narrations on deaths and murders, including necrologues, that is, overviews of the deceased’s qualities and/or deeds. Of the items classified here as ‘political and military’ 99 are dedicated exclusively to deaths of princes, and many more report deaths in the context of other events. 44 notes are dedicated to deaths of female members of the princely family, 8 report deaths of non-Rurikids, and most of the notes on ecclesiastical successions, of course, report deaths of church hierarchs. This is not to say that obits were the main content of the annals, but they were an important part of it. Aleksei Laushkin’s study of precise dates in the Rus annals has shown that death was a kind of event most often reported with a precise date.466 Recording of obits starts as early as at the beginning of the 11th century: the short notes for 1000–11 probably go back to the earliest annalistic records that contained mostly obits.467 Recording deaths can be connected with the needs of liturgical commemoration—however, this by no means can be the only or the main function of letopisi.468 Notes on natural phenomena, omens, and disasters occupy a significant place in letopisi. The recording of such events seems to have been essential for most of the annalists, although it is difficult to trace the exact guidelines 466 Laushkin, “Tochnye datirovki,” 103. 467 See subchapter 2.4. 468 Compare Thomas Charles-Edwards’s idea that the Irish annals ‘through categirising people by the manner of their deaths, from those who “rested” to those killed in internal disputes, enabled monks to determine who should be prayed for by clerics.’ Even in the Irish annals which were much more concerned with deaths when the Rus ones, ‘events without deaths’ were reported as well (see subchapters 3.7, 4.3), so making this explanation doubtful (see: Evans, The Present and the Past, 227).

388

chapter 4

(why, for example, they recorded sun eclipses more often than lunar eclipses, although they certainly understood both as impressive and alarming omens?469). Of course, such events were perceived as having some important meaning (as God’s punishment, or warning, or presage of the end of the days). However, it is not easy to answer what the purpose of their recording was in the annals. A hypothesis that the annals were mainly a piece of theology470 contradicts their primarily political content, and so cannot be accepted. Rather, as I have tentatively supposed above, omens and disasters were regarded as important ‘biographical facts’ of the actors of the annals: either princes, or collective actors, such as ‘the Novgorodians’. It also must be stressed that various kinds of misdeeds and crimes occupy an important place in the content of letopisi. This concerns both, the misdeeds of Rurikids, and those of non-Rurikids, as well as of city communities. The annals are full of accusations of various sorts, addressed to actors belonging to all these categories. Extended ‘tales of crimes’ (the murder of St. Boris and Gleb, the blinding of Vasilko, the murder of Andrei Bogolubskii, and so on) are a remarkable part of letopisi. Perhaps, the most impressive is the fact that being a murderer or a traitor was for non-Rurikids one of the best chances to be mentioned in the annals—and not only in the Novgorodian ones. This feature of the annals, as it has already been said, can be paralleled to the inscription from Pereyaslavl-Zalessky that lists and condemns the murderers of Andrei Bogolubskii.471 Names of criminals obviously were considered worth writing down, either in letopisi or upon a chruch wall. In summation, largely, letopisi are a record of deeds or misdeeds (primarily of Rurikid princes, but also of collective actors, ecclesiastics, and representatives of aristocracy, the latter mainly in Novgorod). However, not all the events reported by the annals can be qualified as ‘deeds’ (or ‘misdeeds’). Births and deaths are not deeds. A building of a church is a deed, but if the commissioner is not mentioned, it becomes either an anonymous deed, or a collective merit of the community, or simply an occurrence. Successions of bishops also are occurrences rather than deeds. Omens and disasters can be regarded as deeds, but not human ones. A good word is ‘precedent’, if it is understood not in narrow, juridical, but in a wider sense: as any event knowledge of which can be useful in future.472 469 Laushkin, “Stikhiinye bedstviia,” 47–8. A lunar eclipse is explaned as presaging the death of prince in Hyp. s.a. 1161 (PSRL, 2, 516). 470 See above, notes 41–4. 471 See above, note 188. 472 See the quotation from Dmitrii Likhachev above, on p. 284–5.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

389

Unfortunately, however, we can only speculate about such future usage of annalistic records, if only not to rely on 15th-century cases quoted at the beginning of this chapter. All ideas about such practical usage (from justification of political rights to the Last Judgment) are speculative ones, as we have (before 1400) neither mentions nor traces of any use of the annals. And again, there are kinds of annalistic notes that are difficult to explain as records of useful precedents. For example, a note on the construction of a church, which lacks both the name of the sponsor and the precise date, is useless as a record both of sponsor’s merit (or rights over the church), and of the day for future services. It is difficult to imagine that annalistic records of omens were meant to be used as prognostics of the future. And so on. So, the practical uses of the annals still seem plausible for me, but they hardly can explain the very existence of the genre. Perhaps, it would be useful to raise this question in a comparative perspective and to ask what were the functions of the earliest forms of writing down events throughout the world. It seems that at least two models of elementary historical writing can be traced. (I speak now of the texts registering events, such as the annals, not of texts presenting some general overview of the past, such as, for example, king-lists). The first model can be called ‘Mesopotamian’. The earliest form of historical records in Mesopotamia was royal inscription. Those texts announced certain valuable deeds by (or achievements of) the ruler. With the time such notes outgrew the form of short notations, and became detailed overviews of achievements of a ruler, so-called ‘annals’. An evolution of this sort can be traced not only in South Mesopotamia in the 3rd millenium BC, but in many places elsewhere, such as Assyria, Urartu, etc. Royal inscriptions, both reporting one event or a sequence of deeds of a ruler, were the earliest form of historical writing in many places which had no connecions with ancient Near East, such as the early states of Mesoamerica, or the First Bulgarian Empire.473 In this model the ruler is the central figure, and historical writing arises largely as the registering and glorifying of his deeds. The other model may be labeled ‘Chinese’. Chinese ‘annals’ of the periods of Western Zhou (1027–771 BC) and Chunqiu (771–452 BC) were records on bamboo slips or other materials officially made by the annalists (dashi) contemporarily with the events. The office of dashi was the one combining features of a priest and of a lay official. The making of annalistic records was a part of rituals. The guidelines of keeping those records were strict and highly elaborated, 473 See notes 246–50 in chapter 2.

390

chapter 4

and their significance (for the descendants—in a society dominated by the veneration of ancestors) was recognized by all parties.474 The Chinese tradition preserved a number of stories explicitly showing the role and status of the annals and annalists. For example, in 607 BC a king was killed. The prime minister, who was not in fact guilty, was named the murderer in the annals. Having seen the record, the prime minister said he was not guilty—but the annalist answered that, according to the rules, he was responsible for the crime because he had neither gone out of the realm, nor punished the murderer. And the prime minister could do nothing with that.475 In 548 BC an annalist wrote down the murder of a king. The murderer killed the annalist. The annalist’s younger brother (and successor) made the record again, and also was killed. Another brother also made the record, and was killed too. Then, one more official, having heard that the kin of the annalists was all slaughtered, went to the capital to make the record. Only having learned that the record nonetheless existed, he turned back.476 At least in theory, annalists were obliged to record the misdeeds of the kings as well. It is asked rhetorically in Zuozhuan: if the record is made, but the deed recorded contradicts the rules, how the successors of the ruler will look at it?477 The annalists recorded a wide circle of events, including deeds and interrelations of rulers, deeds of some representatives of aristocracy, religious ceremonies, natural events and disasters (regarded as omens, the Sky’s warnings or response to rulers’ deeds478), and other kinds of events. Thus, the Chinese annalistic writing appears to be a record of occurrences kept by special officials and (in ideal) unbiased and independent. The annalists (dashi) were experts in historical precedents, as well as in rituals and omens.479 Keeping of the annals was regarded as an attribute of a kingdom’s sovereignty and legitimacy.480 According to Mark Ulianov, with the time the annals (the total of such contemporary records) started to be united and reworked into retrospective chronicles (upon one of which Confucius’s Chunqiu is based). Those compilations were less tied to religion

474 Mark Iu. Ul’ianov, “K kharakteristike,” 83, 89–112. 475 Ibid., 102–3. This passage is quoted and translated in: Kai Vogelsang, “From Anecdote to History: Observations on the Composition of the Zuozhuan,” Oriens extremus 50 (2011): 103–4. 476 Ul’ianov, “K kharakteristike,” 104. 477 Ibid., 98. 478 Ibid., 89–91, 108–9, 120. 479 Ibid., 92–6. 480 Ibid., 91.

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

391

and more to political purposes such as justification of certain dynasty or ruler’s legitimacy.481 The annalistic writing of any of the countries of Christian Europe, of course, cannot be paralleled directly to any of those archaic traditions. However, it seems that having them in mind can be helpful. At least, we can speak of two models of the relations between the annalist (or, rather, of the institution responsible for keeping the annals) and the ruler. The author can either be strongly associated with the ruler and glorify his deeds, or work at some distance from lay politics purporting to (at least in ideal) register occurrences of various kinds including good and bad deeds of those participating in lay politics. I may seem that, for example, the early Irish annals tend to follow the second (say, ‘Chinese’) model, and Annales regni Francorum as well as the ‘common stock’ of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are closer to the first (say, ‘Mesopotamian’) one. If to speak in those terms of Rus letopisi, one can conclude that the annals of the Kievan Cave Monastery, as they appeared in the second half of the 11th century and probably were maintained throughout the 12th century, as well as the Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod, seem to match the ‘Chinese’ model rather than the ‘Mesopotamian’ one. Kept by relatively independent and highly authoritative religious institutions, those annals tended to register deeds and statements of different parties of a political rivalry, as well as other kinds of occurrences including natural events. This is not to say that Rus annalists obeyed so elaborated guidelines as their ancient Chinese colleagues, or that the annals in Rus were connected to the veneration of the dead, of course not. But their position in relation to lay rulers was somewhat similar. At the same time, it seems that the ‘Mesopotamian’ model was not alien to Rus either. Firstly, as it has been argued above,482 it is plausible that the earliest historical text written in Rus was a short panegyrical overview of the deeds of St. Vladimir, written around the year 1000, after the building of the Desiatinnaia Church. I have labeled this hypothetical text Vladimir’s royal inscription, so referring to the texts of similar content produced in many countries of the world in archaic times and reporting the deeds of rulers. Secondly, an analogy to royal inscriptions is the ‘autobiography’ of Vladimir Monomakh, listing his military and hunting achievements, so praising one particular ruler.483 The similarity of this text to the ‘annals’ of the kings of Ancient

481 Ibid., 83–4, 129–33. 482 Subchapter 2.5. 483 On Pouchenie as a peace of propaganda see: Shepard, “History,” 343–4.

392

chapter 4

Near East has already been noticed.484 Thirdly, when the annalistic writing emerged in the Northeast, in a remote periphery of Rus, it shortly became the manifestation in writing of achievements and merits of local rulers. As it has been said, the annals for the reigns of Andrei Bogolubskii, Vsevolod the ‘Big Nest, and his son Konstantin demonstrate no attempt at independent judgement, but, to the contrary, unprecedented glorification of the deeds of those princes. I am afraid that, even after such an extended discussion, I am not able to suggest a simple answer to the question: what the annals in Rus were kept for? However, it is possible to present a kind of model of their evolution, which would be as follows. At first, a text praising Vladimir and reporting his deeds appeared c. 1000 (his royal inscription, √PP). Then, it began to be continued with records, probably very short, noting important occurrences of the first half of the 11th century: deaths and births within the princely family, wars, celestial phenomena, etc. Around the middle of the 11th century, when some milieu of literate clerics already existed in Rus, and religious literature started to emerge, an overview of the origins of the state and the dynasty was composed (the Oldest Tale). Vladimir’s ‘royal inscription’ with its annalistic continuation, and the Oldest Tale were combined by some of the monks of the Kievan Cave Monastery (maybe Nikon), and the resulting text founded the new genre: letopisi. In the eyes of the monks of the Cave Monastery letopisi were records of different sorts of important occurrences (the diversity of PVL’s text for the second half of the 11th century shows that, perhaps, some of the early annalists reduced those occurrences to only political ones, and some recorded a wider circle of events). The essential part of this recording was the reporting of deeds and misdeeds of princes, with sometimes explicit evaluations. This understanding of letopisi was (with some variations) characteristic to most of the Kievan annalists of the 12th century, as well as to all of the Novgorodian tradition of annalistic writing. It seems quite probable that the annals were regarded as an independent objectivist record of political life not only by their authors and their ecclesiastical patrons but also by the participants of lay politics themselves—however, it is hardly possible to check this. Contrary to that, the annals of the Northeast, when they emerged after the mid-12th-century, became closer to ‘royal inscriptions’ than to such an independent record. In any case, from Vladimir’s time on, there was some understanding that important deeds and occurrences should be recorded. The content of those 484 Ivanov, “Tipologiia.”

The Functions of the Annals in Early Rus

393

records varied from time to time and from place to place, depending on political situation (autocratic reigns or lasting rivalry), on the history of the church (how independent were ecclesiastical instutions from secular power), on the logic of the tradition (compare, for example, the instability of the circle of events recorded in the formative period, in the second half of the 11th century, and the relative stability of the guidelines followed by the archiepiscopal annalists of Novgorod), and, of course, on personal preferences and attitudes of annalists and their patrons. Much in the content of letopisi varied due to those factors: not only political evaluations, but also the circle of events recorded (including family, ecclesiastical, and natural ones). It is quite possible that, on the one hand, different ideas concerning the possible usages of the annals came to mind of different annalists (or patrons, or even princes)—as, for example, the Kievan annalists of the 1140s considered it useful to record negociations and to quote ‘messages’. On the other hand, some of the annalists could simply do traditional job, having no idea in mind about any practical uses of those records. The main question, thus, remains unanswered, at least in an unambiguous way, but I hope that this chapter has contributed to a better understanding of Rus letopisi.

Conclusion The historical writing of pre-1400 Rus was represented by a variety of texts and genres. The most diverse, as far as one can judge, were the earliest attempts at recording historical events: those of the 11th century. One can speak (although in many cases hypothetically) that in that period the Rus wrote a coherent narration on the origins of the state and the dynasty (the Oldest Tale) as well many minor texts such as brief annals, ‘historical’ inscriptions on church walls, lists of princes and bishops (in Novgorod in the 1090s), and even an ‘autobiography’ of a prince (Vladimir Monomakh, c. 1100). I argue that the earliest among those texts was probably a short overview of St. Vladimir’s deeds and merits, which I suggest to call ‘Vladimir’s royal inscription’ (having in mind a variety of archaic texts glorifying deeds of rulers). In the second half of the 11th century, the monks of the Kievan Cave Monastery invented letopisi (the extended annals) which became—for several centuries—the central genre of Rus historiography. If the mainstream point of view is correct, the second half of the 11th century was also the time of the birth of the second important genre of Rus historiography, chronographs, that is, compilations, or compendia, on world history (and in any case this genre emerged by the 13th century). This formative period, a period of searching for a form, can be paralleled to a similar period in Anglo-Saxon (mainly Northumbrian) historical writing, the early 8th century. The difference, however, is that in Northumbria one person, Monk Venerable Bede, was responsible for most of those earliest texts, and in Rus, on the contrary, all names are hypothetical, and there is no ground to suspect one person to be responsible for the early outburst of historiography. In this respect, Rus can be paralleled rather to Denmark, Iceland, Norway, as well as to Ancient Greece, Armenia, and so on, than to England. The main and the basic form of writing down events in Rus from the second half of the 11th century on were letopisi (the annals). The writing of those texts became a consistent and branched tradition. It emerged, at first, in the Cave Monastery near Kiev, but from around 1100 started to be followed in several major political centers of Rus: in Novgorod, in Pereyaslavl-upon-Dnieper, later in the Northeast (probably and primarily in Rostov), quite probably elsewhere. New centers of annalistic writing are known to appear in the 13th and the 14th centuries: Pskov, Tver, Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, etc. As far as one can judge, the annals outside Kiev were mainly patronized by local archbishops and bishops: at least, this certainly was the case in Novgorod, and quite probably in Rostov. On the contrary, in Kiev, the Cave Monastery seems to have continued to be the home of the annals throughout the 12th century. It can be argued that

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004335592_007

Conclusion

395

those institutions—the Cave Monastery in Kiev and episcopal sees outside it—were regarded as responsible for keeping the annals. At least in the case of Kiev and Novgorod those institutions seem to have been independent enough from political fluctuations to be regarded as capable to keep a record of the deeds and misdeeds of different political actors and ‘parties’. This tendency towards objectivism and independent judgment can be traced already in the Kievan annals for the 1060s, and in the 12th century, in Kiev and Novgorod, is emphasized by quasi-documental fragments of the annals: the recording of princes’ ‘messages’ and negotiations in Kiev, and the recording of official statements of the community in Novgorod. This tendency can be well paralleled to the appearance of certain kinds of legal documents in the same period, in the 1130s–40s. On the contrary, the annals of the Northeastern periphery of Rus, although patronized by bishops, for most of the periods simply praise local princes, having, in this respect, nothing in common with the annals of Kiev and Novgorod. It is very important that those institutions patronized not just the creation of certain texts at certain times, but the continuous keeping of annalistic records. This process can be best studies in relation to Novgorod. From the mid-1110s the Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod were updated year by year, until well into the 15th century. It is possible (mainly due to Aleksei Gippius’s study) to divide the Novgorodian annalistic text (as we have it in extant witnesses) into segments written by different archiepiscopal annalists (quite probably also secretaries). As far as one can judge, the periodicity of making new records varied from time to time and from annalist to annalist. Breaks in keeping records for several years occurred sometimes. However, the general tendency was to keep a continuous record, and to record all principal events of each year. The manuscript in which those annals were kept could be sometimes renovated. At least around 1200, the text for the 12th century (and maybe for earlier years as well) was re-written and slightly edited. It is probable that the annual recording of events was regarded as primary not only in Novgorod, but in other centers as well. Changes of authorship can be sometimes traced to the same moments when the patrons of annalistic writing (abbots of the Cave Monastery in Kiev, and bishops of Rostov in the Northeast) changed. On the other hand, one can speak of one-time enterprises: the creation of new annalistic manuscripts. Those were rather different. On the one hand, sometimes it is obvious that new texts were produced in which earlier material was intensively reworked. Examples of such editorial episodes were the creation of PVL in the 1110s, and of the Kievan Chronicle c. 1198. In both cases, by the way, princes of Kiev were probable patrons, and the work was done in the same monastery, the Vydubichi house near Kiev (next to the South

396

Conclusion

from the Cave Monastery), quite probably by the abbot himself (Silvestr and Moisei, respectively). On the other extreme there were simple copies (in which only minor changes were made by the scribes) such as the two earliest extant Rus annalistic manuscripts: Syn. and Laur. The former was a copy of the Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod made for the second important house of the city: St. George’s Monastery. This copy was, after a century, updated (again by copying the Archiepiscopal Annals), and then several local additions were made in it. The purpose of Laur. is more obscure, but it was ordered by a prince and blessed by a bishop. So, in none of the cases one can speak of multiple copies of the annals, or of their copying for personal use: new manuscripts were made either as new texts, or as copies needed by certain high-rank religious houses. Rurikids could act as patrons of such one-time enterprises (and so had some sense of significance of letopisi), but the main annals which were kept year by year were patronized by ecclesiastics. The content of letopisi is diverse. Politics (that is, basically, the interrelations of princes and city communities, in Novgorod also of a wider circle of local nobles) is the main content, and in some sections even the only one. However, other significant groups of events are present in the annals: events in princely families (deaths, births, weddings, etc.), changes of ecclesiastics, building of churches, natural phenomena, omens, and disasters. The intensiveness of reporting such events varied from annalist to annalist (and even more from city to city) but in total they form an essential part of the content of the annals, making them not only a record of politics. Politics was treated in various ways (from independent judgment to just glorifying the current ruler), and the attention to other kinds of events varied (for example, the building of churches was intensively recorded in Novgorod and the Northeast, but certainly was not essential for most of the annalists of Kiev). The question of the purposes (functions) of annalistic writing has been discussed in detail in the fourth chapter of this book, but it is a kind of question difficult to answer. It can generally be said that the annals were regarded as a record of all significant deeds and occurrences, or precedents, but they are too diverse to postulate any single practical use for them. It well may be that different annalists (and their patrons) at different times and in different cities perceived the purposes of their work differently. The unevenness of the treatment of both political and ‘non-political’ (ecclesiastical, family, natural) events speaks in favor of such a possibility. However, the tradition of annalistic writing was clearly continuous, and so, there was some general (and common for different centers) understanding of the significance of keeping letopisi. Apart from letopisi, even after the ‘formative’ period of the 11th century, other major and minor forms of historical writing existed: translations of

Conclusion

397

foreign historiographical texts and chronographs, the non-annalistic GalicianVolhynian Chronicle of the 13th century, biographies of certain princes (from the 13th century), lists of lay and ecclesiastical rulers, historical notes in service books, Easter tables, and on church walls, etc. The very set of those kinds of texts can be very well paralleled to the corpus of historical writing of Anglo-Saxon England (although with some differences: for example, the Anglo-Saxons are not known to have produced chronographs and historical records in books and on church walls, on the contrary, they are well-known to have recorded royal genealogies, a practice not attested in Rus before the 15th century). More important, however, is the similarity, which speaks, I assume, in favor of the existence of general patterns of the development of early records: in similar conditions and under similar influences appear similar kinds of texts, and even in similar order. I hope that observations made in the present book (both concerning the Rus texts only, and comparative ones) will contribute into our understanding of early forms of historical writing, as well as of the functions of writing in archaic societies.

appendix 1

A Note on the Reckoning of Time in Early Rus Rus annalists used the Julian calendar.1 Precise dates normally are given in ‘month-and day’ format, e.g. ‘in the month of June, on the 14th day’ (‘мѣсяця июня в 14 день’), or the like. The usage of the Calends was extremely rare, although some examples do exist.2 Dates in the annals and other texts often include references to days of the week and/or church festivals.3 Almost all Rus pre-1400 texts use the Byzantine (Constantinople) Era from the Creation of the World.4 Basically, to obtain a date from the Incarnation (Anno Domini) one should deduct 5508. For example, Iaroslav the Wise died in the year 6562 from the Creation of the World, that is, in 1054 AD. In this book in most of the cases I cite dates from the Incarnation being simply original dates from the texts minus 5508. In quotations original dates (from the Creation of the World) are followed by those from the Incarnation given in square brackets. However, the real situation with the Old Rus reckoning of years was much more confusing. Firstly, it has been argued that the Rus could use other variants of the era from the Creation of the World. Indeed, the so-called Speech of the Philosopher (an outline of biblical history which, according to PVL s.a. 986, was told to Vladimir by a Greek missionary) says that Jesus Christ was 1 A hypothesis has been put forth that up to the 13th century a lunisolar calendar was in use in Rus and coexisted somehow with the Julian one (see: Igor’ N. Danilevskii, “Lunno-solnechnyi kalendar’ Drevnei Rusi,” Arkhiv russkoi istorii 1 (1992): 122–32; Tsyb, Drevnerusskoe vremiaischislenie, 164–79, 99). The main argument belongs to Nikolai Stepanov, who studied the flexible beginning of the year in the annals and some other evidence (see references in note 8 below). The question, to my mind, needs further investigation. In any case, there is no reason to doubt that the basic calendar of Rus letopisi was Julian. 2 See: Iaroslav N. Shchapov, “Drevnerimskii kalendar’ na Rusi,” in Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Sb. st., ed. Lev V. Cherepnin (Moscow: Nauka, 1978), 336–45; Tsyb, Drevnerusskoe vremiaischislenie, 197–8. For one of those examples see the quotation on p. 403. 3 The usage of liturgical calendar in dating is a special problem: the commemoration (‘память’) of the same saint sometimes could be indicated under different Julian dates, see, e.g.: Natalia P. Ivanova, “Analiz mesiatseslovnykh datirovok istoricheskikh sobytii (po materialam Novgorodskoi pervoi letopisi),” Palaeoslavica 17, no. 2 (2009): 1–45. 4 The Dionysian Era from the Incarnation (used today) was not absolutely unknown. For example, there is a charter issued by a prince of Smolensk in 1284, dated from the birth of Christ. However, the era from the Creation of the World dominated in Rus and later the Muscovite State until 1699, the time of Peter the Great. In the western lands of Old Rus (included into the Polish-Lithuanian State) the Dionysian Era started to be used earlier, from the 15th century.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004335592_008

400

appendix 1

born in the year 5500, not 5508,5 and so implies not the Constantinople Era, but another one, which counted only 5500 years between the Creation of the World and the Incarnation. Sergei Tsyb argues that some of the troubles with the chronology of the Rus annals would be resolved if the usage of eras different from the Constantinople one were supposed.6 This is highly hypothetical, although by no means impossible. Secondly, and this is the main issue, the situation with the beginning of the year was complicated. It is quite apparent that the Rus in the 11th–15th centuries used at least two beginnings of the year.7 The liturgical year started on the 1st of September, as it was the normal practice in Byzantium. At the same time, outside the walls of the church the Rus obviously preferred to change the year at the beginning of spring. No one text says explicitly that the year started exactly on the 1st of March. On the contrary, the beginning of the year could be flexible (the so-called ‘circa-March year’). Nikolai Stepanov argued that the beginning of the year was originally lunisolar: the full moon around the beginning of spring, which in Christian time started to be understood as the Sunday after the second week of Lent (which could occur from the 15th of February to the 21th of March).8 According to Sergei Tsyb, such a flexible beginning of the year was associated with the beginning of Lent.9 However this could be, it is generally accepted that the ‘lay’ year in Old Rus up to the 15th century started on or around the 1st of March.10 It has long been noticed that different Rus annals often ascribe the same event s to different years, typically with a shift of one year. Such shifts were convincingly explained by Nikolai Stepanov (in the early 20th century) and Nikolai Berezhkov (in the 1940s–50s). The former suggested the general explanation,11 5 PSRL, 1, 102. 6 Tsyb, Drevnerusskoe vremiaischislenie, 184–96. 7 In some liturgical books one finds two more variants of the beginning of the year: on the 23th of September, and on the 1st of January. We do not know anything of the usage of those styles in real practice. 8 Nikolai V. Stepanov, “Edinitsy scheta vremeni (do XIII veka) po Lavrent’evskoi i Novgorodskoi letopisiam,” Chteniia v obshchestve istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh 4 (1909): 33–54; idem, “K voprosu o kalendare Lavrentievskoi letopisi,” ibid. 4 (1910): 33–40; idem, “Kalendarno-khronologicheskie faktory Ipat’evskoi letopisi do XIII veka,” Izvestia Otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnisti Imp. Akademii nauk 20, book 2 (1915): 1–8, 58–71. 9 Tsyb, Drevnerusskoe vremiaischislenie, 220–5. 10 By the 16th century the practice of beginning of the year in March was generally abandoned. The 16th–17th-century Muscovites began the year on the 1st of September until Peter the Great introduced the 1st of January as the New Year (from 1700). 11 Stepanov, “Edinitsy,” 64–74; idem, “K voprosu o kalendare,” 1–32; idem, idem, “Kalendarnokhronologicheskie faktory,” 9–15, 28–58.

A Note on the Reckoning of Time in Early Rus

401

and the latter confirmed it through a much more detailed analysis of the chronology of the early Rus letopisi.12 As those two scholars have shown, the key problem was the co-existence of the Byzantine way of counting years (starting on the 1st of September) and the local tradition of beginning the year in early spring. As the distance between the 1st of September and the 1st of March is six months, there was no obvious answer to the question as to whether the same year-number (from the Creation of the World) should be ascribed to the year, which starts in early spring half a year before, or half a year later than the Byzantine year.13 It appears that both solutions had followers in Rus. Analyzing the chronology of Rus letopisi Stepanov and Berezhkov showed that they follow both patterns in different zones. For example, the annalists of Novgorod in the 12th century obviously began the year six months later than the Byzantines did, and in the early 13th century they moved to the opposite practice. Similar switches can be traced several times in the annals of Kiev and the Northeastern Rus, from the early 12th to the early 14th century. This conclusion is based not only on the cross-comparison of different extant annalistic texts, but also on the analysis of so-called ‘full dates’ (the cases when the annalists report not only the month and the day, but also the day of the week or a church festival attached to a certain day of the week), of notes on solar and lunar eclipses (the dates of which can be calculated independently), as well as on comparison with foreign sources whenever it is possible. Stepanov called those two ways of counting years the March style (the year starts half a year later than the September one), and the ultra-March style (the year starts half a year earlier than the September one).14 Stepanov and Berezhkov’s theory still stands, although it needs one important comment. The March and the ultra-March styles can be not only local inventions: both ways of counting years were known in Byzantium. The chronological system of the Paschal Chronicle (c. 630) is almost identical with the Rus ultra-March style (the year starts on the 21st of March, 5509 years having passed from the Creation of the World to the Incarnation). Although later the Byzantines preferred to start the year on the 1st of September, they nevertheless believed that the very event of the Creation of the World took place in 12 Berezhkov, Khronologiia. 13 The former option was somewhat better from the point of view of the calculation of the date of Easter (Tsyb, Drevnerusskoe vremiaischislenie, 214–6). 14 Sergei Tsyb suggested that a ‘post-March style’ also existed (Tsyb, Drevnerusskoe vremiaischislenie, 216–9). However, firstly, the examples of shifts in the opposite direction are not numerous, and, secondly, the co-existence of the March and the ultra-March styles is perfectly explainable, and the birth of a third, ‘post-March’ style can only be explained as a result of a once-made mistake.

402

appendix 1

March, and there is some evidence of the usage of the ‘Byzantine March Era’ (according to which the world was created in March of the 1st ‘September’ year, not of the year zero). So, it is not impossible that both Rus practices of counting years starting in March were prompted by Byzantine tradition. In any case, the very collision (a need to find some compromise between the ‘September’ year-numbers and the ‘March’ beginning of the year) was local.15 The phenomenon of the coexistence, or, rather, rivalry, of the March and the ultra-March styles needs further investigation. It is apparent that even within one principality or diocese, in the same religious house, the style used could change. For example, the annals of Novgorod under Archbishop Mitrofan (1199–1211) moved from the March to the ultra-March style, and later moved back to the March one. Aleksei Gippius supposed that this Mitrofan’s innovation was connected with his pro-Northeastern bias: the annals describe Mitrofan’s election as nearly an appointment by Vsevolod, the Great Prince of Vladimir.16 The annalistic writing of Kiev moved to and fro several times during the 12th century. Those switches, as I tempt to show in subchapter 4.2, coincide with the changes of the abbots of the Kievan Cave Monastery, the probable home of the annals. It is unclear, however, why different abbots of the same monastery preferred different chronological styles. Was this their personal position, or was it dependent on that of metropolitans, or maybe of lay rulers? Were these polemics linked to other tensions in the life of the Rus church, or in lay politics? Finally, how significant was this question outside the sphere of the annalistic writing? In which cases did people in Old Rus need to know or cite year-numbers from the Creation of the World? Further analysis of these annalistic dating styles, perhaps, will give at least some keys to those problems. The usage of the September style is a rare thing in Rus historical writing until the 15th century. Some examples, however, do exist. A clear one, for instance, is in the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle (the original text of which contained very few dates from the Creation of the World): the death of Prince Vladimir Vasilkovich occurred in December, 6797, and his body was buried on Easter Day, in April of the same year 6797. So, the year 6797 could start only in September, 1288. Olexiy Tolochko links the usage of the September style with an intention to canonize the deceased prince.17

15

See: Kuzenkov, Khristianskie khronologicheskie sistemy, 26, 290–332, 355–6, 367–9, 375–82 (especially p. 332). 16 Gippius, Lingvo-tekstologicheskoe issledovanie, 8. 17 Tolochko, “Proiskhozhdenie,” 88–90.

A Note on the Reckoning of Time in Early Rus

403

Also, it should be mentioned that the Byzantine tradition of citing indiction (the number of a year in a 15th-year-cycle) was known in Rus.18 Sometimes annalists indicate an indiction after a year-number. It seems that the usage of indiction was perceived as something ceremonial, or at least formal. Rus scribes were quite aware that new indiction started on the 1st of September, even if they changed years in spring. A good example would be the annal for 1136 of Syn. Here the dating formulae are especially sophisticated: In the year 6644 [1136], the 14th year of indiction, the Novgorodians gathered the dwellers of Pskov and Ladoga, and decided as to expel their prince Vsevolod. ⟨…⟩19 In that same year Prince Sviatoslav Olgovich came to Novgorod from Chernigov, from his brother Vsevolodko, in the month of July on the 19th, previously [called] the 14th Calends of August, on Sunday, the Council of St. Euphemia,20 in the 3rd hour of day, and on the 19th day of the celestial moon. In that same year, when the 15th indiction started, they killed Iurii Zhiroslavich and threw him from the bridge, in the month of September. In that same year ⟨…⟩ In the year 6645, having started on the 7th of March,21 in the 15th year of indiction, Posadnik Konstantin fled to Vsevolod ⟨….⟩. Въ лѣто 6644. Индикта лѣта 14, новгородьци призваша пльсковиче и ладожаны и сдумаша, яко изгонити князя своего Всѣволода ⟨…⟩ Въ то же лѣто приде Новугороду князь Святославъ Олговиць ис Цернигова, от брата Всеволодка, мѣсяця июля въ 19, преже 14 каланда августа, въ недѣлю, на сборъ святыя Еуфимие, въ 3 час дне, а луне небеснѣи въ 19 день. Томь же лѣтѣ, наставъшю индикта 15, убиша Гюргя Жирославиця и съ моста съвѣргоша, мѣсяця септября. Въ то же лѣто ⟨…⟩. Въ лѣто 6645. Настанущю въ 7 марта, индикта лѣту 15, бѣжя Костянтинъ посадникъ къ Всѣволоду ⟨….⟩.22 18 19 20

See: Tsyb, Drevnerusskoe vremiaischislenie, 181–4. This fragment is quoted above, on p. 356. The Council of Chalcedon in which there was St. Euphemia’s miracle, commemorated on Sunday on or after July, 13. 21 This passage may mean that the year 6645 started, according to the annalist, not on the 1st but on the 7th of March. For Nikolai Stepanov this was one of the proofs of his theory of ‘circa-March years’: the year started on Sunday after the first week of Lent (indeed in 1137 this was the 7th of March), see: Nikolai V. Stepanov, “Zametka o khronologicheskoi stat’e Kirika (XII vek),” Izvestia Otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnisti Imp. Akademii nauk 15, book 3 (1910): 6. 22 PSRL, 3, 24.

404

appendix 1

The uniqueness of those passages supports the attribution of those annals to Kirik, the Novgorodian author who wrote (at the same time, in summer of 6644 [1136]!) a short tract on the reckoning of time.23 Scribes in Rus followed the Byzantine practice of using letters for numerals. Letters used as numerals were graphically separated from the text with dots and titlos (signs above the line otherwise used for abbreviations). See, for example, the date 6649 (i.e. AD 1141) in Figure 11, in the 7th line from the top, as well as many other dates from the Creation of the World in other illustrations. 23

See subchapter 3.4.

appendix 2

A List of Rus Pre-1400 Manuscripts Containing Historical Writing This appendix lists the few Rus pre-1400 books (all on parchment) containing texts that can be classified as ‘historical writing.’1 These books are grouped by centuries, and then placed in the alphabetic order of their archival addresses. An asterisk means that I have consulted the book de visu. After the archival address (given in bold) the content of the book is summarized (the main content, if it is not historical writing) is mentioned in square brackets. Then the place of origin (if known) and date are specified. Then, as a new paragraph, principle editions and studies are listed. If I discuss the text in question in the present book, a reference to the relevant subchapter is given. This list does not include short inscriptions in parchment books mentioning only one or two events, as well as historical inscriptions on church walls (see on both forms of ‘primitive historical writing’ above, subchapter 1.5). It must be stressed again, that much of what is known about pre-1400 Rus historical writing is the result of the analysis of material extant in 15th-century, and even later, manuscripts.

The 11th Century

GIM, Syn. 31-д. [Sviatoslav’s miscellany], a translated minor chronicle, Kiev, 1073 (?). Lidiia P. Zhukovskaia, ed., Svodnyi katalog slaviano-russkikh rukopisnykh knig, khraniashchikhsia v SSSR, XI–XIII vv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1984), 36–40, no. 4; Zhukovskaia, ed. Izbornik (facsimile); Mikhail V. Bibikov, Vizantiiskii prototip drevneishei slavianskoi knigi (Izbornik Sviatoslava 1073 g.) (Moscow: Pamiatniki istoricheskoi mysli, 1996); Stoliarova, Svod, 19–29, no. 8–11; Piotrovskaia, Vizantiiskie khroniki, 76–94.

1 See on restrictions adopted in this book note 1 in the introduction.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004335592_009

406

appendix 2

The 12th Century

GIM, Syn. 262. [Didactic gospels of Constantine of Preslav], a translated minor chronicle, the second half or the 12th century. Zhukovskaia, ed., Svodnyi katalog, 144, no. 118. GIM, Syn. 330. [Typikon of Alexios Stoudites], annalistic notes made in the Annunciation Monastery near Novgorod, the late 12th century. Zhukovskaia, ed., Svodnyi katalog, 159–61, no. 138; Stoliarova, “Zapisi istoricheskogo soderzhaniia na Studiiskom ustave,” 562–568; Aleksei M. Pentkovskii, Tipikon patriarkha Aleksiia Studita v Vizantii i na Rusi (Moscow: Izd-vo Mosk. patriarkhii, 2001). See subchapter 3.9, and Figure 21. RNB, F.п.I.46. [Zlatostrui and a fragment of Torzhestvennik (selections of John Chrysostom’s and other’s writings)], a fragment of the Chronicle of John Malalas, the 12th century. Abramovich, “Otryvok”; Zhukovskaia, ed., Svodnyi katalog, 113–6, no. 74; Istrin, Khronika, 399–401; Sigurd O. Shmidt, ed., Svodnyi katalog slavianorusskikh rukopisnykh knig, khraniashchikhsia v Rossii, stranakh SNG i Baltii. XIV vek, part 1 (Moscow: Indrik, 2002), 563–5, no. 74.

The 13th Century

BAN, 4.9.37. A fragment of Ilarion’s Sermon on Law and Grace, the second half of the 13th century. Zhukovskaia, ed., Svodnyi katalog, 322–23, no. 388; Moldovan, ed., “Slovo o zakone i blagodati”, 24, № 35. GIM, Syn. 132. [Novgorodian Kormchaia, or Nomocanon, i.e. a bishop’s book of canonic law], Chronographikon syntomon (the Brief Chronicle) of Patriarch Nikephoros I of Constantinople with a Rus continuation (written in Rostov c. 1278), Novgorod, 1285 × 1291. Mikhail N. Tikhomirov, “Zabytye i neizvestnye proizvedeniia russkoi pis’mennosti,” Arkheograficheskii ezhegodnik za 1960 god (1962): 234–43 (text and facsimile); Zhukovskaia, ed., Svodnyi katalog, 207–210, no. 183; Piotrovskaia, Vizantiiskie khroniki, 40–47, 112, 129–133; Stoliarova, Svod, 141–4, no. 119–20. See subchapter 1.5. *GIM, Syn. 786. The annals (the Synodal MS. of the First Novgorodian Chronicle, Syn.), St. George’s Monastery near Novgorod: first part c. 1234; second part c. 1330; additions for 1330–52. PSRL, 3, 3–100 (text); Tikhomirov, Novgorodskaia kharateinaia letopis’ (facsimile); Zhukovskaia, ed., Svodnyi katalog, 261–263, no. 270; Gimon and Gippius, “Novye dannye”. See subchapters 1,2, 3.1, and 3.8; Figures 11–12, 16, 19–20.

Rus Pre-1400 Manuscripts Containing Historical Writing



407

The 14th Century

*GIM, Syn. 325. [A liturgical miscellany,] an Easter table with annalistic notes, Novgorod (from Tver exemplar), the mid-14th century. Gimon, “Letopisnye zapisi”; Romanova, Drevnerusskie kalendarnokhronologicheskie istochniki 36–9, 67–70. See subchapter 1.5, and Figure 10. *GIM, Syn. 786—see the 13th century. RGB, 173.I.100. The Slavonic translation of the Chronicle of George Hamartolos, illuminatied, Tver, the late 13th or, rather, the early 14th century. Anisimova, Khronika, 41–70; http://www.stsl.ru/manuscripts/medium.php? col=5&manuscript=100 (facsimile). See subchapter 1.3. *RNB, F.п.IV.2. The annals (the Laurentian Chronicle, Laur.), Nizhny Novgorod (?), 1377. PSRL, Stoliarova, Svod, 319–23, no. 309; Shmidt, ed., Svodnyi katalog, 552–5, no. 384; Lavrent’evskaia letopis (facimile); http://expositions.nlr.ru/ LaurentianCodex/_Project/page_Show (facsimile). See subchapters 1.2, 4.2, and Figure 6. Roma, Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Gr. 840. [Canonic law, Byzantium, the early 14th century]; notes in Greek language on ecclesiastical events in Rus made in the 1320s–40s, the book belonged to Metropolitan Feognost (Theognostus). Mikhail D. Priselkov and Maksim R. Fasmer, “Otryvki V.N. Beneshevicha po istorii russkoi tserkvi XIV veka,” Izvestia Otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnisti Rossiiskoi Akademii nauk 21, book 1 (1916); Boris L. Fonkich, Grecheskie rukopisi i dokumenty v Rossii v XIV–nachale XVIII v. (Moscow: Skriptorii, 1997), 3–10; Gimon, Istoriopisanie, 300–3; Oleksandr Fylypchuk, “Zabuta istoriia: khreshchennia kniazia Volodymyra sviatoho v Vat. gr. 840,” Ruthenica 13 (2016): 137– 42; https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.840 (facsimile).

c. 1400

GIM, Chud. 4. [Kormchaia, or Nomocanon, i.e. a bishop’s book of canonic law], Chronographikon syntomon (the Brief Chronicle) of Patriarch Nikephoros I of Constantinople with a Rus continuation (written in Rostov c. 1278), c. 1400. Iaroslav N. Shchapov, “Varsonof’evskaia kormchaia,” Arkheograficheskii ezhegodnik za 1968 god (1970): 93–101; Shmidt, ed., Svodnyi katalog, 515–9, no. 356; Piotrovskaia, Vizantiiskie khroniki, 112. See subchapter 1.5. GIM, Chud. 21. [A didactic miscellany]; fragments of the Slavonic translation of the Chronicle of George Hamartolos, Moscow, c. 1400. Anisimova, Khronika, 70–83.

408

appendix 2

RGB, 304.I.1. [The Pentateuch], the Brief Trinity Chronograph, the second half of the 14th or the early 15th century. Shmidt, ed., Svodnyi katalog, 170–2, no. 63; Vilkul, “Kratkii Troitskii khronogra”; http://www.stsl.ru/manuscripts/book.php?manuscript=1 (facsimile). See subchapter 1.3. RGB, 304.I.2. [Books of Old Testament]; a minor chronicle, c. 1400. Piotrovskaia, Vizantiiskie khroniki, 58, 157; Shmidt, ed., Svodnyi katalog, 175– 6, no. 65; http://www.stsl.ru/manuscripts/book.php?manuscript=2 (facsimile).

appendix 3

The Author’s Russian-Language Published Works Corresponding to Parts of this Book As it has been said in the introduction, this book is not a translation of any of my Russian-language publications. However, much of the discussion presented here I have already published in Russian—sometimes in a more detailed way, and sometimes roughly in the same way. In one case I incorporated into this book a part of an article previously published in English. On the other hand, some parts of this book (mainly, much of chapter 4) are presented to the public for the first time, and many times I add new considerations to what has already been published in Russian. In the interests of accuracy, I present below a list of my published works which correspond (partly or entirely) with the subchapters of the present book. In the main text of the book I refer to those publications only if some discussion is presented there in a more detailed way than in the present book.

Chapter 1

1.1 (partly). “Razvitie delovoi pis’mennosti v Novgorode v XI–XIV vv.” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 28 (2016): 72–8. 1.2–6. Istoriopisanie rannesrednevekovoj Anglii i Drevnej Rusi: Sravnitel’noe issledovanie. Moscow: Un-t Dmitriia Pozharskogo, 2012. Chapters 2–4.

Chapter 2

2.3–4, 2.6. “K probleme zarozhdeniia drevnerusskogo istoriopisaniia.” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2013 (2016): 748–800. 2.5. “Istoricheskie zametki iz ‘Pamiati i pokhvaly’ Iakova Mnikha i zarozhdenie drevnerusskogo istoriopisaniia.” In U istokov i istochnikov: na mezhdunarodnykh i mezhdistsiplinarnykh putiakh: Iubileinyi sb. v chest’ A.V. Nazarenko, edited by Iurii A. Petrov. Moscow—Saint-Petersburg: Tsentr gumanitarnykh initsiativ, 2019, 73–89.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004335592_010

410

appendix 3

2.7. “Predki-iazychniki v rannem istoriopisanii Anglii i Rusi.” Vestnik Rossiiskogo gosudarstvennogo gumanitarnogo universiteta 3 (36) = Arbor mundi 25 (2018) 248–63. Kreshchenie Nortumbrii u Bedy Dostopochtennogo i kreshchenie Rusi v ‘Povesti vremennykh let’.” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 26 (2014) 64–70.

Chapter 3

3.1. “Redaktirovanie letopisei v XIII–XV vv.: Raznochteniia mezhdu spiskami Novgorodskoi 1 letopisi.” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 57 (2006): 112–25. “Rubezh XII–XIII vv. v novgorodskom letopisani.” Slověne: International Journal of Slavic Studies 6, no. 2 (2017): 163–87, http://slovene.ru/2017_2 _Guimon.pdf. 3.2–3. “Sobytiia XI–nachala XII v. v novgorodskikh letopisiakh i perechniakh.” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2010 (2012): 584–703. 3.4. (partly). “Novgorodskie vladychnye letopistsy vtoroi treti XIV–nachala XV v.” Drevniaia Rus’: Voprosy medievistiki 1 (75) (2019): 22–5. 3.5. “Kak velas’ novgorodskaia pogodnaia letopis’ v XII veke?” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoj Evropy 2004 (2005): 316–52. “Novgorodskoe letopisanie pervoi chetverti XIII veka: Khronologiia i protsess popolneniia letopisi.” Srednevekovaja Rus’ 6 (2006): 80–118. 3.6. “Novgorodskoe letopisanie XII–XIII vv.: Problema otbora sobytii dlia fiksatsii.” In Obrazy proshlogo i kollektivnaia identichnost’ v Evrope do nachala novogo vremeni, edited by Lorina P. Repina. Moscow: Krug’, 2003, 334–48. 3.8. “Pripiski na dopolnitel’nykh listakh v Sinodal’nom spiske Novgorodskoi I letopisi.” In Norna u istochnika Sud’by: Sb. st. v chest’ E.A. Mel’nikovoi, edited by Tat’ana N. Dzhakson [Jackson]. Moscow: Indrik, 2001, 53–60. “Novgorodskoe istoriopisanie v pravlenie Vasiliia Kaliki (1330–1352).” In Istoricheskoe povestvovanie v Srednevekovoi Rossii: K 450-letiiu Stepennoi knigi: Mat-ly vseros. konf., edited by Artem E. Zhukov. Moscow – Saint-Petersburg: Al’ians-Arkheo, 2014, 36–70 (partly). 3.9. Istoriopisanie rannesrednevekovoj Anglii i Drevnej Rusi: Sravnitel’noe issledovanie. Moscow: Un-t Dmitriia Pozharskogo, 2012. Subchapter 4.4 (partly). 3.11. “Ustnaia traditsiia o sobytiiakh XI v. v srednevekovom Novgorode.” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy, 2016 (2018): 157–83.

Russian-Language Published Works



411

Chapter 4

4.1. “Dlia chego pisalis’ russkie letopisi? (vtoraia versiia).” Istoriia: Elektronnyi nauchno-obrazovatel’nyi zhurnal 5 (13) (2012), http://history.jes.su/s20798784 0000431-3-1. 4.3. “What Events Were Reported by the Old Rus’ Chroniclers?” COLLeGIUM: Studies across Disciplines in the Humanities and Social Sciences 17 (2015): 92–117 https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/153792/VOL17_05_guimon .pdf?sequence=1 (partly). 4.4. “Ne-Riurikovichi v ‘Povesti vremennykh let’.” Istoriia: Elektronnyi nauchno-obrazovatel’nyi zhurnal 1 (34) (2015), http://history.jes.su/s20798784 0000950-4-1. “V kakikh sluchaiakh imena novgorodtsev popadali na stranitsy letopisi (XII–XIII vv.)?” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2004 (2006): 291–333. 4.5. Istoriopisanie rannesrednevekovoj Anglii i Drevnej Rusi: Sravnitel’noe issledovanie. Moscow: Un-t Dmitriia Pozharskogo, 2012. Chapter 9 (partly). 4.7. “K voprosu o kniazheskikh poslaniiakh v Kievskom svode (XII v.).” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 30 (2018): 64–71.

Bibliography

Editions and Translations of Primary Sources

Abramovich, Dmitro [Dmitrii] I. Kyievo-Pechers’kyi pateryk. Kiev, 1931. Adrianova-Peretts, Varvara P., and Dmitrii S. Likhachev, eds. Povest’ vremennykh let, 2nd ed., corr. and suppl. Saint-Petersburg: Nauka, 1996 [first published in 2 volumes in 1950]. Æthelwulf. De abbatibus, edited by Alistair Campbell. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967. Akent’ev, Konstantin K. “‘Slovo o zakone i blagodati’ Ilariona Kievskogo. Drevneishaia versiia po spisku GIM Sin. 591.” In Istoki i posledstviia: Vizantiiskoe nasledie na Rusi: Sb. st. k 70-letiiu chl.-korr. RAN I.P. Medvedeva, edited by Konstantin K. Akent’ev. Saint-Petersburg: Vizantinorossika, 2005, 116–51. Akty, otnosiashchiesia k istorii Zapadnoi Rossii, sobrannye i izdannye Arkheograficheskoiu kommissieiu, vol. 1: 1340–1506. Saint-Petersburg: Tip. II Otd. Sobstv. E.I.V Kantseliarii, 1846. Alcuin. The Bishops, Kings and Saints of York, edited by Peter Godman. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. Alekseev, Iurii G. Pskovskaia Sudnaia gramota: Tekst. Kommentarii. Issledovanie. Pskov: Vozrozhdenie, 1997. Arutiunian, Nikolai V. Korpus urartskikh klinoobranykh nadpisei. Erevan: Gitutiun, 2001. Bately, Janet M., ed. The Old English Orosius. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980. Beda. Storia degli inglesi (Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum), a cura di Michael Lapidge, traduzione di Paolo Chiesa. Roma; Milano: Arnoldo Mondadori, 2008–10, vol. 1–2. Bede. The Reckoning of Time, transl., with intr., notes and commentary by Faith Wallis. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1999. Beshevliev, Veselin. Prŭvobŭlgarski nadpisi, 2nd ed., rev. and suppl. Sofiia: Izdatelstvo na Bŭlgarskata Akademiia na naukite, 1992. Best, Richard Irvine, and Eóin MacNeille, ed. The Annals of Inisfallen reproduced in facsimile from the original manuscript (Rawlinson B 503) in the Bodleian Library, with a descriptive introduction. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 1933. Bogdanov, Ivan, ed. Imennik na Balgarskite hanove. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na otechestveniya front, 1981. Botvinnik, Mark N., Iakov S. Lur’e [Lurie], and Oleg V. Tvorogov, eds. Aleksandriia: Roman ob Aleksandre Makedonskom po russkoi rukopisi XV veka. Moscow – Leningrad: Nauka, 1965. Broun, Dauit, and Julian Harrison, ed. The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey: A Stratigraphic Edition, vol. 1: Introduction and Facsimile Edition. Woodbridge: Scottish History Society, 2007.

Bibliography

413

Campbell, Alistair, ed. The Chronicle of Æthelweard. London: Thomas Nelson, 1962. Campbell, Alistair, ed. Encomium Emmae reginae, with supplementary intr. by Simon Keynes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Cherepnin, Lev V. Russkie feodal’nye arkhivy XIV–XVI vv., vol. 1. Moscow: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1948. Colgrave, Bertram, and R.A.B. Mynors. Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969. Cooper, Jerrold S. Sumerian and Akkadian Royal Inscriptions, vol. 1: Presargonic inscriptions. New Haven (Co.): Eisenbrauns, 1986. Cross, Samuel Hazzard, and Olgerd P. Szerbowitz-Wetzor, transl. and ed. The Russian Primary Chronicle: Laurentian text. Cambridge (Mass.): The Medieval Academy of America, 1953. Dąbrowski, Dariusz, and Adrian Jusupović (in collaboration with Irina Juriewa [Iurieva], Aleksandr Majorow [Maiorov], and Tetiana Wiłkuł [Vilkul]), ed. Kronika Halicko-Wołyńska (Kronica Romanowiczów). (Pomniki dziejowe Polski. Ser. II = Monumenta Poloniae historia. N.S.; T. 16). Kraków – Warszawa: In-t historii im. T. Manteuffla, 2017. Dieten, Ioannes Aloysius van, rec., Nicetae Choniatae Historia. Berolini et Novi Eboraci: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1975. Dumville, David N., and Simon D. Keynes, eds. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A collaborative edition—see Abbreviations, ASC. Michell, Robert, and Nevill Forbes, transl. The Chronicle of Novgorod, 1016–1471, with an intr. by C. Raymond Beazley and an account of the text by A.A. Shakhmatov. London: Offices of the Society, 1914. Flower, Robin, and Hugh Smith, ed. The Parker Chronicle and Laws (Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS. 173): A facsimile. London: Oxford University Press, 1941. Glassner, Jean-Jacques. Mesopotamian Chronicles. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2005. Golb, Norman, and Omeljan Pritsak. Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century. Ithaca (N.Y.) and London: Cornell University Press, 1982. Günzel, Beate, ed. Ælfwine’s Prayerbook (London, British Library Cotton Titus D. xxvi + xxvii). London: Boydell Press, 1993. Iur’eva, Irina S., ed. Kievskaia letopis’. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2017. Istrin, Vasily M. Aleksandriia russkikh khronografov. Issledovanie i tekst. Moscow, 1893. Istrin, Vasily M. Knigi vremennyia i obraznyia Georgiia Mnikha: Tekst, issledovanie i slovar’, in 3 vols. Petrograd – Leningrad: ORIaS Ros. akad. nauk, 1920–30. Istrin, Vasily M. Khronika Ioanna Malaly v slavianskom perevode, reprinted with supplements by Margarita I. Chernysheva. Moscow: John Wiley and sons, 1994 [first published in parts in 1897–1915]. Ivanov, Aleksandr S., and Anatolii M. Kuznetsov. Smolensko-rizhskie akty, XIII v.– pervaia polovina XIV v.: Dokumenty kompleksa Moscowitica—Ruthenica ob otnosheniiakh Smolenska i Rigi. Daugavpils: Latvijas Valsts vēstures arhīvs, 2009.

414

Bibliography

Grocock, Christopher, and Ian N. Wood, ed. and transl. Abbots of Wearmouth and Jarrow: Bede’s Homily i. 13 on Benedict Biscop. Bede’s History of the Abbots of Wearmouth and Jarrow. The Anonymous Life of Ceolfrith. Bede’s Letter to Ecgbert, Bishop of York. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2013. Johnson-South, Ted, ed. Historia de Sancto Cuthbeto: A History of Saint Cuthbert and a Record of His Patrimony. Woodbridge: D.S. Brewer, 2002. Keynes, Simon, ed. The Liber Vitae of the New Minster and Hyde Abbey, Winchester, Brittish Library, Stowe 944, together with leaves from British Library, Cotton Vespasian A. viii and British Library, Cotton Titus D. xxvii. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1996. Keynes, Simon, and Michael Lapidge, transl. with intr. Alfred the Great: Asser’s Life of King Alfred and other contemporary sources. London: Penguin, 1983. Knoll, Paul W., and Frank Schaer, transl. and annotated. Gesta principum polonorum. The Deeds if the Princes of the Poles, with a preface by Thomas N. Bisson. Budapest – New York: CEU Press, 2003. Kuchkin, Vladimir A., ed. Pamiatniki Kulikovskogo tsikla, general editor Boris A. Rybakov. Saint-Petersburg: Blits, 1998. Kukushkina, Margarita V., and Gelian M. Prokhorov, ed. Radzivilovskaia letopis’, vol. 1–2. Saint-Petersburg: Glagol – Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1994. Lavrent’evskaia letopis: Faksimil’noe izdanie, photographs by V.S. Terebenin. SaintPetersburg: Rostok, 2017. MacAirt, Seán, ed. Annals of Inisfallen (MS Rawlinson B 503). Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1951. McGurk, Patrick, ed. and transl. The Chronicle of John of Worcester, vol. 3: The annals from 1067 to 1140 with the Gloucester interpolations and the continuator to 1141. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. Matveenko, Vera A., and Liudmila I. Shchegoleva. Knigi vremennye i obraznye Georgiia Monakha, in 2 vols. Moscow: Nauka, 2006. Meshcherskii, Nikita A. Istoriia Iudeiskoi voiny Iosifa Flaviia v drevnerusskom perevode. Moscow – Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1958. Miller, Thomas, ed. The Old English Version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People, parts 1–2. London: N. Trübner & Co., 1890–1891. Moldovan, Aleksandr M., ed. “Slovo o zakone i blagodati” Ilariona. Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1984. Nasonov, Arsenii N., ed. Pskovskie letopisi, parts 1–2. Moscow – Leningrad: Izd-vo Akad. nauk SSSR, 1941–1955. Nasonov, Arsenii N., ed. Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis’ starshego i mladshego izvoda. Moscow – Leningrad: Izd-vo Akad. nauk SSSR, 1950. Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste—see Abbreviations, NGB. Obolenskii, Mikhail A., ed. Letopisets Pereiaslavlia-Suzdal’skogo, sostavlennyi v nachale XIII veka (mezhdu 1214 i 1219 godov). Мoscow: Sinodal’naia tipografiia, 1851.

Bibliography

415

Okhotnikova, Valentina I. Povest’ o Dovmonte: Issledovanie i teksty. Leningrad: Nauka, 1985. Orchard, Nicholas, ed. The Leofric Missal, vol. 1–2. London: Boydell, 2002. Ostrowski, Donald, David Birnbaum and Horace Lunt, eds. The Pověst’ vremennykh lět: An Interlinear Collation and Paradosis. Cambridge (Mass.): Harward University Press, 2004. Pichkhadze, Anna A., Irina I. Makeeva, Galina S. Barankova, A.A. Utkin, eds. ‘Istoriia Iudeiskoi voiny’ Iosifa Flaviia: Drevnerusskii perevod, in 2 vols. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2004. Plummer, Charles, ed. Venerabilis Baedae Opera Historica, vol. 1–2. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896. Plummer, Charles, ed. Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel: A revised text, on the basis of an edition by J. Earle, vol. 1–2. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1892–99. Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei—see Abbreviations, PSRL. Povest’ vremennykh let po Ipatskomu spisku. Saint-Petersburg: Arkheograficheskaia komissiia, 1871. Pritsak, Omeljan, ed. The Old Rus’ Kievan and Galician-Volynian Chronicles: The Ostroz’skyj (Xlebnikov) and Cetvertins’kyj (Pogodin) Codices. Harvard Library of Early Ukrainian Literature. Texts, 8). Cambridge (Mass.): Ukrainian Research Institute of Harvard University, 1990. Shchapov, Yaroslav N., ed. Drevnerusskie knjazheskie ustavy XI–XV vv. Moscow: Nauka, 1976. Stevenson, William H., ed. Asser’s Life of King Alfred together with the Annals of Saint Neots erroneously ascribed to Asser. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1904. Stoliarova, Liubov’ V. “Zapisi istoricheskogo soderzhaniia XI–XIV vekov na drevnerusskikh pergamennykh kodeksakh.” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 1995 (1997): 3–79. Stoliarova, Liubov’ V. Svod zapisei pistsov, khudozhnikov i perepletchikov drevnerusskikh pergamennykh kodeksov XI–XIV vekov. Moscow: Nauka, 2000. Stoliarova, Liubov’ V. “Zapisi istoricheskogo soderzhaniia na Studiiskom ustave kontsa XII v.” In PSRL, 3. Moscow: Jazyki russkoi kul’tury, 2000, 562–8. Swanton, Michael J., transl. and ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. London: J.M. Dent, 1996. Tikhomirov, Mikhail N. “Zabytye i neizvestnye proizvedeniia russkoi pis’mennosti.” Arkheograficheskii ezhegodnik za 1960 god (1962): 234–43. Tikhomirov, Mikhail N., ed. Novgorodskaia kharateinaia letopis’. Moscow: Nauka, 1964. Valk, Sigizmund N., ed. Gramoty Velikogo Novgoroda i Pskova. Moscow – Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1949. Vilkul, Tatiana L. “Kratkii Troitskii khronograf kontsa XIV–nachala XV vv.” Ruthenica 6 (2007): 366–96.

416

Bibliography

Vilkul, Tatiana L. “Aleksandriia Khronograficheskaia v Troitskom khronografe.” Palaeoslavica 16, no. 1 (2008): 103–47; 17, no. 1 (2009): 165–210. Vysotskii, Sergei A. Drevnerusskie nadpisi Sofii Kievskoi XI–XIV vekov, part 1. Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1966. Wormald, Francis, ed. English Kalendars before A.D. 1100. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1988 (first published in 1934). Zhukovskaia, Lidiia P., ed. Izbornik Sviatoslava 1073 goda: Faksimil’noe izdanie. Moscow: Kniga, 1983. Zupitza, Julius. “Fragment einer englischen Chronik aus den Jahren 1113 und 1114.” Anglia: Zeitschrift für englische Philologie 1 (1878): 195–7.



Secondary Literature

Abramovich, Dmitrii I. Issledovanie o Kievo-Pecherskom paterike kak istorikoliteraturnom pamiatnike. Saint-Petersburg: ORIaS Imp. Akad. nauk, 1902. Abramovich, Dmitrii I. “Otryvok iz khroniki Ioanna Malaly v Zlatostrue XII veka.” In Sbornik statei v chest’ akad. A.I. Sobolevskogo, izdannyi k 70 letiiu so dnia ego rozhdeniia Akademieiu nauk po pochinu ego uchenikov. Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR, 1928, 19–24. Alekseev, Anatolii A. “Interpoliatsii slavianskoi versii ‘Iudeiskoi voiny’ Iosifa Flaviia.” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom) 59 (2008): 63–114. Alekseev, Mikhail P. “Anglo-saksonskaia parallel’ k Poucheniiu Vladimira Monomakha.” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom) 2 (1935): 39–80. Aleshkovskii, Mark Kh. “K tipologii tekstov ‘Povesti vremennykh let’.” Istochnikovedenie otechestvennoi istorii, 1975 (1976): 133–67. Aleshkovskii, Mark Kh. Povest’ vremennykh let: Iz istorii sozdaniia i redaktsionnoi pererabotki, edited by Fedor B. Uspenskii. Moscow: Ves’ mir, 2015 [edition of previously unpublished dissertation of 1967]. Alpatov, Mikhail A. Russkaia istoricheskaia mysl’ i Zapadnaia Evropa XII–XVII vv. Moscow: Nauka, 1973. Andreicheva, Marianna Iu. Obrazy inovertsev v Povesti vremennykh let. Saint-Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriia, 2019. Androshchuk, Fedir. Images of Power: Byzantium and Nordic Coinage, c. 995–1035. Kyiv: Laurus – Paris: ACHCByz, 2016. Anisimova, Tatiana V. “O fragmentakh khroniki Georgiia Amartola v Uspenskom sbornike rubezha XII–XIII vv. i v uchitel’noi chasti Prologa.” In Khrizograf: Sb. st. k iubileiu G.Z. Bykovoi, edited by Elina N. Dobrynina. Moscow: SkanRus, 2003, 44–56.

Bibliography

417

Anisimova, Tatiana V. Khronika Georgiia Amartola v drevnerusskikh spiskakh XIV–XVII vv. Moscow: Indrik, 2009. Aristov, Vadym Iu. “Problemy proiskhozhdeniia soobshchenii Kievskoi letopisi.” Ruthenica 10 (2011): 117–36. Aristov, Vadym Ju. “Rannje litopysannja pro ulychiv, drevljan y Svenel’da (do dyskusii’ navkolo idej O.O. Shahmatova).” Ukrai’ns’kyj istorychnyj zhurnal 6 (2011): 172–82. Aristov, Vadim Iu. “Svod, sbornik ili khronika? (O kharaktere drevnerusskikh letopisnykh pamiatnikov).” Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana 1 (2013): 105–26. Aristov, Vadim Iu. “Vasilii-Sil’vestr (o lichnosti avtora ‘Povesti vremennykh let’).” Ruthenica 12 (2013): 169–86. Aristov, Vadym Iu. “ ‘Perevorot’ O.O. Shakhmatova v istoriohrafiï davn’orus’koho litopysannia.” Ukraïna v Tsentral’no-Skhidnii Ievropi 14 (2014): 207–29. Aristov, Vadim Iu. “Shakhmatovskie issledovaniia letopisei v evropeiskom kontekste XIX–nachala XX v.” In Akademik A.A. Shakhmatov: zhizn’, tvorchestvo, nauchnoe nasledie (k 150-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia), edited by O.N. Krylova and Marina N. Priemysheva. Saint-Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriia, 2015, 226–40. Aristov, Vadym Iu. “Pokhodzhennia istorychnykh povidomlen’ Pam’iati ta pokhvaly kniaziu Volodymyru Iakova Mnikha.” Ruthenica 13 (2016): 50–82. Artamonov, Iurii A. “Kniaz’ia Polotskie—‘velikii milosniki velikoi lavry Pecherskoi’.” In Ad fontem—U istochnika: Sb. st. v chest’ S.M. Kashtanova, edited by Aleksand O. Chubar’ian. Moscow: Nauka, 2005, 176–82. Artamonov, Iurii A. “Kreshchenie Rusi.” In Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, edited by Patriarch Kirill, vol. 38. Moscow: Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, 2015, 723–30. Artamonov, Iurii A. “Vremia i obstoiatel’stva vozniknoveniia pervoi russkoi arkhimandritii.” Drevniaia Rus’: Voprosy medievistiki 4 (70) (2017): 120–9. Artsikhovskii, Artemii. V. Drevnerusskie miniatiury kak istoricheskii istochnik. 2nd ed. Tomsk – Moscow: Vodolei Publishers, 2004 (first published in 1944). Bagge, Sverre. “Scandinavian Historical Writing, 1100–1400.” In The Oxford History of Historical Writing, vol. 2, edited by Sarah Foot and Chase F. Robinson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, 414–27. Bakhrushin, Sergei V. “[K voprosu o dostovernosti Nachal’nogo svoda].” In Idem. Trudy po istochnikovedeniiu, istoriografii i istorii Rossii epokhi feodalizma (Nauchnoe nasledie), edited by B.V. Levshin. Moscow: Nauka, 1987, 15–35 [the paper was written between 1926 and the second half of the 1930s but not published in the author’s lifetime]. Baines, John. “Ancient Egypt.” In The Oxford History of Historical Writing, vol. 1, edited by Andrew Feldherr and Grant Hardy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, 53–75. Balovnev, Dmitrii A. “Skazanie ‘O pervonachal’nom rasprostranenii khristianstva na Rusi’. Opyt kriticheskogo analiza.” Tserkov’ v istorii Rossii 4 (2000): 5–46. Barnes, Michael P. Runes: A Handbook. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2012.

418

Bibliography

Bassalygo, Leonid A. “Novgorodskie tysiatskie.” Novgorodskii istoricheskii sbornik 11 (21) (2008): 33–67; 12 (22) (2011): 37–62; 13 (23) (2013): 115–50. Bately, Janet M. “Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.” In Saints, Scholars, and Heroes: Studies in medieval culture in honour of Ch.W. Jones, edited by Margot H. King and Wesley M. Stevens, vol. 1. Collegeville, Min.: Hill Monastic Manuscript Library, Saint John’s Abbey and University, 1979, 233–54. Bately, Janet M. “World history in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: Its sources and its separateness from the Old English Orosius.” Anglo-Saxon England 8 (1979): 177–94. Bately, Janet M. “The compilation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 60 B.C. to A.D. 890: Vocabulary as evidence.” Proceedings of the British Academy 64 (1980 for 1978), 93–129. Bately, Janet M. “Manuscript Layout and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 70, no. 1 (1988): 21–43. Begunov, Iurii K. Pamiatnik russkoi literatury XIII veka ‘Slovo o pogibeli Russkoi zemli’. Moscow – Leningrad: Nauka, 1965. Beliaev, Dmitrii D. “Zarozhdenie istoriopisaniia v drevnei Mezoamerike.” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2013 (2016): 209–34. Beliaev, Dmitrii D., and Timofey V. Gimon [Guimon], eds. Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy, 2013 god: Zarozhdenie istoriopisaniia v obschestvakh Drevnosti i Srednevekov’ia. Moscow: Un-t Dmitriia Pozharskogo, 2016. Beliaev, Ivan D. “O raznykh vidakh russkikh letopisei.” Vremennik Moskovskogo obshchestva istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh 5 (1850): 1–34. Berezhkov, Nikolai G. Khronologiia russkogo letopisaniia. Moscow: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1963. Bestuzhev-Riumin, Konstantin N. O sostave russkikh letopisei do kontsa XIV veka: 1) Povest’ vremennykh let; 2) Letopisi iuzhnorusskie. Saint-Petersburg, 1868. Bibikov, Mikhail V. Vizantiiskii prototip drevneishei slavianskoi knigi (Izbornik Sviatoslava 1073 g.). Moscow: Pamiatniki istoricheskoi mysli, 1996. Biggs, Frederick M., Thomas D. Hill, Paul E. Szarmach, eds., with assistance of Karen Hammond. Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture: A Trial Version. New York: State University of New York at Binghamton, 1990. Blagoi, Dmitrii D., ed. Istoriia russkoi literatury, vol. 1: Literatura X–XVIII vv. Moscow – Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1958. Bobrov, Aleksandr G. “Monastyrskie knizhnye tsentry Novgorodskoi respubliki.” In Knizhnye tsentry Drevnei Rusi: Severnorusskie monastyri, edited by Svetlana A. Semiachko. Saint-Peterburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2001, 3–123. Bobrov, Aleksandr G. Novgorodskie letopisi XV veka. Saint-Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin, 2001. Bobrov, Aleksandr G. “Letopisets novgorodskogo vladyki Evfimiia serediny XV veka.” Letopisi i khroniki 2008 (2008): 124–51.

Bibliography

419

Bobrov, Aleksandr G. “ ‘Ruka Moskvy’: Pravka teksta v Sinodal’nom spiske Novgorodskoi pervoi letopisi.” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom) 64 (2016): 140–63. Bogdanov, Sergei V. “K voprosu o datirovke zhalovannykh gramot velikogo kniazia Ivana Danilovicha Iur’evu monastyriu i pechorskim sokol’nikam.” Novgorod i Novgorodskaia zemlia: Istoriia i arkheologiia 22 (2008): 226–45. Brazhnikova, N.V. “Iz nabliudenii nad spiskami slavianskogo perevoda Khroniki Georgiia Sinkella.” Lingvisticheskoe istochnikovedenie i istoriia russkogo iazyka 2000 (2000): 106–18. Bredehoft, Thomas A. Textual Histories: Readings in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Toronto – Buffalo – London: University of Toronto Press, 2001. Brisbane, Mark, and David Gaimster, ed. Novgorod: the Archaeology of a Russian Medieval City and its Hinterland. London: The British Museum, 2001. Brooks, Nicholas. “Why is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle about kings?” Anglo-Saxon England 39 (2011): 43–70. Broun, Dauit. “Creating and Maintaining a Year-by-Year Chronicle: The Evidence of the Chronicle of Melrose.” The Medieval Chronicle 6 (2009): 141–52. Brown, George H. A Companion to Bede. Woodbridge: Boydell, 2009. Bubnova, Mariia M. “Problema klassifikatsii drevnerusskikh graffiti XI–XIV vv. (na primere nadpisei Kievskogo Sofiiskogo sobora).” Istochnikovedcheskie issledovaniia 5 (2012): 79–91. Buganov, Viktor I. Otechestvennaia istoriografiia russkogo letopisaniia: Obzor sovetskoi literatury. Moscow: Nauka, 1975. Bugoslavskii, Sergei A. “K literaturnoi istorii « Pamiati i pokhvaly » kniaziu Vladimiru.” Izvestiia Otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnosti Akademii nauk 29 (1925): 105–59. Bugoslavskii, Sergei A. Tekstologiia Drevnei Rusi, edited by Iurii A. Artamonov. Vol. 1: Povest’ vremennykh let. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2006. Burgess, Richard W., and Michael Kulikowski. Mosaics of Time: The Latin Chronicle Traditions from the First Century BC to the Sixth Century AD. Vol. 1: A Historical Introduction to the Chronicle Genre from its Origins to the High Middle Ages. Turnhout: Brepols, 2013. Cherepnin, Lev V. “Povest’ vremennykh let’, ee redaktsii i predshestvuiushchie ei letopisnye svody.” Istoricheskie zapiski 25 (1948): 293–333. Cherepnin, Lev V. Russkaia paleografiia. Moscow: Gos. izd-vo polit. literatury, 1956. Cherepnin, Lev V. Russkaia istoriografiia do XIX v.: Kurs lektsii. Moscow: Izd-vo Mosk. un-ta, 1957. Chernysheva, Margarita I. “K kharakteristike slavianskogo perevoda ‘Khroniki Ioanna Malaly’ (Rol’ inoiazychnykh vyrazhenii).” Vizantiiskii vremennik 44 (1983): 221–6. Clanchy, Michael T. From Memory to Written Record: England, 1066–1307. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1993.

420

Bibliography

Conner, Patrick W. Anglo-Saxon Exeter: A Tenth-century Cultural History. Woodbridge: Boydell, 1993. Danilevskii, Igor’ N. “Lunno-solnechnyi kalendar’ Drevnei Rusi.” Arkhiv russkoi istorii 1 (1992): 122–32. Danilevskii, Igor’ N. “Bibliia i Povest’ vremennykh let (k probleme interpretatsii letopisnykh tekstov).” Otechestvennaia istoriia 1 (1993): 78–94. Danilevskii, Igor’ N. “Zamysel i nazvanie Povesti vremennykh let.” Otechestvennaia istorija 5 (1995): 101–10. Danilevskii, Igor’ N. “ ‘Dobru i zlu vnimaja ravnodushno …’? (Nravstvennye imperativy drevnerusskogo letopistsa).” Al’fa i omega 3 (6) (1995), 145–59. Danilevskii, Igor’ N. Povest’ vremennykh let: Germenevticheskie osnovy izucheniia letopisnykh tekstov. Moscow: Aspekt-Press, 2004. Dashkevich, Iaroslav R. “Spornye voprosy diplomaticheskoi praktiki Drevnei Rusi.” Istoriia SSSR 4 (1991): 100–11. Degregorio, Scott, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Bede. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Deopik, Dega V. “Opyt kolichestvennogo analiza drevnei vostochnoi letopisi ‘Chun’tsiu’.” In Konfutsieva letopis’ Chun’tsiu (Vesny i oseni), edited by Artemii M. Karapet’ianst. Moscow: Vostochnaia literatura, 1999, 195–234 [first published in 1977]. Deopik, Dega V. “Nekotorye tendentsii v sotsial’noi i politicheskoi istorii Vostochnoi Azii v VIII–V vv. do n.e. (na osnove sistematizatsii dannykh ‘Chun’tsiu’).” In Konfutsieva letopis’ Chun’tsiu (Vesny i oseni), edited by Artemii M. Karapet’ianst. Moscow: Vostochnaia literatura, 1999, 235–63 [first published in 1976]. Dobrovol’skii, Dmitrii A. Etnicheskoe samosoznanie drevnerusskikh letopistsev XI– nachala XII v.: Cand. diss. [unpiblished]. Moscow: Ros. gos. gumanit. un-t, 2009. Dobrovol’skii, Dmitrii A. “ ‘Slovo o vere khristianskoi i o latinskoi’ v istoricheskom kontekste serediny XII v.” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 30 (2018): 88–92. Droblenkova, Nadezhda F., and Gelian M. Prokhorov. “Epifanii Premudryi.” In Slovar’ knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnei Rusi, edited by Dmitrii S. Likhachev, vol. 2, part 1. Leningrad: Nauka, 1988, 211–20. Drobysheva, Mariia M. “Letopisnye nadpisi-graffiti kievskogo Sofiiskogo sobora.” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2013 (2016): 706–24. Dumville, David N. “The Anglian collection of royal genealogies and regnal lists.” Anglo-Saxon England 5 (1976): 23–50. Dumville, David N. Liturgy and the Ecclesiastical History of Late Anglo-Saxon England: Four Studies. Woodbridge: Boydell, 1992. Dumville, David N. Wessex and England from Alfred to Edgar: Six Essays on Political, Cultural, and Intellectual Revival. Rochester – New York: The Boydell Press, 1992.

Bibliography

421

Dumville, David N. English Caroline Script and Monastic History: Studies in Benedictism, A.D. 950–1030. Woodbridge: Boydell, 1993. Dumville, David N. “The West Saxon genealogical regnal list and the chronology of early Wessex.” In Idem. Britons and Anglo-Saxons in the Early Middle Ages. Aldershot: Variorum, 1993, 2–66 [first published in 1985]. Dumville, David N. “What is a Chronicle?” In The Medieval Chronicle II: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Medieval Chronicle, Driebergen/Utrecht 16–21 July 1999, ed. Erik Kooper. Amsterdam – New York: Rodopi, 2002, 1–27. Dumville, David N. “The two earliest manuscripts of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History?” Anglo-Saxon 1 (2007): 55–108. Dzhakson [Jackson], Tatiana N. “Rannee istoriopisanie skandinavskikh stran: K probleme formirovaniia natsional’noi identichnosti.” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2013 (2016): 801–35. Eremin, Igor’ P. “Kievskaia letopis’ kak pamiatnik literatury.” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom) 7 (1949): 67–97. Evdokimova, Aleksandra A. “Korpus grecheskikh graffiti Sofii Kievskoi na freskakh pervogo etazha.” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2005 (2008): 465–518. Evgenii (Bolkhovitinov), metropolitan. Opisanie Kievopecherskoi Lavry s prisovokupleniem raznykh gramot i vypisok, ob’iasniaiushchikh onoe, takzhe planov Lavry i obeikh peshcher, 2nd ed. suppl. and widened. Kiev: Tip. Kievopecherskoi Lavry, 1831. Fennel, John. The Emergence of Moscow, 1304–1359. London: University of California Press, 1968. Fylypchuk, Oleksandr. “Zabuta istoriia: khreshchennia kniazia Volodymyra sviatoho v Vat. gr. 840.” Ruthenica 13 (2016): 137–42. Flechner, Roy. “The Chronicle of Ireland: then and now.” Early Medieval Europe 21, no. 4 (2013): 422–54. Foley, W. Trent, and Nicholas J. Higham. “Bede on the Britons.” Early Medieval Europe 17, no. 2 (2009): 154–85. Fonkich, Boris L. Grecheskie rukopisi i dokumenty v Rossii v XIV–nachale XVIII v. Moscow: Skriptorii, 1997. Foot, Sarah. “Finding the meaning of form: narrative in annals and chronicles.” In Writing Medieval History, edited by Nancy F. Partner. Oxford: Bloomsbury Academic, 2005, 88–108. Franchuk, Vera Iu. Kievskaia letopis’: Sostav i istochniki v lingvisticheskom osveshchenii. Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1986. Franklin, Simon D. “Literacy and Documentation in Early Medieval Russia.” Speculum: A Journal of Medieval Studies 5, no. 1 (1985): 1–36. Franklin, Simon D. “Greek in Kievan Rus’.” In Idem. Byzantium—Rus—Russia: Studies in the translation of Christian culture. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002, 69–81.

422

Bibliography

Franklin, Simon D. “Malalas in Slavonic.” In Idem. Byzantium—Rus—Russia: Studies in the translation of Christian culture. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002, 276–90. Franklin, Simon D. “Some Apocryphical Sources of Kievan Russian Historiography,” In Idem. Byzantium—Rus—Russia: Studies in the translation of Christian culture. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002, 1–27. Franklin, Simon D. Writing, Society and Culture in Early Rus, c. 950–1300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Gaidukov, Petr G., and Vitalii A. Kalinin. “Drevneishie russkie monety.” In Rus’ v IX–X vekakh: Arkheologicheskaia panorama, edited by Nikolai A. Makarov. Moscow – Vologda: Drevnosti Severa, 2012, 403–36. Gameson, Richard. The Manuscripts of Early Norman England (c. 1066–1130). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Garipzanov, Ildar H. “History writing and Christian Identity on a European Periphery.” In Historical Narratives and Christian Identity on a European Periphery: Early History Writing in Northern, East-Central, and Eastern Europe (c. 1070–1200), edited by Ildar Garipzanov. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011, 1–11. Garipzanov, Ildar H., ed. Historical Narratives and Christian Identity on a European Periphery: Early History Writing in Northern, East-Central, and Eastern Europe (c. 1070–1200). Turnhout: Brepols, 2011. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Letopisnye zapisi na paskhal’nykh tablitsakh v sbornike XIV v.” In PSRL, 3. Moscow: Jazyki russkoi kul’tury, 2000, 569–89. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Pripiski na dopolnitel’nykh listakh v Sinodal’nom spiske Novgorodskoi I letopisi.” In Norna u istochnika Sud’by: Sb. st. v chest’ E.A. Mel’nikovoi, edited by Tat’ana N. Dzhakson [Jackson]. Moscow: Indrik, 2001, 53–60. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “K kharakteristike letopisnogo perechnia novgorodskikh posadnikov.” In Stolichnye i periferiinye goroda Rusi i Rossii v srednie veka i rannee novoe vremia (XI–XVIII vv.): Problemy kul’tury i kul’turnogo naslediia: Dokl. Tret’ei nauch. konf. (Murom, 17–20 maia 2000 g.), edited by Valentin L. Ianin. Moscow: Drevlekhranilishche, 2003, 128–36. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Novgorodskoe letopisanie XII–XIII vv.: Problema otbora sobytii dlia fiksatsii.” In Obrazy proshlogo i kollektivnaia identichnost’ v Evrope do nachala novogo vremeni, edited by Lorina P. Repina. Moscow: Krug’, 2003, 334–48. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Zakonomernosti v osveshchenii novgorodskimi letopistsami XII–XIII vv. faktov tserkovnogo stroitel’stva.” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2000 (2003): 326–45. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “K voprosu o strukture teksta russkikh letopisei: Naskol’ko diskretna pogodnaia stat’ia?” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 16 (2004): 30–4. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Kak velas’ novgorodskaia pogodnaia letopis’ v XII veke?” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoj Evropy 2004 (2005): 316–52.

Bibliography

423

Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Opyt formuliarnogo analiza letopisnykh izvestii o tserkovnom stroitel’stve (Novgorod, XII–nachalo XIII veka).” In Ad fontem—U istochnika: Sb. st. v chest’ S.M. Kashtanova, edited by Aleksandr O. Chubar’ian. Moscow: Nauka, 2005, 187–204. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Novgorodskoe letopisanie pervoi chetverti XIII veka: Khronologiia i protsess popolneniia letopisi.” Srednevekovaja Rus’ 6 (2006): 80–118. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Redaktirovanie letopisei v XIII–XV vv.: Raznochteniia mezhdu spiskami Novgorodskoi 1 letopisi.” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 57 (2006): 112–25. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “V kakikh sluchaiakh imena novgorodtsev popadali na stranitsy letopisi (XII–XIII vv.)?” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2004 (2006): 291–333. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Annaly na paskhal’nykh tablitsakh kak forma istoriopisaniia (Angliia, konets X–nachalo XII v.).” Srednie veka 71, no. 1–2 (2010): 50–79. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Soobshchenie o pokhode Vseslava Polotskogo na Pskov v 1065 g. v letopisanii XV v.” In Pskov, russkie zemli i Vostochnaia Evropa v XV–XVI vv. K 500-letiiu vkhozhdeniia Pskova v sostav edinogo Russkogo gosudarstva: Sb. tr. mezhdunar. nauch. konf., 19–21 maia 2010 g., edited by Valentina I. Okhotnikova. Pskov: Pskovskaia oblastnaia tipografiia, 2011, 13–33. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Dlia chego pisalis’ russkie letopisi? (vtoraia versiia).” Istoriia: Elektronnyi nauchno-obrazovatel’nyi zhurnal 5 (13) (2012), http://history.jes .su/s207987840000431-3-1. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. Istoriopisanie rannesrednevekovoj Anglii i Drevnej Rusi: Sravnitel’noe issledovanie. Moscow: Un-t Dmitriia Pozharskogo, 2012. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Sobytiia XI–nachala XII v. v novgorodskikh letopisiakh i perechniakh.” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2010 (2012): 584–703. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Tematika soobshchenii Lavrent’evskoi letopisi (tekst za 1156–1263 gg.).” Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta im. N.I. Lobachevskogo 6, part 3 (2012): 42–7. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Ian’ Vyshatich i ustnye istochniki drevnerusskoi Nachal’noi letopisi.” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2011 (2013): 65–117. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Kirik (1110–после 1158 (?)), ierom.” In Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, edited by Patriarch Kirill, vol. 34. Moscow: Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, 2014, 167–70. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Novgorodskii perechen’ russkikh episkopii.” In Kniga kartiny zemli: Sb. st. v chest’ I.G. Konovalovoi, edited by Tat’iana N. Dzhakson [Jackson] and Aleksandr V. Podosinov [Podossinov]. Moscow: Indrik, 2014, 41–50. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Novgorodskoe istoriopisanie v pravlenie Vasiliia Kaliki (1330–1352).” In Istoricheskoe povestvovanie v Srednevekovoi Rossii: K 450-letiiu

424

Bibliography

Stepennoi knigi: Mat-ly vseros. konf., edited by Artem E. Zhukov. Moscow – Saint-Petersburg: Al’ians-Arkheo, 2014, 36–70. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. Novgorodskoe letopisanie XI–serediny XIV v. kak sotsiokul’turnoe iavlenie, Doct. Sc. thesis. Moscow: Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2014. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “‘Ipat’evskie’ dopolneniia k ‘Povesti vremennykh let’.” In Akademik A.A. Shakhmatov: zhizn’, tvorchestvo, nauchnoe nasledie (k 150-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia), edited by O.N. Krylova and Marina N. Priemysheva. Saint-Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriia, 2015, 279–94. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “K segmentatsii Lavrent’evskoi letopisi.” Drevniaia Rus’: Voprosy medievistiki 3 (61) (2015): 28–9. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Ne-Riurikovichi v ‘Povesti vremennykh let’.” Istoriia: Elektronnyi nauchno-obrazovatel’nyi zhurnal 1 (34) (2015), http://history.jes.su/ s207987840000950-4-1. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Drevnerusskie sudebnye dokumenty XIII–XIV vv.” Pis’mo i povsednevnost’ 3 (2016): 18–48. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “K probleme zarozhdeniia drevnerusskogo istoriopisaniia.” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2013 (2016): 748–800. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Razvitie delovoi pis’mennosti v Novgorode v XI–XIV vv.” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 28 (2016): 72–8. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Rubezh XII–XIII vv. v novgorodskom letopisani.” Slověne: International Journal of Slavic Studies 6, no. 2 (2017): 163–87, http://slovene .ru/2017_2_Guimon.pdf. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Sozdanie letopisnykh kodeksov v gorodakh Rusi na rubezhe XII–XIII vv.” In Sovremennye problemy knizhnoi kul’tury: Osnovnye tendentsii i perspektivy razvitiia: Mat-ly IX Mezhdunar. nauch. seminara, Moskva, 24–25 oktiabri͡a 2018 g., edited by Liudmila A. Avgul’ et al., part 1. Minsk – Moscow: Nauka, 2018, 104–11. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Ustnaia traditsiia o sobytiiakh XI v. v srednevekovom Novgorode.” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2016 (2018): 157–83. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Istoricheskie zametki iz ‘Pamiati i pokhvaly’ Iakova Mnikha i zarozhdenie drevnerusskogo istoriopisaniia.” In U istokov i istochnikov: na mezhdunarodnykh i mezhdistsiplinarnykh putiakh: Iubileinyi sb. v chest’ A.V. Nazarenko, edited by Iurii A. Petrov. Moscow – Saint-Petersburg: Tsentr gumanitarnykh initsiativ, 2019, 73–89. Gimon [Guimon], Timofei V. “Novgorodskie vladychnye letopistsy vtoroi treti XIV– nachala XV v.” Drevniaia Rus’: Voprosy medievistiki 1 (75) (2019): 22–5. Gimon [Guimon], Timofey V., and Aleksei A. Gippius. “Novye dannye po istorii teksta Novgorodskoi pervoi letopisi.” Novgorodskii istoricheskii sbornik 7 (17) (1999): 18–47.

Bibliography

425

Gimon [Guimon], Timofey V., and Aleksei A. Gippius. “Russkoe letopisanie v svete tipologicheskikh parallelei (k postanovke problemy).” In Zhanry i formy v pis’mennoi kul’ture srednevekov’ia, edited by Iulia Ivanova. Moscow: IMLI RAN, 2005, 174–200. Gimon [Guimon], Timofey V., and Zoia Iu. Metlitskaia [Metlistkaya]. “Granitsy oikumeny letopistsa: Soobshcheniia anglo-saksonskikh, irlandskikh i drevnerusskikh annalov o sobytiiakh za predelami svoikh stran.” Istoricheskaia geografiia 2 (2014): 171–200. Gimon [Guimon], Timofey V., and Liudmila M. Orlova-Gimon. “Letopisnyi istochnik istoricheskikh zapisei na paskhalii v rukopisi RGB. 304.I.762 (XV v.).” Istochnikovedcheskie issledovaniia 6 (2014): 54–79. Gimon [Guimon], Timofey V., and Vladimir V. Tishin. “Tiurkskaia formula privetstviia v drevnerusskoi letopisi (posol’stvo polovtsev k Sviatoslavu Ol’govichu v 1147 g.).” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2019–20 (2020), 267–96. Gimon, see also Guimon. Gippius, Aleksei A. “‘Povest’ vremennykh let’: O vozmozhnom proiskhozhdenii i znachenii nazvaniia.” Cyrillomethodianum 15–16 (1991–1992): 7–23 [revised 2nd ed. in Iz istorii russkoi kul’tury, edited by Vladimir Ia. Petrukhin, vol. 1. Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury, 2000, 448–60]. Gippius, Aleksei A. “Novye dannye o ponomare Timofee—novgorodskom knizhnike serediny XIII veka.” Informatsionnyi biulleten’ Mezhdunarodnoi assotsiatsii po izucheniiu i rasprostraneniiu slavianskikh kul’tur 25 (1992): 59–86. Gippius, Aleksei A. Lingvo-tekstologicheskoe issledovanie Sinodal’nogo spiska Novgorodskoi pervoi letopisi: Avtoref. dis…. kand. filol. nauk. Moscow, 1996. Gippius, Aleksei A. “‘Russkaia pravda’ i ‘Voproshanie Kirika’ v Novgorodskoi kormchei 1282 g.: K kharakteristike iazykovoi situatsii drevnego Novgoroda.” Slavianovedenie 1 (1996): 48–62. Gippius, Aleksei A. “Drevnerusskie letopisi v zerkale zapadnoevropeiskoi annalistiki.” In Slaviane i nemtsy: Srednie veka—rannee Novoe vremia: Sb. tez. 16 konf. pamiati V.D. Koroliuka, edited by Lev V. Zaborovskii. Moscow: IS RAN, 1997, 24–7. Gippius, Aleksei A. “K istorii slozheniia teksta Novgorodskoi pervoi letopisi.” Novgorodskii istoricheskii sbornik 6 (16) (1997): 3–72. Gippius, Aleksei A. “K kharakteristike novgorodskogo vladychnogo letopisaniia XII– XIV vv.” In Velikii Novgorod v istorii srednevekovoi Evropy: K 70-letiiu V.L. Ianina, edited by Aleksei A. Gippius et. al. Moscow: Russkie slovari, 1999, 345–64. Gippius, Aleksei A. “Rekosha drouzhina Igorevi …: K lingvotekstologicheskoi stratifikatsii Nachal’noi letopisi.” Russian Linguistics 25 (2001): 147–81. Gippius, Aleksei A. “O kritike teksta i novom perevode-rekonstrukstii ‘Povesti vremennykh let’.” Russian Linguistics 26 (2002): 63–126. Gippius, Aleksei A. “U istokov drevnerusskoi istoricheskoi traditsii.” Slavianskii al’manakh 2002 (2003): 25–43.

426

Bibliography

Gippius, Aleksei A. “Petr i Iaksha: K identifikatsii personazhei novgorodskikh berestianykh gramot XII veka.” Novgorodskii istoricheskii sbornik 9 (19) 2003: 66–76. Gippius, Aleksei A. “O neskol’kikh personazhakh novgorodskikh berestianykh gramot XII veka.” In NGB, 11, 164–82. Gippius, Aleksei A. “Dva nachala Nachal’noi letopisi: K istorii kompozitsii Povesti vremennykh let.” Verenitsa liter: K 60-letiiu V.M. Zhivova, edited by Aleksandr M. Moldovan. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskikh kul’tur, 2006, 56–96. Gippius, Aleksei A. “Novgorodskaia vladychnaia letopis’ XII–XIV vv. i ee avtory (Istoriia i struktura teksta v lingvisticheskom osveshchenii). I.” Lingvisticheskoe istochnikovedenie i istoriia russkogo iazyka 2004–2005 (2006): 114–251. Gippius, Aleksei A. “K probleme redaktsii Povesti vremennykh let. I.” Slavianovediene 5 (2007): 20–44. Gippius, Aleksei A. “K probleme redaktsii Povesti vremennykh let. II.” Slavianovediene 2 (2008): 3–24. Gippius, Aleksei A. “Zagadki Mstislavovoi gramoty.” In Miscellanea Slavica: Sb. st. k 70-letiiu B.A. Uspenskogo, edited by Fedor B. Uspenskii. Moscow: Indrik, 2008, 109–29. Gippius, Aleksei A. “Nabliudeniia nad etiketnymi formulami berestianykh pisem.” In Stereotipy v iazyke, kommunikatsii i kul’ture. Sb. st., edited by Liudmila L. Fedorova. Moscow: Izd-vo RGGU, 2009, 279–300. Gippius, Aleksei A. “Rekosha drouzhina Igorevi … –3: Otvet O.B. Strakhovoi (Eshche raz o lingvisticheskoi stratifikatsii Nachal’noi letopisi).” Palaeoslavica 17, no. 2 (2009): 248–87. Gippius, Aleksei A. “Arkhiepiskop Antonii, novgorodskoe letopisanie i kul’t svjatoi Sofii.” In Khoroshie dni … Pamjati A.S. Khorosheva, edited by Aleksandr E. Musin. Saint-Petersburg: Leopart, 2010, 181–98. Gippius, Aleksei A. “‘Letopisnye’ paremiinye chteniia o Borise i Glebe: istoriia teksta i istoricheskii kontekst.” In Fakty i znaki: Issledovaniia po semiotike kul’tury, edited by Boris A. Uspenskii and Fedor B. Uspenskii, vol. 2. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskikh kul’tur, 2010, 42–71. Gippius, Aleksei A. “‘Do Aleksandra i Isakiia’: K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii mladshego izvoda Novgorodskoi pervoi letopisi.” Drevniaia Rus’: Voprosy medievistiki 1 (43) (2011): 18–30. Gippius, Alexej. “Birchbark Literacy and the Rise of Written Communication in Early Rus’.” In Epigraphic Literacy and Christian Identity: Modes of Written Discourse in the Newly Christian European North, edited by Kristel Zilmer, Judith Jesch. Turnhout: Brepols, 2012, 225–50. Gippius, Aleksei A. “Do i posle Nachal’nogo svoda: ranniaia letopisnaia istoriia Rusi kak ob”ekt tekstologicheskoi rekonstruktsii.” In Rus’ v IX–X vekakh: Arkheologicheskaia

Bibliography

427

panorama, edited by Nikolai A. Makarov. Moscow – Vologda: Drevnosti Severa, 2012, 37–63. Gippius, Aleksei A. “K rekonstruktsii drevneishikh etapov istorii russkogo letopisaniia.” Drevniaia Rus’ i srednevekovaia Evropa: vozniknovenie gosudarstv: Mat-ly konf., edited by Elena A. Mel’nikova. Moscow: IVI RAN, 2012, 41–50. Gippius, Aleksei A. “Sopernichestvo gorodskikh kontsov kak faktor kul’turnoi istorii Novgoroda XII–XIII vv.” In Spory o novgorodskom veche: Mezhdistsiplinarnyi dialog: Mat-ly kruglogo stola, Evropeiskii un-t v Sankt-Peterburge, 20 sentiabria 2010 g., edited by Mikhail M. Krom. Saint-Petersburg: Izd-vo EUSPb, 2012, 121–35. Gippius, Aleksei A. “Nizverzhenie kumirov v nachal’nom i novgorodskom letopisanii: literaturnye istochniki i proiskhozhdenie teksta.” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 26 (2014): 70–5. Gippius, Aleksei A. “Reconstructing the original of the Povest’ vremennyx let: a contribution to debate.” Russian Linguistics 38 (2014): 341–66. Gippius, Aleksei A. “Galitskie akty XIII v. iz tserkvi sv. Panteleimona.” In Pis’mennost’ Galitsko-Volynskogo kniazhestva: istoriko-filologicheskie issledovaniia, edited by Jitka Komendová. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, 2016, 49–64. Gippius, Aleksei A. “K prochteniiu nadpisi № 3541 Sofii Kievskoi.” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 28 (2016): 79–81. Gippius, Aleksei A. “‘Contextualized Writings’ in Old Novgorod: Birchbark Documents and Graffiti-Inscriptions in Comparative Overview.” In Vergesellschaftete Schriften: Beiträge zum internationalen Workshop der Arbeitsgruppe 11 am SFB 933, edited by Ulrike Ehmig. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2019, 181–96. Gippius, Aleksei A. “K voprosu o vremeni uchrezhdeniia Novgorodskoi arkhiepiskopii.” In Kompleksnyi podkhod v izuchenii Drevnei Rusi: Mat-ly X Mexhdunar. nauch. konf., 9–13 sentiabria 2019 goda, Moskva, Rossiia, edited by Elena L. Koniavskaia. Moscow: Indrik, 2019, 57–9. Gippius, Aleksei A., and Savva M. Mikheev. “O podgotovke Svoda nadpisei-graffiti Novgorodskogo Sofiiskogo sobora.” In Pis’mennost’, literatura, fol’klor slavianskikh narodov. Istoriia slavistiki: XV mezhdunar. s’ezd slavistov, Minsk, 20–27 avgusta 2013 g.: Dokl. ros. delegatsii, edited by Aleksandr M. Moldovan. Moscow: Drevlekhranilishche, 2013, 152–79. Gippius, Aleksei A., and Savva M. Mikheev. “Nadpis’ ob ubiistve Andreia Bogoliubskogo iz Spaso-Preobrazhenskogo sobora v Pereiaslavle-Zalesskom.” Drevniaia Rus’: Voprosy medievistiki 3 (69) (2017): 31–2. Gippius, Aleksei A., and Savva M. Mikheev. “Nadpisi-graffiti tserkvi Blagoveshcheniia na Gorodishche: predvaritel’nyi obzor.” Arkhitekturnaia arkheologiia 1 (2019): 35–54. Gippius, Aleksei A., and Vladimir V. Sedov. “Nakhodki v Georgievskom sobore Iur’eva monastyria: novye freski i novye nadpisi.” Trudy Otdeleniia istoriko-filologicheskikh nauk 2015 (2016): 190–208.

428

Bibliography

Gneuss, Helmut. Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts: A List of Manuscripts and Manuscript Fragments Written or Owned in England up to 1100. Tempe (Arizona): Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2001. Goffart, Walter. The Narrators of Barbarian History (A.D. 550–800): Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, Bede and Paul the Deacon. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988. Golubovskii, Petr V. “Ocherk istorii postepennogo poiavleniia glavneishikh voprosov po razrabotke letopisei.” Universitetskie izvestiia 10 (Kiev, 1886): 201–12. Granberg, Jonas. Veche in the Chronicles of Medieval Rus: A Study of Functions and Terminology. Göteborg: Göteborg University, 2004. Gransden, Antonia. Historical Writing in England c. 550 to c. 1307. Ithaca (N.Y.): Cornell University Press, 1974. Gransden, Antonia. Legends, traditions and history in Medieval England. London – Rio Grande: Hambledon Press, 1992. Gräslund, Anne-Sofie, and Linn Lager, “Runestones and the Christian Missions.” In The Viking World, edited by Stephan Brink in collaboration with Neil Price. Abingdon: Routledge, 2008, 629–38. Grazhdankina, Tat’iana A. “Svedeniia o rozhdenii kniazheskikh detei v russkikh letopisiakh XI–XIV vv.” Istochnikovedcheskie issledovaniia 1 (2004): 44–63. Grinev, Nikolai N. “Kratkaia redaktsiia Russkoi Pravdy kak istochnik po istorii Novgoroda XI v.” Novgorodskii istoricheskii sbornik 3 (13) (1989): 20–42. Guimon, Timofey V. “The Writing of Annals in Eleventh-Century England: Palaeography and Textual History.” In Writing and Texts in Anglo-Saxon England, edited by Alexander R. Rumble. Woodbridge: D.S. Brewer, 2006, 137–45. Guimon, Timofey V. “Christian Identity in the Early Novgorodian Annalistic Writing.” In Historical Narratives and Christian Identity on a European Periphery: Early History Writing in Northern, East-Central, and Eastern Europe (c. 1070–1200), edited by Ildar Garipzanov. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011, 255–75. Guimon, Timofey V. “Community names in the First Novgorodian Chronicle and the territorial structure of the Novgorodian Land (1115–1272).” Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana 2 (2015): 134–51, http://slavica-petropolitana.spbu.ru/ru/ arkhiv-nomerov/133-studia-slavica-et-balcanica-petropolitana-2015-2/332-guimon -t-community-names-in-the-first-novgorodian-chronicle-and-the-territorial -structure-of-the-novgorodian-land-1115-1272.html. Guimon, Timofey V. “Estonia during the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries in the Novgorodian Chronicles.” Forschungen zur baltischen Geschichte 10 (2015): 31–45. Guimon, Timofey V. “What Events Were Reported by the Old Rus’ Chroniclers?” COLLeGIUM: Studies across Disciplines in the Humanities and Social Sciences 17 (2015): 92–117 https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/153792/VOL17_05 _guimon.pdf?sequence=1. Guimon, see also Gimon.

Bibliography

429

Gvozdetskaia, Natalia Iu. “Vospriiatie iazychestva i obraz iazychnika v ‘Tserkovnoi istorii naroda anglov’ Bedy Dostochtimogo.” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 26 (2014): 59–64. Harrison, Kenneth. The Framework of Anglo-Saxon History to A.D. 900. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Hart, Cyril. Learning and Culture in Late Anglo-Saxon England and the Influence of Ramsey Abbey on the Major English Monastic Schools: The New Curriculum of Monastic Schools, vol. 1–2. Lewiston, N.Y., etc.: E. Mellen Press, 2003. Higham, Nicholas J. (Re-)Reading Bede: The Ecclesiastical History in Context. London – New York: Routledge, 2006. Hines, John. “The Runic Inscriptions of Early Anglo-Saxon England.” Britain 400–600: Language and History, edited by Alfred Bammesberger and Alfred Wollmann. Heidelberg: Winter, 1990, 437–55. Howlett, David. “Willibrord Autobiographical Note and the ‘Versus Sybillae de Iudicio Dei’.” Peritia: Journal of Medieval Academy of Ireland 20 (2008): 154–64. Hristova, Daniela S. “Major Textual Boundary of Linguistic Usage in the GalicianVolhynian Chronicle.” Russian History 33, no. 2–3–4 (2006): 313–31. Hunter Blair, Peter. “The Northumbrians and their southern frontier.” Archaeologia Aeliana, or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity 26 (1948): 98–126. Hunter Blair, Peter. “The Moore Memoranda on Northumbrian History.” In The Early Cultures of North-West Europe (H.M. Chadwick memorial studies), edited by Cyril Fox and Bruce Dickins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950, 245–57. Ianin, Valentin L. Ocherki kompleksnogo istochnikovedeniia: Srednevekovyi Novgorod. Moscow: Vysshaia shkola, 1977. Ianin, Valentin L. “K voprosu o roli Sinodal’nogo spiska Novgorodskoi I letopisi v russkom letopisanii XV v.” Letopisi i khroniki 1980 (1981): 153–81. Ianin, Valentin L. Novgorodskie akty XII–XV vv.: Khronologicheskii kommentarii. Moscow: Nauka, 1991. Ianin, Valentin L. Novgorodskie posadniki. 2nd ed., revised and suppl. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2003. Ianin, Valentin L., and Petr G. Gaidukov. Aktovye pechati Drevnei Rusi X–XV vv., vol. 3. Moscow: Intrada, 1998. Ianin, Valentin L., and Andrei A. Zalizniak. “Novgorodskii kodeks pervoi chetverti XI v.—drevneishaia kniga Rusi.” Voprosy iazykoznaniia 5 (2001): 3–25. Ianish, Nikolai N. Novgorodskaia letopis’ i ee moskovskie peredelki. Moscow: Imp. obshchestvo istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh, 1874. Ikonnikov, Vladimir S. Opyt russkoi istoriografii, vol. 1–2. Kiev: Tip. Imp. un-ta sv. Vladimira, 1892–1908. Ishchenko, Dmitrii S. “Starsheishii russkii spisok Studiiskogo ustava (paleograficheskoe opisanie).” In Issledovaniia istochnikov po istorii russkogo iazyka i pis’mennosti,

430

Bibliography

edited by Lidiia P. Zhukovskaia and Nina I. Tarabasova. Moscow: Nauka, 1966, 140–61. Isoaho, Mari. The Image of Aleksandr Nevskiy in Medieval Russia: Warrior and Saint. London – Boston: Brill, 2006. Istrin, Vasilii M. “Khronografy v russkoi literature.” Vizantiiskii vremennik 5, no. 1–2 (1898): 131–52. Istrin, Vasilii M. “Zamechaniia o nachale russkogo letopisaniia: Po povodu issledovanii A.A. Shakhmatova.” Izvestia Otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnisti Rossiiskoi Akademii nauk 26 (1921): 45–102; 27 (1924): 207–51. Istrin, Vasilii M. Ocherk istorii drevnerusskoi literatury domoskovskogo perioda (XI–XIII vv.). 2nd ed. Moscow: Academia, 2003 [first published in 1922]. Iurasovskii [Yurasovsky], Aleksei V. “Gramoty XI–serediny XIV veka v sostave russkikh letopisei.” Istoriia SSSR 4 (1982): 141–50. Iurasovskii [Yurasovsky], Aleksei V. “K voprosu o stepeni autentichnosti vengerskikh gramot XII v. Ipat’evskoi letopisi.” Drevneishie gosudarstva na territorii SSSR 1981 (1983): 189–94. Iusupovich [Jusupowić], Adrian. “Velikokniazheskii kievskii svod 1238 g. v GalitskoVolynskoi khronike.” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 30 (2018): 363–7. Ivanov, Sergei A. “Bolgarskaia obshchestvennaia mysl’ epokhi rannego Srednevekov’ia.” In Obshchestvennaia mysl’ slavianskikh narodov v epokhu rannego Srednevekov’ia, edited by Boris N. Floria. Moscow: Rukopisnye pamiatniki Drevnei Rusi, 2009, 9–30. Ivanov, Viacheslav Vs. “Tipologiia avtobiograficheskogo poucheniia tsaria kak zhanra.” Slavianovedenie 2 (2004): 69–79. Ivanova, Natalia P. “Analiz mesiatseslovnykh datirovok istoricheskikh sobytii (po materialam Novgorodskoi pervoi letopisi).” Palaeoslavica 17, no. 2 (2009): 1–45. Jackson see Dzhakson. Jezierski, Wojtek. “Æthelweardus redivisus.” Early Medieval History 13, no. 2 (2005): 159–78. Jones, Charles W. “Bede as Early Medieval Historian.” Medievalia et Humanistica 4 (1946): 26–36. Jones, Charles W. Saints’ Lives and Chronicles in Early England. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1947. Jusupowić, Adrian. Elity ziemi Halickiej i Wołyńskiej w czasach Romanowiczów (1205– 1269). Studium prosopograficzne. Kraków: Avalon, 2016. Jusupowić see also Iusupovich. Karger, Mikhail K. “K kharakteristike drevnerusskogo letopistsa.” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom) 11 (1955): 59–71. Karpov, Aleksei Iu. Russkaia tserkov’ X–XIII vv.: Biograficheskii slovar’. Moscow: Kvadriga, 2017.

Bibliography

431

Karyshkovskii, Petr O. “O khronologii russko-vizantiiskoi voiny pri Sviatoslave.” Vizantiiskii vremennik 5 (1952): 127–38. Kashtanov, Sergei M. Iz istorii russkogo srednevekovogo istochnika: Akty X–XVI vv. Moscow: Nauka, 1996. Kashtanov, Sergei M., and Liubov’ V. Stoliarova. “Ob izdanii originalov drevnerusskikh aktov XII–XIV vv. v ramkakh russkoi serii ‘Monumenta palaeographica medii aevi’.” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 28 (2016), 116–24. Ker, Neil R. Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957. Keynes, Simon D. “Giso, Bishop of Wells (1061–88).” Anglo-Norman Studies: Proceedings of the Battle Conference 19 (1996): 203–71. Keynes, Simon D. “On the Authenticity of Asser’s Life of King Alfred.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 47, no. 3 (1996): 529–51. Keynes, Simon D. “Between Bede and the Chronicle: BL Cotton Vespasian B. vi, fols. 104–9.” In Latin Learning and English Lore: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Literature for Michael Lapidge, edited by Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe and Andy Orchard, vol. 1. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005, 47–67. Ker, Neil R. “The Migration of Manuscripts from English Medieval Libraries.” In Idem. Books, Collectors and Libraries: Studies in the Medieval Heritage, edited by Andrew G. Watson. London: Hambledon, 1985, 459–70 [first published in 1942]. Khoroshev, Aleksandr S. “Letopisnye spiski novgorodskikh vladyk.” Novgorodskii istoricheskii sbornik 2 (12) (1984): 127–42. Kilunov, A.F. “K voprosu o moralizme drevnerusskoi letopisi.” In Otechestvennaia obshchestvennaia mysl’ epokhi srednevekov’ia: Istoriko-filosofskie ocherki, edited by Vilen S. Gorskii et al. Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1988, 141–7. Kirby, David P. “Bede and Northumbrian Chronology.” The English Historical Review 78, no. 308 (1963): 514–27. Kirby, David P. “Bede’s Native Sources for the Historia Ecclesiastica.” In Anglo-Saxon History: Basic Readings, edited by David A.E. Pelteret (New York – London: Routledge, 2000), 55–81 [first published in 1965–6]. Kliug [Klug], Ekkekhard. Kniazhestvo Tverskoe (1247–1485 gg.). Tver’: RIF LTD, 1994. Kliashtornyi, Sergei G. “Rozhdenie drevnetiurkskoi istoriografii: Runicheskie pamiatniki Velikoi Stepi.” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2013 (2016): 241–58. Kloss, Boris M. “Letopis’ Novgorodskaia prevaia.” In Slovar’ knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnei Rusi, edited by Dmitrii S. Likhachev, vol. 1. Leningrad: Nauka, 1987, 245–7. Kloss, Boris M. “Predislovie k izdaniiu 1997 g.” In PSRL, 1, G–N. Klug, Ekkehard. Das Furstentum Tver (1247–1485). Berlin: Harrassowitz, 1985. Komendova, Iitka [Komendová, Jitka]. “Zhanr Galitsko-Volynskoi letopisi v tipologicheskoi perspektive.” In Pis’mennost’ Galitsko-Volynskogo kniazhestva: istoriko-

432

Bibliography

filologicheskie issledovaniia, edited by Jitka Komendová. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, 2016, 79–88. Komendova, Iitka [Komendová, Jitka]. “‘Letopis’ monakha Sazavskogo’ i Kievskaia letopis’: Sravnenie metodov istoriopisaniia.” Slověne: International Journal of Slavic Studies 6, no. 1 (2017): 256–72, http://slovene.ru/2017_1_Komendova.pdf. Komendova, Iitka [Komendová, Jitka]. “Origo gentis v ‘Cheshskoi khronike’ Koz’my Prazhskogo i drevneishem russkom letopisanii.” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 29 (2017): 98–102. Koniavskaia, Elena L. “Kratkii novgorodskii letopisets i ego mesto v novgorodskom letopisanii.” Drevniaia Rus’: Voprosy medievistki 1 (39) (2010): 40–52. Koniavskaia, Elena L. “Tverskoe vladychnoe letopisanie kontsa XIII–XIV v.” Srednevekovaia Rus’ 9 (2011): 139–52. Kostomarov, Nikolai I. Lektsii po russkoi istorii, part 1: Istochniki russkoi istorii. Saint-Petersburg, 1861. Kotliar, Nikolai F. “Galitsko-Volynskii svod: letopis’ ili sobranie povestei?” Srednevekovaia Rus’ 6 (2006): 127–37. Kotliar, Nikolai F. “Iaroslav i ego vremia v obshchestvennom soznanii vtoroi poloviny XI–XIII v.” In Iaroslav Mudryi i ego epokha, edited by Igor’ N. Danilevskii and Elena A. Mel’nikova. Moscow: Indrik, 2008, 202–14. Kotliar, Mykola F. Kiїvs’kii lіtopis XII stolіttia: Іstorichne doslіdzhennia. Kiїv: IIU NANU, 2009. Krom, Mikhail M., ed. Spory o novgorodskom veche: Mezhdistsiplinarnyi dialog: Mat-ly kruglogo stola, Evropeiskii un-t v Sankt-Peterburge, 20 sentiabria 2010 g. Saint-Petersburg: Izd-vo EUSPb, 2012. Kuchkin, Vladimir A. “Mongolo-tatarskoe igo v osveshchenii drevnerusskikh knizhnikov (XIII–pervaia chetvert’ XIV v.).” In Russkaia kul’tura v usloviiakh inozemnykh nashestvii i voin, X–nachalo XX v.: Sb. nauch. tr., edited by A.N. Kopylov. Moscow: In-t istorii SSSR AN SSSR, 1990, 15–69. Kuchkin, Vladimir A. “Kremlevskaia nakhodka 1843 g.” Vestnik istorii, literatury i iskusstva 7 (2010): 299–312. Kuchkin, Vladimir A. “Povest’ ob osleplenii Vasil’ka Terebovl’skogo.” In DRSM, 624–5. Kupchyns’kyi, Oleg A. Akty ta dokumenty Halyts’ko-Volyns’koho kniazivstva XIII— pershoï polovyny XIV stolit’. Doslidzhennia. Teksty. L’viv: Naukovo t-stvo im. T. Shevchenka, 2004. Kurnosov, Aleksei A. “K voprosu o prirode vidov istoricheskikh istochnikov.” Istochnikovedenie otechestvennoi istorii 1976 (1977): 5–25. Kuzenkov, Pavel V. “Pokhod 860 g. na Konstantinopol’ i pervoe kreshchenie Rusi v srednevekovykh pis’mennykh istochnikakh.” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2000 (2003): 3–172.

Bibliography

433

Kuzenkov, Pavel V. Khristianskie khronologicheskie sistemy: Istoriia letoschisleniia v sviatootecheskoi i vostochnokhristianskoi traditsii III–XV vekov. Moscow: Rus. izd. tsentr, 2015. Kuz’min, Andrei V. “Boiarskii dvor kak istoriko-topograficheskii kommentarii letopistsa XI veka.” Germenevtika drevnerusskoi literatury 10 (2000): 44–51. Kuz’min, Apollon G. Nachal’nye etapy drevnerusskogo letopisaniia. Moscow: Izd-vo Moskovskogo un-ta, 1977. Kuznetsov, Andrei A. “Izmeneniia v pravovom polozhenii tserkvi vo VladimiroSuzdal’skom kniazhestve v period 1212–1218 gg.” Religii mira: Istoriia i sovremennost’ 2006–2010 (2012): 224–38. Kvirkveliia, Ol’ga R. “Metodika analiza sistemy umolchaniia Novgorodskoi I letopisi.” In Matematika v izuchenii srednevekovykh povestvovatel’nykh istochnikov: Sb. st., edited by Boris M. Kloss. Moscow: Nauka, 1986, 83–97. Laistner, Max L.W. “The Library of the Venerable Bede.” Idem. Intellectual Heritage of the Early Middle Ages: Selected Essays. Ithaca, N.Y.: Octagon Books, 1957, 117–49. Lapidge, Michael. “Byrhtferth of Ramsey and the early sections of Historia Regum attributed to Symeon of Durham.” Anglo-Saxon England 10 (1982): 97–122. Lapidge, Michael. “Surviving booklists from Anglo-Saxon England.” In Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England: Studies presented to P. Clemoes on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, edited by Michael Lapidge and Helmut Gneuss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985, 33–89. Lapidge, Michael. “Asser’s reading.” In Alfred the Great: Papers from the EleventhCentenary Conferences, edited by Timothy Reuter. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003, 27–47. Lapidge, Michael. The Anglo-Saxon Library. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Lapidge, Michael. “Beda Venerabilis.” In La transmissione dei testi latini del Medioevo, edited by Paolo Chiesa and Lucia Castaldi, vol. 3. Firenze: SISMEL, Edizioni del Galluzo, 2008, 44–137. Lappo-Danilevskii, Aleksandr S. “Ocherk razvitiia russkoi istoriografii. Vvedenie.” Russkii istoricheskii zhurnal 6 (1920): 5–29. Laushkin, Aleksei V. “Stikhiinye bedstviia i prirodnye znameniia v predstavleniiakh drevnerusskikh letopistsev.” Russkoe srednevekov’e 1 (1998): 26–58. Laushkin, Aleksei V. “Tochnye datirovki v drevnerusskom letopisanii XI–XIII vv.: Zakonomernosti poiavleniia.” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 16 (2004): 101–4. Lavrenchenko, Mariia L. “Obrashcheniia i dogovornye formuly v dialogakh Riurikovichei (po materialam Kievskoi letopisi)”. In Polska, Ruś i Węgry: X–XIV wiek, edited by Dariusz Dąbrowski, Adrian Jusupović, and Teresa Maresz. Kraków: Avalon, 2018, 155–77.

434

Bibliography

Lavrent’ev, Aleksandr V. “Groza vo Vladimire 13 iiulia 1340 g. i krovel’nye raboty v Uspenskom sobore.” In ‘Vertograd mnogotsvetnyi’: Sb. k 80-letiiu B.N. Flori, edited by Arkadii A. Turilov. Moscow: Indrik, 2018, 179–200. Levison, Wilhelm. “Bede as historian.” In Bede: His Life, Times and Writings: Essays in commemoration of the twelfth centenary of his death, edited by A. Hamilton Thompson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1935, 111–51. Levison, Wilhelm. England and the Continent in the Eighth Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1946. Levitskii, Nikandr M. “Vazhneishie istochniki dlia opredeleniia vremeni kreshcheniia Vladimira i Rusi i ikh dannye. (Po povodu mneniia prof. Sobolevskogo).” Khristianskoe chtenie 3–4 (1890): 370–421, 687–740. Likhachev, Dmitrii S. “‘Ustnye letopisi’ v sostave Povesti vremennykh let.” Istoricheskie zapiski 17 (1945): 201–24. Likhachev, Dmitrii S. “Russkii posol’skii obychai v XI–XIII vv.” Istoricheskie zapiski 18 (1946): 42–55. Likhachev, Dmitrii S. “Galitskaia literaturnaia traditsiia v zhitii Aleksandra Nevskogo.” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom) 5 (1947): 36–56. Likhachev, Dmitrii S. Russkie letopisi i ikh kul’turno-istoricheskoe znachenie. Moscow and Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1947. Likhachev, Dmitrii S. “Sofiiskii vremennik i novgorodskii politicheskii perevorot 1136 g.” Istoricheskie zapiski 25 (1948): 240–66. Likhachev, Dmitrii S. Vozniknovenie russkoi literatury. Moscow – Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1952. Likhachev, Dmitrii S. Poetika drevnerusskoi literatury. Moscow: Nauka, 1979. Likhachev, Dmitrii S. “Slovo o polku Igoreve” i kul’tura ego vremeni, 2nd ed., suppl. Leningrad: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1985 [1st ed.: 1978]. Likhachev, Dmitrii S. “‘Povest’ vremennykh let’: Istoriko-literaturnyi ocherk.” In Povest’ vremennykh let, edited by Varvara P. Adrianova-Peretts and Dmitrii S. Likhachev. 2nd ed., corr. and suppl. Saint-Petersburg: Nauka, 1996, 271–358 [first published in 1950]. Lind, Dzhon [John]. “K voprosu o posadnicheskoi reforme Novgoroda okolo 1300 g. i datirovke novgorodskikh aktov.” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 1995 (1997): 263–70. Lindkvist, Thomas. “The Making of Legal Communities: Royal, Aristocratic, and Local Visions in Sweden and Gotland, Thirteenth–Fourteenth Centuries.” In Imagined Communities on the Baltic Rim, from the Eleventh to Fifteenth Centuries, edited by Wojtek Jezierski and Lars Hermanson. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2016, 245–77.

Bibliography

435

Lint, Theo Maarten van. “From Reciting t Writing and Interpretation: Tendencies, Themes, and Demarcations of Armenian Historical Writing.” In The Oxford History of Historical Writing, vol. 2, edited by Sarah Foot and Chase F. Robinson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, 180–200. Litvina, Anna F. “Zhanr avtobiograficheskoi preambuly: ‘Pouchenie’ Vladimira Monomakha kak dukhovnaia gramota.” Slavianovedenie 4 (2004): 3–27. Litvina, Anna F., and Fedor B. Uspenskii. Traektorii traditsii: Glavy iz istorii dinastii i tserkvi na Rusi kontsa XI–nachala XIII veka. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2010. Liverani, Mario. “Later Mesopotamia.” In The Oxford History of Historical Writing, vol. 1, edited by Andrew Feldherr and Grant Hardy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, 29–52. Looijenga, Tineke. Texts & contexts of the oldest runic inscriptions. Leiden; Boston: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2003. Łowmiański, Henryk. Review of Russkie letopisi i ikh kul’turno-istoricheskoe znachenie, by Dmitrii S. Likhachev (Moscow and Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1947), Przegląd Historyczny 38 (1948): 279–88. Lukin, Pavel V. Novgorodskoe veche. Moscow: Indrik, 2014. Lukin, Pavel V. “Urban Community and Consensus: Brotherhood and Communalism in Medieval Novgorod.” In Imagined Communities on the Baltic Rim, from the Eleventh to Fifteenth Centuries, edited by Wojtek Jezierski and Lars Hermanson. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2016, 279–307. Lukin, Pavel V. “Stareishina Gostomysl i pervyi dozh Paoluchcho Anafesto: Respublikanskie mify i ikh sud’by.” Drevniaia Rus’: Voprosy medievistiki 1 (75) (2019): 67–71. Lunt, Horace G. “On Interpreting the Russian Primary Chronicle: The Year 1037.” The Slavic and East European Journal 32, no. 2 (1988): 251–64. Lur’e [Lurie], Iakov S. “Problemy izucheniia russkogo letopisaniia.” In Puti izucheniia drevnerusskoi literatury i pis’mennosti, edited by Dmitrii S. Likhachev and Nadezhda F. Droblenkova. Leningrad: Nauka, 1970, 43–8. Lur’e [Lurie], Iakov S. “O shakhmatovskoi metodike issledovaniia letopisnykh svodov.” Istochnikovedenie otechestvennoi istorii 1975 (1976): 87–107. Lur’e [Lurie], Iakov S. Obshcherusskie letopisi XIV–XV vv. Leningrad: Nauka, 1976. Lur’e [Lurie], Iakov S. “O proiskhozhdenii Radzivilovskoi letopisi.” Vspomogatel’nye istoricheskie distsipliny 18 (1987): 64–83. Lur’e [Lurie], Iakov S. Dve istorii Rusi XV veka: Rannie i pozdnie, nezavisimye i ofitsial’nye letopisi ob obrazovanii Moskovskogo gosudarstva. Saint-Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 1994. Lurie see Lur’e.

436

Bibliography

Luttercott, Karl. “Beda Hagiographicus: Meaning and Function of Miracle Stories in the Vita Cuthberti and Historia Ecclesiastica.” In Beda Venerabilis: Historian, Monk & Northumbrian, edited by L.A.J.R. Houwen and A.A. MacDonald. Groningen: E. Forsten, 1996, 81–106. McClure, Judith. “Bede’s Old Testament kings.” In Ideal and reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon society: Studies presented to J.M. Wallace-Hadrille, edited by Patrick Wormald with Donald Bullough and Roger Collins. Oxford: Blackwell, 1983, 76–98. McCormick, Michael. Les annales du Haut Moyen Age. Turnhout: Brepols, 1975. McKitterick, Rosamond. History and Memory in the Carolingian World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Mäesalu, Ain. “Could Kedipiv in East Slavonic Chronicles be Keava hill fort?” Estonian Journal of Archaeology, suppl. 1 (2012): 195–200. Maiakovskii, Il’ia L. Ocherki po istorii arkhivnogo dela v SSSR: Opyt sistematicheskogo rukovodstva, part 1. Moscow: Istoriko-arkhivnyi institut, 1941. Malingudi [Malingoudi], Iana [Jana]. “Russko-vizantiiskie sviazi v X veke s tochki zreniia diplomatiki.” Vizantiiskii vremennik 56 (1995): 68–91. Malingudi [Malingoudi], Iana [Jana]. “Russko-vizantiiskie dogovory v svete diplomatiki.” Vizantiiskii vremennik 57 (1997): 4–57. Markevich, Aleksei I. O letopisiakh: Iz lektsii po istoriografii, vol. 1. Odessa, 1883. Medyntseva, Al’bina A. Gramotnost’ v Drevnei Rusi: Po pamiatnikam epigrafiki X–pervoi poloviny XIII veka. Moscow: Nauka, 2000. Mel’nikova, Elena A. “Proiskhozhdenie praviashchei dinastii v rannesrednevekovoi istoriografii. Legitimizatsiia inoetnichnoi znati.” In Elita i etnos srednevekov’ia, edited by Adelaida A. Svanidze. Moscow: IVI RAN, 1995, 39–44. Melnikova, Elena A. The Eastern World of the Vikings: Six essays about Scandinavia and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages. Göteborg: Göteborgs Universitet, 1996. Mel’nikova, Elena A. “Ustnaia traditsiia v Povesti vremennykh let: K voprosu o tipakh ustnykh predanii.” In Vostochnaia Evropa v istoricheskoi retrospektive: K 80-letiiu V.T. Pashuto, edited by Elena A. Mel’nikova. Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury, 1999, 153–65. Mel’nikova, Elena A. Skandinavskie runicheskie nadpisi: Novye nakhodki i interpretatsii: Teksty, perevod, kommentarii. Moscow: Vostochnaia literatura, 2001. Melnikova, Elena A. “The Cultural Assimilation of the Varangians in Eastern Europe from the Point of View of Language and Literacy.” In Runica—Germanica— Mediaevalia, edited by Wilhelm Heizmann und Astrid van Nahl. Berlin – New York: Walter De Gruyter, 2003, 454–65. Mel’nikova, Elena A. “Istoricheskaia pamiat’ v ustnoi i pis’mennoi traditsiiakh (Povest’ vremennykh let i « Saga ob Inglingakh »).” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2001 (2003): 48–92.

Bibliography

437

Mel’nikova, Elena A. “Istoricheskaia pamiat’ v germanskoi ustnoi traditsii i ee pis’mennaia fiksatsiia.” In Istoricheskaia pamiat’: Istoricheskaia kul’tura Evropy do nachala Novogo vremeni, edited by Lorina P. Repina. Moscow: Krug’, 2006, 180–222. Mel’nikova, Elena A. “Angliia i domongol’skaia Rus’: Na kraiu anglosaksonskoi oikumeny.” Drevniaia Rus’: Voprosy medievistiki 3 (61) (2015): 84–5. Mel’nikova, Elena A. “Genealogiia i nachala islandsko-norvezhskogo istoriopisaniia.” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2013 (2016): 464–526. Mel’nikova, Elena A., and Vladimir Ia. Petrukhin, ed. Drevniaia Rus’ v srednevekovom mire: Entsiklopediia. Moscow: Ladomir, 2014. Mereminskii, Stanislav G. Formirovanie traditsii: angliiskoe istoriopisanie vtoroi poloviny XI–pervoi poloviny XII vekov. Moscow: Un-t Dmitriia Pozharskogo, 2016. Mereminskii, Stanislav G. “Sushchestvoval li v Srednie veka zhanr annalov? K voprosu o tipologii srednevekovykh istoricheskikh tekstov.” In Sostoianie perekhodnosti i smysly istorii, edited by Marina S. Bobkova. Saint-Petersburg: Evraziia, 2019, 115–38. Meshcherskii, Nikita A. “K voprosu ob istochnikakh ‘Povesti vremennykh let’.” In Idem. Izbrannye stat’i. Saint-Petersburg: SPbGU, 1995, 46–57. Meshcherskii, Nikita A. Istochniki i sostav drevnei slaviano-russkoi perevodnoi pis’mennosti IX–XV vekov (Uchebnoe posobie). Leningrad: Izd-vo LGU, 1978. Metlitskaia [Metlistkaya], Zoia Iu. “Istoriia v khronikakh: Istoricheskoe soznanie anglosaksonskoi Anglii.” In Dialogi so vremenem: Pamiat’ o proshlom v kontekste istorii, edited by Lorina P. Repina. Moscow: Krug’, 2008, 149–201. Michalowski, Piotr. “Early Mesopotamia.” In The Oxford History of Historical Writing, vol. 1, edited by Andrew Feldherr and Grant Hardy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, 5–28. Mikheev, Savva M. Kto pisal “Povest’ vremennykh let”? Moscow: Indrik, 2011. Mikheev, Savva M. “22 drevnerusskikh glagolicheskikh nadpisei-graffiti XI–XII vv. iz Novgoroda.” Slovo: Časopis Staroslavenskoga instituta u Zagrebu 62 (2012): 63–99. Mikheev, Savva M. “Kogda byl postroen Sofiiskii sobor v Kieve?” In Imenoslov. Istoriia iazyka. Istoriia kul’tury, edited by Fedor B. Uspenskii. Moscow: Indrik, 2012, 231–43. Mikheev, Savva M. “Nadpis’ na kamennom kreste iz Voimerits na reke Mste—pamiatnik nachal’noi istorii drevnerusskoi pis’mennosti.” Voprosy epigrafiki 6 (2012): 7–30. Mikheev, Savva M. “K probleme datirovki perekhoda russkogo nachal’nogo letopisaniia ot khronistiki k annalistike.” Drevniaia Rus’: Voprosy medievistiki 3 (65) (2016): 153–7. Miliutenko, Nadezhda I. “Vladimirskii velikokniazheskii svod 1205 goda (Radzivilovs­ kaia letopis’).” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom) 49 (1996): 36–58. Miliutenko, Nadezhda I. Sviatoi ravnoapostol’nyi kniaz’ Vladimir i kreshchenie Rusi: Drevneishie pis’mennye istochniki. Saint-Petersburg: Izd-vo Olega Abyshko, 2008. Miller [Müller], Gerard Fridrikh [Gerhard Friedrich]. “O pervom letopisatele Rossiiskom prepodobnom Nestore i ego letopisi i o prodolzhateliakh onyia.” In

438

Bibliography

Idem. Sochineniia po istorii Rossii: Izbrannoe, edited by Aleksandr B. Kamenskii. Moscow: Nauka, 1996, 5–14 [first published in 1755]. Miller, Molly. “Bede’s Roman Dates.” Classica et Medievalia 31 (1970): 239–52. Miller, Molly. “The dates of Deira.” Anglo-Saxon England 8 (1979): 35–61. Miller, Sean. “Æthelweard.” In The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, edited by Michael Lapidge, John Blair, Simon Keynes & Donald Scragg. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2014, 20. Mirzoev, Vladimir G. “Sotsial’naia funktsiia istorii (po ‘Povesti vremennykh let’).” In Voprosy istoriografii i metodologii istorii, edited by Vladimir G. Mirzoev. Rostovna-Donu: Rostovskii-na-Donu pedag. in-t, 1976, 3–41. Morozov, Sergei A. “Letopisevedenie—kompleksnaia spetsial’naia istorikofilologicheskaia distsiplina.” In Mir istochnikovedeniia (sb. v chest’ S.O. Shmidta), edited by A.D. Zaitsev et al. Moscow – Penza: RGGU, 1994, 31–4. Mortensen, Lars B. “Sanctified Beginnings and Mythopoietic Moments. The First Wave of Writing on the Past in Norway, Denmark, and Hungary, c. 1000–1230.” In The Making of Christian Myths in the Periphery of Latin Christendom (c. 1000–1300), edited by Lars B. Mortensen. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2006, 247–73. Mouchard, Florent see Mushar, Floran. Murav’eva, Liudmila L. Moskovskoe letopisanie vtoroi poloviny XIV–nachala XV veka. Moscow: Nauka, 1991. Mur’ianov, Mikhail F. “O novgorodskoi kul’ture XII veka.” Sacris Erudiri: Jaarboek voor Godsdienstweten schappen 19 (1969–70): 415–36. Müller, Gerhard Friedrich see Miller, Gerard Fridrikh. Müller, Ludolf. “K kritike teksta, k tekstu i perevodu Povesti vremennykh let’.” Russian Linguistics 30, no. 3 (2006): 401–36. Mushar, Floran [Mouchard, Florent]. “Mezhdu bratom i synom: Ob obraze Rostislava Mstislavicha v Kievskoi letopisi.” Ruthenica 10 (2011): 137–46. Nasonov, Arsenii N. “O russkom oblastnom letopisanii.” Izvestiia Akademii nauk SSSR, ser. istorii i filosofii 2, no. 4 (1945): 290–2. Nasonov, Arsenii N. “Predislovie.” PSRL, 3, 3–12 [first published in 1950]. Nasonov, Arsenii N. “O tverskom letopisnom materiale v rukopisiakh XVII veka.” Arkheograficheskii ezhegodnik za 1957 god (1958): 26–40. Nasonov, Arsenii N. Istoriia russkogo letopisaniia XI–nachala XVIII veka: Ocherki i issledovaniia. Moscow: Nauka, 1969. Nazarenko, Aleksandr V. “Arkhierei Russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi (kon. X–ser. XIII v.).” In Makarii (Bulgakov), metropolitan. Istoriia Russki tserkvi, book 2. Moscow: Izd-vo Spaso-Preobrazhen. Valaam. monastyria, 1995, 663–7. Nazarenko, Aleksandr V. “Kreshchenie sv. Vladimira v ustnoi i pis’mennoi traditsii drevneishei pory (XI v.).” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 12 (2000): 42–8.

Bibliography

439

Nazarenko, Aleksandr V. Drevniaia Rus’ na mezhdunarodnykh putiakh: Mezhdist­ siplinarnye ocherki kul’turnykh, torgovykh, politicheskikh sviazei IX–XII vv. Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury, 2001. Nazarenko, Aleksandr V. “Novyi trud izvestnogo slavista: K vykhodu v svet nemetskogo perevoda Povesti vremennykh let L. Miullera.” Slavianovedenie 2 (2002): 128–39. Nazarenko, Aleksandr V. “O vremeni napisaniia ‘Slova o zakone i blagodati’ Ilariona.” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 17, part 1 (2005): 121–3. Nazarenko, Aleksandr V. “Dostovernye godovye daty v rannem letopisanii i ikh znachenie dlia izucheniia drevnerusskoi istoriografii.” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoj Evropy 2013 (2016): 593–654. Nazarenko, Aleksandr V. ‘Slovo na obnovlenie Desiatinnoi tserkvi’, ili k istorii pochitaniia sviatitelia Klimenta Rimskogo v Drevnei Rusi. Moscow – Brussels: Conférence Sainte Trinité de Patriarcate de Moscou ASBL, 2013. Nazarenko, Aleksandr V., et al. “Vladimir (Vasilii) Sviatoslavich.” In Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, edited by Patriarch Alexii II, vol. 8. Moscow: Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, 2004, 690–718. Nevzorova, N.N. “Parimii Borisu i Glebu: opyt prochteniia.” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom) 56 (2004): 428–52. Nieke, Margaret R. “Literacy and power: the introduction and use of writing in Early Historic Scotland.” In State and society: The emergertnce and development of social hierarchy and political centralization, edited by John Gledhill et. al. London etc.: Unwin Hyman, 1988, 237–51. Nikol’skii, Nikolai K. Povest’ vremennykh let, kak istochnik dlia istorii nachal’nogo perioda russkoi pis’mennosti i kul’tury. K voprosu o drevneishem russkom letopisanii, vol. 1. Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1930. Nikol’skii, Sergei L. “‘Drevneishaia pravda’ Iaroslava: druzhinnoe pravo v stanovlenii gosudarstvennogo zakonodatel’stva.” In Iaroslav Mudryi i ego epokha, edited by Igor’ N. Danilevskii and Elena A. Mel’nikova. Moscow: Indrik, 2008, 55–67. Nikulin, Nikolai I. “K tipologii srednevekovoi istoricheskoi prozy.” In Tipologiia i vzaimosviazi srednevekovykh literatur Vostoka i Zapada, edited by Boris L. Riftin. Moscow: Nauka, 1974, 117–51. Novikova, Ol’ga L. “‘Khronika Georgiia Sinkella’ v proizvedeniiakh russkikh avtorov vtoroi poloviny XV–nachala XVI veka.” Vestnik Al’ians-Arkheo 20 (2017): 39–51. Ó Cróinín, Dáibhí. “Early Irish Annals from Easter-Tables: A Case Restated.” Peritia: Journal of the Medieval Academy of Ireland 2 (1983): 74–86. Ogilvy, Jack D.A. Books Known to the English, 597–1066. Cambridge (Mass.): Medieval Academy of America, 1967. Okhotnikova, Valentina I. “Povest’ o zhitii Aleksandra Nevskogo.” In Slovar’ knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnei Rusi, edited by Dmitrii S. Likhachev, vol. 1. Leningrad: Nauka, 1987, 354–63.

440

Bibliography

Orlov, Aleksandr S. Drevniaia russkaia literatura XI–XVI vv. Moscow – Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1945. Ostrowski, Donald. “Principles of editing the Povest’ vremennykh let.” Palaeoslavica 7 (1999): 5–25. Ostrowski, Donald. “Scribal Practices and Copying Probabilities in the Transmission of the Text of the Povest’ vremennykh let.” Palaeoslavica 13, no. 2 (2005): 48–77. Ostrowski, Donald. “The Account of Volodimer’s Conversion in the Povest’ vremennykh let: A Chiasmus of Stories.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 28, no. 1–4 (2006): 567–80. Ostrowski, Donald. “The Galician-Volynian Chronicle, the Life of Alexander Nevskij and the Thirteenth-Century Military Tale.” Palaeoslavica 15, no. 2 (2007): 307–24. Ostrowski, Donald. “The Načal’nyj svod and the Povest’ vremennyx let.” Russian Linguistics 31 (2007): 269–308. Ostrowski, Donald. “The Title of the Povest’ vrtemennykh let Redux.” Ruthenica 6 (2007): 315–21. Ostrowski, Donald. “Redating the Life of Alexander Nevskii.” In Festschrift for Robert O. Crummey, edited by Chester S.L. Dunning, Russel E. Martin, and Daniel Rowland. Bloomington (In.): Slavica Publishers, 2008, 1–17. Ostrowski, Donald. “Pagan Past and Christian Identity in the Primary Chronicle.” In Historical Narratives and Christian Identity on a European Periphery: Early History Writing in Northern, East-Central, and Eastern Europe (c. 1070–1200), edited by Ildar Garipzanov. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011, 229–53. Ostrowski, Donald. “Dressing a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Towards Understanding the Composition of the Life of Alexander Nevskii.” Russian History 40 (2013): 1–27. Page, Raymond I. “Anglo-Saxon episcopal lists.” Nottingham medieval studies 9 (1965): 71–95; 10 (1966): 2–24. Parkes, Malcolm B. “The palaeography of the Parker manuscript of the Chronicle, laws, and Sedulius, and historiography at Winchester in the late ninth and tenth centuries.” Anglo-Saxon England 5 (1976): 149–71. Parkes, Malcolm B. “The Scriptorium of Wearmouth-Jarrow.” In Bede and his World: the Jarrow Lectures, vol. 2, edited by Michael Lapidge. Aldershot: Variorum, 1994, 555–86 [first published in 1982]. Pashuto, Vladimir T. Vneshniaia politika Drevnei Rusi. Moscow: Nauka, 1968. Pautkin, Aleksei A. Besedy s letopistsem: Poetika rannego russkogo letopisaniia. Moscow: Izd-vo Mosk. un-ta, 2002. Pechnikov, Mikhail V. “Spornye voprosy biografii arkhiepiskopa Ilii—Ioanna Novgorodskogo.” In Novgorodika-2010: Vechevoi Novgorod: Mat-ly Mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konf., 20–22 sentiabria 2010 g., edited by Dar’ia B. Tereshkina, part 3. V. Novgorod: NovGU, 2011, 47–58. Pelteret, David A.E. “Diplomatic Elements in Willibrord’s Autobiography.” Peritia: Journal of Medieval Academy of Ireland 22–23 (2011–2012): 1–14.

Bibliography

441

Pentkovskii, Aleksei M. Tipikon patriarkha Aleksiia Studita v Vizantii i na Rusi. Moscow: Izd-vo Mosk. patriarkhii, 2001. Perevoshchikov, Vasilii M. O russkikh letopisiakh i letopisateliakh po 1240 g.: Materialy dlia istorii rossiiskoi slovesnosti. Saint-Petersburg, 1836. Perfetskii, Evgenii Iu. Russkie letopisnye svody i ikh vzaimootnosheniia. Bratislava: Izd-vo Filos. f-a Un-ta Komenskogo, 1922. Petrov, Aleksei V. Ot iazychestva k sviatoi Rusi: Novgorodskie usobitsy: K izucheniiu drevnerusskogo vechevogo uklada. Saint-Petersburg: Izd-vo Olega Abyshko, 2003. Petrov, Dmitrii A. Problemy istoricheskoi topografii Novgoroda. Moscow: Obshchestvo istorikov arkhitektury, 1999. Petrukhin, Vladimir Ia. Nachalo etnokul’turnoi istorii Rusi IX–XI vekov. Smolensk – Moscow: Rusich – Gnozis, 1995. Petrukhin, Vladimir Ia. “Istoriia slavian i Rusi v kontekste bibleiskoi traditsii: Mif i istoriia v Povesti vremennykh let.” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy, 2001 (2003): 93–112. Petrukhin, Vladimir Ia. “Stanovlenie gosudarstv i vlast’ pravitelia v germanoskandinavskikh i slavianskikh traditsiiakh: Aspekty sravnitel’no-istoricheskogo analiza.” In Obshchestvennaia mysl’ slavianskikh narodov v epokhu rannego Srednevekov’ia, edited by Boris N. Floria. Moscow: Rukopisnye pamiatniki Drevnei Rusi, 2009, 81–150. Piotrovskaia, Elena K. “Letopisets vskore konstantinopol’skogo patriarkha Nikifora i Izbornik Sviatoslava 1073 g.” In Izbornik Sviatoslava 1073 g.: Sb. st., edited by Boris A. Rybakov. Moscow: Nauka, 1977, 317–31. Piotrovskaia, Elena K. Vizantiiskie khroniki IX veka i ikh otrazhenie v pamiatnikakh slaviano-russkoi pis’mennosti (« Letopisets vskore » konstantinopol’skogo patriarkha Nikifora). Saint-Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 1998. Podobedova, Ol’ga I. Miniatiury russkikh istoricheskikh rukopisei: K istorii russkogo litsevogo letopisaniia. Moscow: Nauka, 1965. Pogodin, Mikhail P. “Novgorodskie letopisi.” Izvestiia po russkomu iazyku i slovesnosti 1, no. 3 (1857): 209–33. Pokrovskii, Mikhail N. “Bor’ba klassov i russkaia istoricheskaia literatura.” In Idem. Izbrannye proizvedeniia, book 2. Moscow: Mysl’, 1967 [first published in 1923]. Polonskii, Dmitrii G. “Antilatinskaia polemika v Kieve XII v. i deiatel’nost’ Feodosiia ‘Greka’ v kontekste politiki kniazia Iziaslava Mstislavicha.” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 30 (2018): 247–51. Poppe, Andrzej. “The Political Background to the Baptism of Rus’: Byzantine-Russian Relations Between 986–89.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 30 (1976): 195–244. Poppe, Anrzej. “Mitropolity i kniaz’ia Kievskoi Rusi.” In Gerkhard Podskal’ski [Gerhard Podskalsky]. Khristianstvo i bogoslovskaia literatura v Kievskoi Rusi (988–1237 gg.). Saint-Petersburg: Vizantonorossika, 1996, 443–99.

442

Bibliography

Poppe, Andrzej. “How the Conversion of Rus’ Was Understood in the Eleventh Century.” in Idem. Christian Russia in the Making (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), III, 287–302 [first published in 1987]. Poppe, Andrzej. “The Christianization and the Ecclesiastical Structure of Kyivan Rus’ to 1300.” In Idem. Christian Russia in the Making (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), V, 311– 92 [first published in 1997]. Postgate, Nicholas, Tao Wang, and Toby Wilkinson. “The evidence for Early Writing: Utilitarian or Ceremonial.” Antiquity 69 (1995): 459–80. Potin, Vsevolod M. Drevniaia Rus’ i evropeiskie gosudarstva v X–XIII vv.: Istorikonumizmaticheskii ocherk. Leningrad: Sovetskii khudozhnik, 1968. Pratt, David. “The voice of the king in ‘King Edgar’s Establishment of Monasteries’.” Anglo-Saxon England 41 (2013): 145–204. “Predvaritel’nyi spisok slaviano-russkikh rukopisei XI–XIV vv., khraniashchikhsia v SSSR (dlia ‘Svodnogo kataloga rukopisei, khraniashchikhsia v SSSR, do kontsa XIV v. vkliuchitel’no’).” Arkheograficheskii ezhegodnik za 1965 god (1966): 177–272. Presniakov, Aleksandr E. “Kormilets, voevoda, tysiatskii.” Izvestia Otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnisti Imperatorskoi Akademii nauk 13, book 1 (1908): 148–74. Presniakov, Aleksandr E. “[Istoriia izucheniia russkikh letopisei v XVIII–nachale XX veka].” In Idem. Russkoe letopisanie: Istoriografiia i istoriia, edited by Sergei V. Chirkov. Moscow: Novyi Khronograf, 2017, 22–195 [written in 1901–3]. Price, Richard. “Tradition and Innovation in Metropolitan Ilarion.” Ruthenica 10 (2011): 57–68. Priselkov, Mikhail D. Istoriia russkogo letopisaniia XI–XV vv., 2nd ed. Saint-Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin, 1996 [first published in 1940]. Priselkov, Mikhail D. Troitskaia letopis’: Rekonstruktsiia teksta, 2nd ed. Saint-Petersburg: Nauka, 2002 [first published in 1950]. Priselkov, Mikhail D. Ocherki po tserkovno-politicheskoi istorii Kievskoi Rusi. X–XII vv., 2nd ed. Saint-Petersburg: Nauka, 2003 [first published in 1913]. Priselkov, Mikhail D., and Maksim R. Fasmer. “Otryvki V.N. Beneshevicha po istorii russkoi tserkvi XIV veka.” Izvestia Otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnisti Rossiiskoi Akademii nauk 21, book 1 (1916). Prokhorov, Gelian M. “Kodikologicheskii analiz Lavrent’evskoi letopisi.” Vspomogatel’nye istoricheskie distsipliny 4 (1972): 77–103. Prokhorov, Gelian M. “Letopisnye podborki rukopisi GPB, F.IV.603 i problema svodnogo obshcherusskogo letopisaniia.” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom) 32 (1977): 165–98. Prokhorov, Gelian M. “Radzivilovskii spisok Vladimirskoi letopisi po 1206 god i etapy vladimirskogo letopisaniia.” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom) 42 (1989), 53–76. Prokhorov, Gelian M., and Marina A. Salmina. “‘Slovo o zhit’i i prestavlenii velikago kniazia Dmitriia Ivanovicha, tsaria Ruskago’.” In Slovar’ knizhnikov i knizhnosti

Bibliography

443

Drevnei Rusi, edited by Dmitrii S. Likhachev, vol. 2, part 2. Leningrad: Nauka, 1989, 403–5. Prozorovskii, Dmitrii I. “Kto byl pervym pisatelem pervoi Novgorodskoi letopisi?” Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia 75, July, part 2 (1852): 1–28. Prozorovskii, Dmitrii I. “Psalomnik.” Vestnik arkheologii i istorii 7 (1888): 51–62. Ray, Roger D. “Bede’s vera lex historae.” Speculum 55, no. 1 (1980): 1–21. Rollason, David. “Nothern Annals.” In The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, edited by Michael Lapidge, John Blair, Simon Keynes & Donald Scragg. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2014, 339–40. Romanova, Anastasiia A. “K probleme utochneniia datirovki rukopisei XIV–XVI vv. po tablitsam i tekstam paskhalii.” Opyty po istochnikovedeniiu: Drevnerusskaia knizhnost’: Arkheografiia, paleografiia, kodikologiia, edited by Ekaterina V. Krushel’nitskaia. Saint-Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 1999, 186–99. Romanova, Anastasiia A. Drevnerusskie kalendarno-khronologicheskie istochniki XV– XVII vv. Saint-Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2002. Romanova, Ol’ga V. “O khronologii Galitsko-Volynskoi letopisi XIII v. po Ipat’evskomu spisku.” In Proshloe Novgoroda i Novgorodskoi zemli: Mat-ly nauch. konf., 11–13 noiabria 1997 goda, edited by Vasilii F. Andreev. Novgorod: Izd-vo NovGU, 1997, 66–70. Romanova, Ol’ga V. “Ipat’evskaia letopis’ i Novgorodsko-Sofiiskii svod.” Opyty po istochnikovedeniiu: Drevnerusskaia knizhnost [1] (1997): 59–61. Romenskii, Aleksandr A. Imperiia romeev i « tavroskify ». Ocherki russko-vizantiiskikh otnoshenii poslednei chetverti X v. Kharkov: Maidan, 2015. Rowley, Sharon M. The Old English Version of Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2011. Rozhdestvenskaia, Tat’iana V. “O nadpisi na Voimeritskom kreste.” In Visy druzhby: Sb. st. v chest’ T.N. Dzhakson, edited by Natalia Iu. Gvozdetskaia et al. Moscow: Un-t Dmitriia Pozharskogo, 2011, 382–90. Rozhdestvenskaia, Tat’iana V. “Epigraficheskie pamiatniki na Rusi v epokhu stanovleniia gosudarstvennosti.” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2010 (2012): 489–513. Rozhdestvenskaja, Tatjana V. “Written Culture of Medieval Novgorod in the Light of Epigraphy.” In Epigraphic Literacy and Christian Identity: Modes of Written Discourse in the Newly Christian European North, edited by Kristel Zilmer and Judith Jesch. Turnhout: Brepols, 2012, 251–72. Rushforth, Rebecca J. An Atlas of Saints in Anglo-Saxon Calendars. Cambridge: Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Celtic, University of Cambridge, 2002. Rushforth, Rebecca J. The Eleventh- and Early Twelfth-Century Manuscripts of Bury St Edmunds Abbey: Unpublished Ph. D. diss. University of Cambridge, 2002. Rybakov, Boris A. Drevniaia Rus’: Skazaniia, byliny, letopisi. Moscow: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1963.

444

Bibliography

Rybakov, Boris A. Russkie letopistsy i avtor ‘Slova o polku Igoreve’. Moscow: Nauka, 1972. Rybakov, Boris A. “Bor’ba za suzdal’skoe nasledstvo 1174–1176 gg. Po miniatiuram Radzivilovskoi letopisi.” In Srednevekovaia Rus’, edited by Dmitri S. Likhachev. Moscow: Nauka, 1976, 89–101. Rybakov, Boris A. “Miniatiury Radzivilovskoi letopisi i russkie litsevye rukopisi X–XII vv.” In Idem. Iz istorii kul’tury Drevnei Rusi: Issledovaniia i zametki. Moscow: Izd-vo Mosk. un-ta, 1984, 188–240. Rybina, Elena A. “Tsery iz raskopok v Novgorode.” Novgorod i Novgorodskaia zemlia: Istoriia i arkheologiia 8 (1994): 129–33. Schaeken, Jos. Voices on Birchbark: Everyday Communication in Medieval Russia. Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2018. Schlözer see Shletser. Scully, Diarmuid. “Bede’s Chronica Maiora: Early Insular History in a Universal Context.” In Anglo-Saxon/Irish Relations before the Vikings, edited by James Graham-Campbell and Michael Ryan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, 47–73. Sergii (Spasskii), Archbishop. Polnyi mesiatseslov Vostoka, vol. 2, part 1. Moscow: Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, 1997 [first published in 1875–6]. Seval’nev, Aleksandr V. “Kogda i kem bylo ispravleno izvestie Sinodal’nogo spiska Novgorodskoi I letopisi o vziatii Ivanom Kalitoi Torzhka i Bezhetskogo Verkha? (K voprosu o prakticheskoi paleografii srednevekov’ia).” In Vspomogatel’nye istoricheskie distsipliny: Klassicheskoe nasledie i novye napravleniia: Mat-ly XVIII nauch. konf., Moskva, 26–28 ianvaria 2006 g., edited by Viktor A. Murav’ev. Moscow: RGGU, 2006, 366–9. Shaikin, Aleksandr A. “Se povesti vremian’nykh let …”: Ot Kiia do Monomakha. Moscow: Sovremennik, 1989. Shaikin, Aleksandr A. “‘Povest’ vremennykh let’ o iazychestve na Rusi.” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom) 55 (2004): 29–39. Shakhmatov, Aleksei A. “Obshcherusskie letopisnye svody XIV i XV vv.” Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia 331, no. 9 (1900): 90–176; 332 (1900), no. 11: 135–200; 338, no. 11 (1901): 52–80. Shakhmatov, Alexey A. “An account of the text of the Novgorod Chronicle.” In The Chronicle of Novgorod, 1016–1471, translated by Robert Michell and Nevill Forbes, with an intr. by C. Raymond Beazley and an account of the text by A.A. Shakhmatov. London: Offices of the Society, 1914, xxxvii–xli. Shakhmatov, Aleksei A. Istoriia russkogo letopisaniia, edited by Viktor K. Ziborov, Vladimir V. Iakovlev. Saint-Petersburg: Nauka, 2002–2012: Vol. 1, book 1: Razyskaniia o drevneishikh russkikh letopisnykh svodakh. 2002 [first published in 1908]. Vol. 1, book 2: Rannee russkoe letopisanie. 2003 [first published in 1896–1947].

Bibliography

445

Vol. 2: Obozrenie letopisei i letopisnykh svodov XI–XIV vv. 2011 [written in the late 1890s–the 1910s, first published in 1938]. Shakhmatov, Aleksej A. Zhitiia kniazia Vladimira: Tekstologicheskoe issledovanie drevnerusskikh istochnikov XI–XVI vv., edited by Nadezhda I. Miliutenko. SaintPetersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2014 [written in the 1910s]. Shaw, Richard. The Gregorian Mission to Kent in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History: Methodology and Sources. London – New York: Routledge, 2018. Shchapov, Iaroslav N. “Varsonof’evskaia kormchaia.” Arkheograficheskii ezhegodnik za 1968 god (1970): 93–101. Shchapov, Iaroslav N. Kniazheskie ustavy i tserkov’ v Drevnei Rusi XI–XIV vv. Moscow: Nauka, 1972. Shchapov, Iaroslav N. Vostochnoslavianskie rukopisnye knigi v sobraniiakh Pol’skoi Narodnoi Respubliki, parts 1–2. Moscow, 1976. Shchapov, Iaroslav N. “Drevnerimskii kalendar’ na Rusi.” In Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Sb. st., edited by Lev V. Cherepnin. Moscow: Nauka, 1978, 336–45. Shchapov, Iaroslav N., ed. Pis’mennye pamiatniki istorii Drevnei Rusi: Letopisi. Povesti. Khozhdeniia. Poucheniia. Zhitiia. Poslaniia: Annotirovannyi katalog-spravochnik. Saint-Petersburg: Blits, 2003. Shchavelev, Aleksei S. “Graffiti o s’ezde kniazei na reke Zheliani: vopros datirovki.” In Lomonosov-2001. Istoriia: Tr. nauch. konf. studentov i aspirantov: Sb. tez. Moscow: Put’, 2001, 3–5. Shchavelev, Aleksei S. Slavianskie legendy o pervykh kniaz’iakh: Sravnitel’no-istoricheskoe issledovanie modelei vlasti u slavian. Moscow: Severnyi palomnik, 2007. Shchavelev, Aleksei S. “Traditsii vikingov v voinskoi kul’ture srednevekovykh novgorodtsev.” In Aleksandr A. Fetisov and Aleksei S. Shavelev. Vikingi: Mezhdu Skandinaviei i Rus’iu. Moscow: Veche, 2009, 262–73. Shchavelev, Aleksei S. “‘Ustnyi narrativ’ v pervykh slavianskikh letopisiakh i khronikakh: Identifikatsiia i rekonstruktsiia.” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 22 (2010): 283–9. Shchavelev, Aleksei S. “K datirovke protografa perechnia kniazei ‘Kto koliko kniazhil’.” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 23 (2011): 332–7. Shchavelev, Aleksei S. “Eshche raz o mifoepicheskikh ustnykh istochnikakh srednevekovogo istoriopisaniia: rasskazy ob osnovateliakh dinastii u Galla Anonima i Snorri Sturlusona.” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2013 (2016): 565–92. Shepard, Jonathan. “History as propaganda, proto-foundation myth and ‘Tract for the times’ in the long eleventh century (c. 1000–c. 1130).” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2014 (2016): 332–55.

446

Bibliography

Shibaev, Mikhail A. “Kodikologicheskoe opisanie peterburgskikh spiskov Kratkoi Khronograficheskoi Palei.” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom) 56 (2004): 146–63. Shibaev, Mikhail A. “Novgorodsko-sofiiskii svod i protoskriptorii Evfimiia II.” Novgorodskii istoricheskii sbornik 5 (25) (2015): 127–34. Shletser [Schlözer], Avgust Ludvik [August Ludwig von]. Nestor: Russkie letopisi na drevleslavenskom iazyke, slichennye, perevedennye i ob’iasnennye A.L. Shletserom., in 3 parts. Saint-Petersburg: Imp. tipografiia, 1809–19. Shmidt, Sigurd O., ed. Svodnyi katalog slaviano-russkikh rukopisnykh knig, khraniashchikhsia v Rossii, stranakh SNG i Baltii. XIV vek, part 1. Moscow: Indrik, 2002. Sidorov, Aleksandr I. “Sochineniia antichnykh, rannekhristianskikh i ‘varvarskikh’ istorikov v kul’turnom prostranstve karolingskoi epokhi.” Srednie veka 69, no. 3 (2008): 46–80. Sisam, Kenneth. “Anglo-Saxon Royal Genealogies.” Proceedings of the British Academy 39 (1953): 287–348. Sivak, Svetlana I. “O dereviannoi Sofii v Novgorode.” Russia mediaevalis 7, no. 1 (1992): 9–15. Slovar’ drevnerusskogo iazyka (XI–XIV vv.), edited by Ruben I. Avanesov, vol. 1–. Moscow: Russkii iazyk, 1988– [the edition is being continued]. Smyth, Alfred P. King Alfred the Great. New York – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Sokolova, Lidiia V. “Daniil Zatochnik.” In DRSM, 222–3. Soloviev, Sergei M. Sochineniia, in 18 books, book 2. Moscow: Nauka, 1988. Sotnikova, Marina P., and Ivan G. Spasskii. Tysiacheletie drevneishikh monet Rossii: Svodnyi katalog russkikh monet X–XI vekov. Leningrad: Iskusstvo, 1983. Stefanovich, Petr S. Prikhod i prikhodskoe dukhovenstvo v Rossii v XVI–XVII vekakh. Moscow: Indrik, 2002. Stefanovich, Petr S. “‘Skazanie o prizvanii variagov’ ili Origo gentis russorum?” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy, 2010 (2012): 514–83. Stepanov, Nikolai V. “Edinitsy scheta vremeni (do XIII veka) po Lavrent’evskoi i Novgorodskoi letopisiam.” Chteniia v obshchestve istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh 4 (1909): 1–74. Stepanov, Nikolai V. “K voprosu o kalendare Lavrentievskoi letopisi.” Chteniia v obshchestve istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh 4 (1910): 1–40. Stepanov, Nikolai V. “Zametka o khronologicheskoi stat’e Kirika (XII vek).” Izvestia Otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnisti Imp. Akademii nauk 15, book 3 (1910): 1–22. Stepanov, Nikolai V. “Kalendarno-khronologicheskie faktory Ipat’evskoi letopisi do XIII veka.” Izvestia Otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnisti Imp. Akademii nauk 20, book 2 (1915): 1–71.

Bibliography

447

Stodnick, Jacqueline. “‘Old Names of Kings or Shadows’: Reading Documentary Lists.” In Conversion and Colonization in Anglo-Saxon England, edited by Catherine Karkov and Nicholas Howe. Tempe, Ar.: ACMRS, 2006, 109–31. Stoliarova, Liubov’ V. Drevnerusskie nadpisi XI–XIV vekov na pergamennykh kodeksakh. Moscow: Nauka, 1998. Stoliarova, Liubov’ V. Iz istorii knizhnoi kul’tury russkogo srednevekovogo goroda (XI– XVII vv.). Moscow: Ros. gos. gumanit. un-t, 1999. Stoliarova, Liubov’ V. “Kniga v kul’ture Drevnei Rusi.” Problemy istochnikovedeniia 1 (12) (2006): 50–76. Stoliarova, Liubov’ V., and Sergei M. Kashtanov. Kniga v Drevnei Rusi (XI–XVI vv.). Moscow: Un-t Dmitriia Pozharskogo, 2010. Story, Joanna. “The Frankish Annals of Lindisfarne and Kent.” Anglo-Saxon England 34 (2005): 59–109. Story, Joanna. “After Bede: continuing the Ecclesiastical History.” In Early Medieval Studies in Memory of Patrick Wormald, edited by Stephen Baxter et al. Farnham; Burlington: Ashgate, 2009, 165–84. Strakhova, Ol’ga B. “Rekosha drouzhina Igorevi … K stat’e A.A. Gippiusa o lingvotekstologicheskoi stratifikatsii Nachal’noi letopisi.” Palaeoslavica 16, no. 2 (2008): 217–58. Stratonov, Irinarkh A. K voprosu o sostave i proiskhozhdenii Kratkoi redaktsii Russkoi Pravdy. Kazan’, 1920. Stroev, Pavel M. “Predislovie.” Sofiiskii vremennik ili russkaia letopis’ s 862 po 1534 god, edited by Pavel M. Stroev, part 1. Moscow: Tip. Semena Selivanovskogo, 1820, v–xxiv. Sukhino-Khomenko, Denis V. “English Royal Exiles in Rus and the Practice of Expatriation in Late Anglo-Saxon England.” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 30 (2018): 284–9. Sukhomlinov, Mikhail I. “O drevnei russkoi letopisi kak pamiatnike literaturnom.” Uchenye zapiski 2-go otdeleniia Imperatorskoi Akademii nauk 3 (1856): 1–230. Sverdlov, Mikhail B. “ ‘Zaveshchanie’ Iaroslava i nasledovanie kniazheskikh stolov v russkom gosudarstve X–serediny XI v.” In Norna u istochnika Sud’by: Sb. st. v chest’ E.A. Mel’nikovoi, edited by Tat’iana N. Dzhakson [Jackson]. Moscow: Indrik, 2001, 347–54. Sviatskii, Daniil O. Astronomiia Drevnei Rusi. S katalogom astronomicheskikh izvestii v russkikh letopisiakh, sostavlennym M.L. Gorodetskim. Moscow: Russkaia panorama, 2007. Tatishchev, Vasily N. Istoriia Rossiiskaia, in 8 vols. Moscow – Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1962–8 [written in the 1720s–40s, first published in 1768–9]. Temchin, Sergei Iu. “‘Slovo o zakone i blagodati’ kievskogo mitropolita Ilariona i PROΘEΩΡΙΑ Nikolaia Andidskogo.” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 21 (2009): 318–23.

448

Bibliography

Tikhomirov, Ivan A. “O Timofee—ponomare, upominaemom v Sinodal’nom spiske pervoi Novgorodskoi letopisi.” Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia 250, no. 3, part 2 (1887): 28–37. Tikhomirov, Ivan A. “Neskol’ko zametok o novgorodskikh letopisiakh.” Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia 283, no. 9, part 2 (1892): 144–52. Tikhomirov, Mikhail N. “Nachalo russkoi istoriografii.” In Idem. Russkoe letopisanie. Moscow: Nauka, 1979, 46–66 [first published in 1960]. Timberlake, Alan. “Older and Younger Recensions of the First Novgorod Chronicle.” Oxford Slavonic Papers NS 33 (2000): 1–35. Timberlake, Alan. “Redactions of the Primary Chronicle.” Russkii iazyk v nauchnom osveshchenii 1 (2001): 196–218. Timberlake, Alan. “Who Wrote the Laurentian Chronicle (1177–1203).” Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 59 (2000): 237–66. Timberlake, Alan. “Intervals of The Kiev Chronicle (1050–1110).” Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 64 (2005): 51–70. Timberlake, Alan. “The Grammar of Oral Narrative in the Povest’ vremennykh let.” In American Contributions to the 14th International Congress of Slavists, Ohrid, September 2008, edited by Christina Y. Bethin, vol. 1: Linguistics. Bloomington (In.): Slavica, 2008, 211–26. Timberlake, Alan. “Point of View and Conversion Narrative: Vita Constantini and Povest’ vremennykh let.” In Miscellanea Slavica: Sb. st. k 70-letiiu Borisa A. Uspenskogo. Moscow: Indrik, 2008, 256–72. Tolochko, Aleksei [Oleksiy] P. “Proiskhozhdenie khronologii Ipat’evskogo spiska Galitsko-Volynskoi letopisi.” Palaeoslavica 13, no. 1 (2005): 81–108. Tolochko, Aleksei [Oleksiy] P. “O vremeni sozdaniia Kievskogo svoda ‘1200 g.’.” Ruthenica 5 (2006): 73–87. Tolochko, Oleksiy P. “On ‘Nestor the Chronicler’.” Harvard Ukrainan Studies 29, no. 1–4 (2007): 31–59. Tolochko, Oleksiy P. “The Short Redaction of Pravda Ruskaia: A Reconsideration.” Palaeoslavica 15, no. 1 (2007): 1–56. Tolochko, Aleksei [Oleksiy] P. “Perechityvaia pripisku Sil’vestra 1116 g.” Ruthenica 7 (2008): 154–65. Tolochko, Aleksei [Oleksiy] P. Kratkaia redaktsiia Pravdy Russkoi: Proiskhozhdenie teksta. Kiev: IIU NANU, 2009. Tolochko, Oleksiy P. “Christian Chronology, Universal History, and the Origin of Chronicle Writing in Rus’.” In Historical narratives and Christian identity on a European periphery: Early history writing in Northern, East-Central, and Eastern Europe (c. 1070–1200), edited by Ildar H. Garipzanov. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011, 207–29. Tolochko, Aleksei [Oleksiy] P. Ocherki nachal’noi Rusi. Kiev – Saint-Petersburg: Laurus, 2015.

Bibliography

449

Toporov, Vladimir N. “O kosmologicheskikh istochnikakh ranneistoricheskikh opisanii.” Trudy po znakovym sistemam 6 (1973): 106–50. Tristram, Hildegard L.C. Sex aetates mundi: Die Weltzeitalter bei den Angelsachesen und den Iren: Untersuchungen und Texte. Heidelberg: Winter, 1985. Trotskii, Isaak M. “Opyt analiza pervoi Novgorodskoi letopisi.” Izvestiia Akademii nauk SSSR, ser. 7: Otd. obshchestvennykh nauk 5 (1933): 337–62. Tsukerman [Zuckerman], Konstantin. “Nabliudeniia nad slozheniem drevneishikh istochnikov letopisi.” In Boriso-glebskii sbornik, edited by Konstantin Tsukerman. Vol. 1. Paris: Association Des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2009, 183–305. Tsukerman [Zuckerman], Konstantin. “O Pravde Russkoi.” Ruthenica 12 (2014): 108–56. Tsyb, Sergei V. Khronologiia domongol’skoi Rusi, part 1: Kievskii period. Barnaul: Izd-vo Altaiskogo un-ta, 2003. Tsyb, Sergei V. Drevnerusskoe vremiaischislenie v “Povesti vremennykh let”, 2nd ed. Saint-Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2011 [first published in 1995]. Tugutov, Aleksei I. “‘Monglyn nuuts tovchoo’ i russkie letopisi (k probleme sopostavitel’nogo analiza).” Mongolovedenie 3 (2004): 80–96. Turilov, Anatolii A. “Ioakimovskaia letopis’.” In DRSM, 339. Turlygin, Anton A. “Novgorodskie akty na bereste kak osobaia gruppa aktovykh dokumentov.” Istochnikovedcheskie issledovaniia 5 (2012): 105–25. Tvorogov, Oleg V. “Siuzhetnoe povestvovanie v letopisiakh XI–XIII vv.” In Istoki russkoi belletristiki, edited by Iakov S. Lur’e [Lurie]. Leningrad: Nauka, 1970, 31–66. Tvorogov, Oleg V. Drevnerusskie khronografy. Leningrad: Nauka, 1975. Tvorogov, Oleg V. “Povest’ vremennykh let i Nachal’nyi svod: Tekstologicheskii kommentarii.” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom) 30 (1976): 3–26. Tvorogov, Oleg V. “Aleksandriia Khronograficheskaia.” Slovar’ knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnei Rusi, edited by Dmitrii S. Likhachev, vol. 1. Leningrad: Nauka, 1987, 35–7. Tvorogov, Oleg V. “‘Istoriia Iudeiskoi voiny’ Iosifa Flaviia.” In Slovar’ knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnei Rusi, edited by Dmitrii S. Likhachev, vol. 1. Leningrad: Nauka, 1987, 214–5. Tvorogov, Oleg V. “Khronika Georgiia Sinkella.” In Slovar’ knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnei Rusi, edited by Dmitrii S. Likhachev, vol. 1. Leningrad: Nauka, 1987, 470–1. Tvorogov, Oleg V. “Khronika Ioanna Malaly.” In Slovar’ knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnei Rusi, edited by Dmitrii S. Likhachev, vol. 1. Leningrad: Nauka, 1987, 471–4. Tvorogov, Oleg V. “Sushchestvovala li tret’ia redaktsiia ‘Povesti vremennykh let’?” In In memoriam: Sb. pamiati Ia.S. Lur’e, edited by Mark N. Botvinnik, E.I. Vaneeva. Saint-Petersburg: Atheneum-Feniks, 1997. S. 203–9. Ukhanova, Elena V. “Vizantiiskii untsial i slavianskii ustav: Problemy istochnikov i evoliutsii.” Monfokon: Issledovaniia po paleografii, kodikologii i diplomatike 1 (2007): 19–88.

450

Bibliography

Ul’ianov, Mark Iu. “K kharakteristike protsessa sokhraneniia istoricheskoi pamiati v Drevnem Kitae perioda Chun’tsiu (771–453 gg. do n.e.).” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2013 (2016): 71–167. Usachev, Andrei S. Stepennaia kniga i drevnerusskaia knizhnost’ vremeni mitropolita Makariia. Moscow – Saint-Petersburg: Al’ians-Arkheo, 2009. Uspenskii, Boris A. Istoriia russkogo literaturnogo iazyka (XI–XVII vv.), 2nd ed., corr. and suppl. Moscow: Aspekt Press, 2002. Uspenskii, Boris A. “Vladimir Monomakh i apostol Pavel.” In Verenitsa liter: K 60-letiiu V.M. Zhivova, edited by Aleksandr M. Moldovan. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskikh kul’tur, 2006, 43–5. Vilkul, Tatiana [Tetiana] L. “Daty rozhdeniia kniazhichei: starshie i mladshie Iaroslavichi.” Ruthenica 2 (2003): 108–14. Vilkul, Tatiana [Tetiana] L. “Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis’ i Nachal’nyi svod.” Palaeoslavica 11 (2003): 5–35. Vilkul, Tetiana L. “Litopys Sviatoslava Ol’hovycha u skladi Kyivs’koho zvodu XII stolittia.” In Do dzherel: Zb. prats’ na poshanu O. Kupchyns’koho z nahody ioho 70-richchia, edited by Igor Gyrych et al. vol. 2. Kyiv – Lviv, 2004, 63–74. Vilkul, Tatiana [Tetiana] L. “Tekstologiia i Textkritik. Ideal’nyi proekt …” Palaeoslavica 12, no. 1 (2004): 171–203. Vilkul, Tatiana [Tetiana] L. “O proiskhozhdenii obshchego teksta Ipat’evskoi i Lavrent’evskoi letopisi za XII v. (predvaritel’nye zametki).” Palaeoslavica 13 (2005): 21–80. Vilkul, Tatiana [Tetiana] L. “‘A dusheiu ne mozhem igrati’.” In Chernihiv u seredn’ovichniǐ ta rann’omodernyǐ istoriï Tsentral’no-Skhidnoï Ievropy: Zb. naukovykh prats’, prysviachenyǐ 1100-littiu pershoï litopysnoï zhadky pro Chernihiv, edited by Oleksandr B. Kovalenko. Chernihiv: Desnians’ka pravda, 2007, 287–92. Vilkul, Tatiana [Tetiana] L. “Iudeiskii i Sofiiskii khronografy v istorii drevnerusskoi khronografii.” Palaeoslavica 17, no. 2 (2009): 65–86. Vilkul, Tatiana [Tetiana] L. Liudi i kniaz’ v drevnerusskikh letopisiakh serediny XI–XIII vv. Moscow: Kvadriga, 2009. Vilkul, Tatiana [Tetiana] L. “Pripiski Troitskogo khronografa.” Drevniaia Rus’: Voprosy medievistiki 3 (61) (2015): 23–4. Vilkul, Tatiana [Tetiana] L. “Khronograficheskie zaimstvovaniia kak tekstologicheskii marker v Galitsko-Volynskoi letopisi.” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2016 (2018): 274–89. Vilkul, Tatiana [Tetiana] L. Letopis’ i khronograf: Tekstologiia domongol’skogo kievskogo letopisaniia. Moscow: Kvadriga, 2019 (first published in Ukrainian in 2015). Vodolazkin, Evgenii G. Vsemirnaia istoriia v literature Drevnei Rusi (na materiale khronograficheskogo i paleinogo povestvovaniia XI–XV vv.). 2nd ed. Saint-Petersburg: Pushkinskii dom, 2008.

Bibliography

451

Vodoff, Wladimir. “Quelques remarques sur la Première chronique de Novgorod.” In Studia slavica mediaevalia et humanistica Riccardo Picchio dicata, edited by Michele Collucci et al. Roma: Edizioni Dell’Ateneo, 1986, 741–53. Vogelsang, Kai. “From Anecdote to History: Observations on the Composition of the Zuozhuan.” Oriens extremus 50 (2011): 99–124. Vovin, Aleksei A. “Sravnitel’nyi analiz istochnikov po rannim ital’ianskim kommunam i Pskovu XIV–XV vv.” Peterburgskii istoricheskii zhurnal 1 (13) (2017): 180–95. Vovina-Lebedeva, Varvara G. Shkoly issledovaniia russkikh letopisei: XIX–XX vv. Saint-Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2011. Vvedenskii, Anton M. “Ob istochnike prolozhnogo zhitiia kniagini Ol’gi.” Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e: Chteniia pamiati chl.-korr. AN SSSR V.T. Pashuto 28 (2016): 44–8. Webber, Teresa. “Books and their use across the Conquest.” In Bury St Edmunds and the Norman Conquest, edited by Tom Licence. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2014, 160–89. Westgard, Joshua A. “The Wilfridian Annals in Winchester Cathedral Library, MS 1 and Durham Cathedral Library, MS B. ii. 35.” In The Study of Medieval Manuscripts of England: Festschrift in Honor of Richard W. Pfaff, edited by George H. Brown and Linda E. Voigts. Tempe, Ar.: ACMRS–Turnhout: Brepols, 2010, 208–23. White, Hayden. “The Value of Narrativity in the Representation of Reality”. In Idem. The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation. Baltimore – London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1987, 1–25. Whitelock, Dorothy. “The Old English Bede.” Proceedings of the British Academy 48 (1962): 57–90. Whitelock, Dorothy. “The Authorship of the Account of King Edgar’s Establishment of Monasteries.” In Eadem. History, Law and Literature in 10th–11th Century England. London: Variorum Reprints, 1981, 125–36 [first published in 1970]. Wood, Susan. “Bede’s Northumbrian dates again.” The English Historical Review 98, no. 387 (1983): 280–96. Yanin see Ianin. Yurasovsky see Iurasovskii. Zabelin, Ivan E. Istoriia russkoi zhizni s drevneishikh vremen, part 1. Moscow, 1876. Zalizniak, Andrei A. “Drevnerusskaia grafika so smesheniem ъ–о i ь–е.” In Idem. Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie. S prilozheniem izbrannykh rabot po sovremennomu russkomu iazyku i obshchemu iazykoznaniiu. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2002, 577–612. Zalizniak, Andrei A. Drevnenovgorodskii dialekt. 2-e izd., pererab. s uchetom materiala nakhodok 1995–2003 gg. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2004. Zalizniak, Andrei A. ‘Slovo o polku Igoreve’: Vzgliad lingvista. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2004.

452

Bibliography

Zalizniak, Andrei A. Drevnerusskie enklitiki. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskikh kul’tur, 2008. Zalizniak, Andrei A. ‘Slovo o polku Igoreve’: Vzgliad lingvista. 3rd ed., suppl. Moscow: Rukopisnye pamiatniki Drevnei Rusi, 2008. Zalizniak, Andrei A., and Valentin L. Ianin [Yanin]. “Vkladnaia gramota Varlaama Khutynskogo.” Russian Linguistics 16, no. 2–3 (1992): 185–202. Zhivlova, Nina Iu. “Genealogii i rannee istoriopisanie v Irlandii.” Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2013 (2016): 324–64. Zhivov, Viktor M. “Osobennosti retseptsii vizantiiskoi kul’tury v Drevnei Rusi.” In Iz istorii russkoi kul’tury, edited by Vladimir Ia. Petrukhin, vol. 1. Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury, 2000, 586–617. Zhivov, Viktor M. Istoriia iazyka russkoi pis’mennosti, in 2 vols. Moscow: Un-t Dmitriia Pozharskogo, 2017. Zhukovskaia, Lidiia P., ed. Svodnyi katalog slaviano-russkikh rukopisnykh knig, khraniashchikhsia v SSSR, XI–XIII vv. Moscow: Nauka, 1984. Zimin, Aleksandr A. Pravda Russkaia. Moscow: Drevlekhranilishche, 1999. Zimin, Aleksandr A. Slovo o polku Igoreve. Saint-Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2006. Zuckerman see Tsukerman.

Index of Texts If the author of the text is known, the text is named as a sub-rubric after its author’s name. Versions or particular manuscripts of a certain text are listed also as sub-rubrics. Classes of texts or inscribed objects (such as birchbark documents, chronographs, seals, etc.) are sometimes included into this index, but not letopisi, annals, and chronicles, as those three terms are used too often throughout the book. Acts of the Apostles 118 Ágrip af Nóregskonungasögum 150 Ælfwine’s prayerbook 85 Æthelweard’s Chronicle 84, 133 Æthelwulf’s De abbatibus 79–80 Alcuin’s Versus de patribus, regibus et sanctis Euboricensis ecclesiae (The Poem on Fathers, Kings and Saints of the Church of York) 79–80 Alexandria of Pseudo-Callisthenes (Romance of Alexander, Chronographic Alexandria) 49, 50, 77, 345 Alexios Stoudites’s Typikon 253, 406 Anglian Collection of Royal Genealogies 156 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 7, 33, 35, 72, 80–85, 89, 133, 155, 156, 164, 165, 225, 233–235, 238–240, 243, 249, 304, 314, 333, 334, 340, 371, 380, 391 Annales capituli Cracoviensis 127 Annales regni Francorum 391 annalistic notes in manuscripts 64–65, 74, 88, 89, 397, 405 annalistic notes of the Annunciation Monastery near Novgorod 66, 87, 253–260, 262, 335, 337, 373, 406 annals, Chinese 146, 389, 390 annals, Czech 151 annals, Irish 35, 387, 391 annals of Ancient Near East 146 Annals of Inisfallen 235–236, 238, 239 annals, Polish 151 Annals of Tigernagh 314 Annals of Ulster 314 Apocalypse 287 Archiepiscopal Annals of Novgorod 10, 66, 171, 181, 184–185, 188–189, 191–193, 198, 203, 204, 207, 209, 213–233, 237–245, 247, 249, 252–253, 257, 259–263, 290, 314, 321, 326, 327, 329, 330, 332,

334–336, 357, 359, 373, 376, 379, 382, 391, 395, 396 Archive Chronograph 52 Asser’s Life of King Alfred 82–84 Ballshi inscription 142 Base Compilation see Initial Compilation Bede the Venerable Chronica Maiora (Greater Chronicle)  77–79, 85, 87, 107 Chronica Minora (Shorter Chronicle)  77–79, 87 Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Historia ecclesiastica gentis anglorum, HE) 10, 72, 77, 78, 81, 84, 87–90, 107, 122, 147, 149, 150–152, 154–159, 162–170 Moore MS. 86, see also Moore Memoranda Old English translation 78, 84 Saint-Petersburg MS. 88 History of the Abbots of WearmouthJarrow 77, 79 Benedictine Monastic Rule 87, 257, 258 Bible 1, 3, 46, 50–52, 54, 67, 75, 76, 118, 163, 170, 287 birchbark documents 13–15, 17–19, 23–26, 28–30, 147, 171, 197, 327, 344, 345, 352, 353 Brief Chronicle see Nikephoros I Brief Novgorodian Annals 262 Brief Trinity Chronograph 48, 52, 408 bullae see seals Bury Psalter 258 bylinas 200, 264 Byrhtferth’s Historical Compilation 85 calendars, Anglo-Saxon 151, 154–155 Chronicle of Ireland 239–243, 314, 371 Chronicle of Melrose 235, 237–239

454 Chronicle of Pereyaslavl-of-Suzdal (LPS) 42, 292, 315, 321, 322, 324, 331, 368–370 Chronographikon syntomon see Nikephoros I Chronograph po velikomu izlozheniju 51, 52 chronographs (compendia) 6, 9, 30, 44, 47–52, 56, 58, 71, 75, 78, 79, 89, 102, 107, 108, 394, 397 Chunqiu 390 coins 14, 15, 23, 24, 115, 142, 143 colophons 19, 20, 25, 36, 38, 64, 97, 98, 214, 253, 293, 294, 302, 325, 329, 332 compendia see chronographs Constantine Manasses’s Chronicle 107 Constantine of Preslav’s Didactic gospels  406 Cosmas of Prague’s Chronicle 148 Daniil the Abbot’s Pilgrimage (Khozhdenie) 49, 194 Daniil Zatochnik’s Praying (Molenie) and Word (Slovo) 25 Domesday Book 73 Easter tables with annalistic notes 68–70, 85, 86, 89, 128, 151, 152, 154, 258, 261, 380, 397, 407 Einhard’s Life of Charlemagne 83 Encomium Emmae Reginae (Gesta Cnutonis) 83 Fagrskinna 150 Feodosii’s epistles to Prince Iziaslav 300 First Novgorodian Chronicle (N1) 37, 195, 196, 215, 257, 262, 265, 268, 269, 276, 284, 304–307, 310, 317, 318, 325, 370, 372, 374, 375, 379, 386 Synodal MS. (Elder Version, Syn.) 38, 42, 58, 96, 98, 100, 104, 124–127, 171, 174–176, 179–193, 199, 203–208, 213, 219, 220, 222, 228, 243–253, 257, 260–262, 269, 270–272, 278, 305, 307–309, 314, 317, 321, 326, 327, 329, 332–337, 339, 373, 376, 379, 382, 396, 403, 406 Younger Version (N1Y) 31, 35, 38, 42, 58, 59, 93–102, 106, 110–112, 116, 127, 137, 161, 168, 171, 174, 179–189, 191–195, 199, 204, 207–209, 212, 217, 222, 228, 242,

Index of Texts 245–249, 252, 263, 265, 267, 269–272, 275, 281, 305, 315–317, 321, 328, 329, 338, 340, 362, 376 Academy of Sciences’s MS. (Acad.) 42, 96, 98, 100, 174, 178, 181, 182, 184, 195, 263 Archaeographical Commission’s MS. (Com.) 42, 96, 98, 100, 174, 177, 181–184, 194, 195, 201, 263, 340 First Sophian Chronicle (S1) 42, 181–183, 266, 271 Fourth Novgorodian Chronicle (N4) 42, 181–183, 266, 271, 274 Novorossiiskii MS. 202 Frösö stone 141 Galician-Volhynian Chronicle 6, 40, 55–59, 84, 85, 315, 339, 343, 383, 397, 402 Gallus Anonymus’s Chronicle 148 genealogies 88, 156, 157, 195, 267, 269 genealogies, Anglo-Saxon 88, 89, 156, 163–165, 397 George Hamartolos’s Chronicle 46, 47, 52, 100, 102, 107, 407 George Syncellus’s Chronicle 47, 48, 52, 107 Gesta hungarorum P. magistri 148 Gnezdovo inscription 21 Gospel of St. John 118 Gregory of Tours’s History of the Franks 87 graffiti 13–19, 23, 25, 59–64, 74, 88, 89, 120, 147, 261, 397, 405 graffiti from the Annunciation Church in Gorodishche near Novgorod 63–65, 261, 262 graffiti from Galich 29 graffiti from Pereyaslavl-Zalessky 325, 388 graffiti from St. George Monastery near Novgorod 61–63, 252, 261, 262, 337 graffiti from the Nereditsa Church of the Savior near Novgorod 16 graffiti from St. Sophia Cathedral in Kiev 23, 25, 28, 53, 59–61 graffiti from St. Sophia Cathedral in Novgorod 25, 59 graffito from the cupola of the Dormition Cathedral in Vladimir 64 Guta saga 340

Index of Texts Hamartolos see George Hamartolos Hellenic and Roman Chronicle see Letopisets Ellinsky i Rimsky Historia brittonum 164 Historia de Sancto Cuthbeto 80 Historia Norwegie 150 Historia regum Anglorum 85 Historical Paremia to St. Boris and Gleb 49, 50 homily on St. Clement 300 Hypatian Chronicle (Hyp.) 37, 38, 40, 55, 57, 59, 133, 194, 271, 272, 276, 279, 281, 295, 296, 299, 305, 311, 314, 321, 324, 327, 334, 341, 345–348, 364–367, 372, 380, 388 Hypatian MS. (Hyp.) 32, 40, 44, 55, 59, 66, 85, 91–93, 95–99, 102, 136, 296 Khlebnikov MS. (Khlebn.) 37, 38, 40, 44, 55, 56, 66, 91–93, 95–99, 102, 136, 296, 297 Iakov the Monk’s Memorial and Encomium for Prince Vladimir (Pamiat’ i pokhvala kniaziu Vladimiru, PP) 65, 104, 106, 108, 110, 116, 128–144, 151, 153, 161 Iaroslav’s statute on pavement 29 Ilarion’s Sermon on Law and Grace (Slovo o zakone i blagodati) 53, 78, 118, 119, 161, 165, 406 Initial Chronograph 52 Initial Compilation 36, 51, 80, 94, 95, 100–106, 110, 127, 150, 212, 259, 267, 294, 315, 316, 328, 329, 335, 362, 380 Ioakim’s Chronicle 198 Ipat’evskaia letopis’ see Hypatian Chronicle Izbornik Sviatoslava see Sviatoslav’s Miscellany Jelling 2, runestone 141 Jewish Chronograph 52, 56 John Malalas’s Chronicle 47, 52, 56, 406 John of Worcester’s Chronicle 238, 258 Joseph Flavius’s History of the Jewish War 48, 49, 52, 76 Josippon 50 Khlebnikov MS. see Hypatian Chronicle Kievan Chronicle 40, 48, 50, 57, 59, 84, 290, 295–302, 305–308, 315, 321–323, 326,

455 330, 331, 335, 336, 339, 341–352, 354, 355, 361, 363, 364, 372, 378–384, 395 king-lists see lists of rulers Kirik the Novgorodian Uchenie (tract on chronology and computus) 215 Voproshanie (tract on canonical questions) 215 Kliment’s will 29 Kormchaia (Nomocanon) 407, see also Novgorodian Kormchaia Kratkaia Pravda see Russkaia Pravda krestnye gramoty 354, 355 Kuli stone 141 Laurentian Chronicle (Laur., Lavrent’evskaia letopis’) 31, 36, 38–40, 44, 58, 66, 91, 93, 95–99, 102, 111, 126, 136, 268, 281, 290–294, 302, 305, 306, 312, 314, 315, 321, 322, 324–327, 329, 331–335, 339, 345–348, 364, 366–370, 372, 373, 377–379, 396, 407 laws, Anglo-Saxon 148, 269, 340 laws of Rus see Russkaia Pravda laws, Swedish 340, 341 Leo the Great’s Tome 300 Leofric Missal 85, 88 Letopisets Ellinsky i Rimsky (Hellenic and Roman Chronicle) 51 Letopisets Pereiaslavlia Suzdal’skogo see Chronicle of Pereyaslavl-of-Suzdal libri vitae 88, 287 Life of Aleksandr Nevskii 35, 57–59, 82, 83, 181 Life of Dmitrii Donskoi 35, 58, 59, 82, 83 Life of Dovmont 35, 58, 59, 82, 83  Life of King Æthelstan 83 Life of Vladimir see Iakov the Monk lists of Anglo-Saxon kings and church hierarchs 79, 86, 89, 151–153, 155, 156, 164, 340 lists of rulers 51, 67, 71, 133, 146, 151, 153, 341, 389 lists of Rus princes, church hierarchs, Novgorodian city magistrates, episcopal sees, and Rus towns 6, 35, 66, 79, 86, 89, 153, 192–203, 210, 212, 213, 259, 262, 265–267, 270, 340, 341, 394, 397 Lucanus’s Pharsalia 77

456 Malalas see John Malalas’s Chronicle Martyrdom of Prince Mikhail of Chernigov and His Boyarin Fedor 181 minor chronicles, Byzantine 67, 86, 405, 406, 408, see also Nikephoros I Moore Memoranda on Northumbrian History 88, 152, 164 Morkinskinna 150 Moscow Academy Chronicle (MA) 42, 44, 91, 93, 95–99, 102, 136, 331, 332, 337, 369 Mstislav’s Charter 26, 27, 171, 243, 353 Mstislav’s Gospel 21 Nachal’nyi svod see Initial Compilation Nestor Life of St. Feodosii 37, 98, 359, 361 Reading of St. Boris and Gleb 37, 98 New Testament 158 Nikephoros I’s Chronographikon syntomon (Brief Chronicle) 67, 79, 87, 261, 339, 406, 407 Niketas Choniates’s Historia 287 Nikonian Chronicle 43, 109 Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans 153 Nomocanon see Kormchaia Northumbrian annals 81–82, 122 Novgorodian Karamzin Chronicle (NK) 42, 43, 118, 181–183, 266, 270, 271, 273 Novgorodian Kormchaia (Synodal Kormchaia) 67, 261, 339, 406 Novgorodian Psalter 20, 23, 171 Novgorodian-Sophian group of chronicles (NS-group) 42, 43, 58, 93, 98, 104, 174, 181, 184, 187, 199, 206, 210–212, 265, 267, 272, 273, 275, 328, 331 Novgorodskaia chetvertaia letopis’ see Fourth Novgorodian Chronicle Novgorodskaia Karamzinskaia letopis’ see Novgorodian Karamzin Chronicle Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis’ see First Novgorodian Chronicle Old English Orosius see Paul Orosius Oldest Tale (‘Oldest Compilation’, ‘nucleus’)  9, 10, 53, 78, 81, 88–90, 104, 106–109, 111–119, 121–123, 126, 128, 134, 135, 139, 144, 145, 149, 150, 156, 157, 159, 161, 165, 198, 286, 288, 316, 383, 392, 394

Index of Texts Old Life of Vladimir see Iakov the Monk Old Testament 53, 115, 158, 408 Orosius see Paul Orosius Ostromir Gospel 20, 25, 171, 212 Pamiat’ i pokhvala kniaziu Vladimiru see Iakov the Monk paschal annals see Easter tables Paschal Chronicle 401 Paterikon of the Kievan Cave Monastery 26, 37, 54, 79, 92, 298 Paul Orosius’s History Against the Pagans 75 Paul the Apostle’s Epistle to the Corinthians  66 Pentateuch 408 Pchela (Bee) 194 pistsovye knigi 73 Povest’ vremennykh let (PVL, Primary Chronicle, ‘Tale of bygone years’, ‘Tale of times and years’) 2, 8–10, 35, 36, 39, 44, 47, 50, 52, 54, 55, 59, 78–80, 89–170, 191, 192, 194, 199, 202, 203, 205, 207, 209, 211, 212, 264, 270–272, 281, 287, 288, 294, 295, 302–303, 305–307, 312, 314–316, 321, 324–326, 328, 329, 331, 335, 336, 338, 350, 360, 361, 363–365, 371, 372, 377–380, 382, 383, 392, 395, 399 Prologue (hagiographic compendium) 46, 137 Pseudo-Callisthene see Alexandria Pskovian chronicles 43, 58, 65, 273–275 Radzivill Chronicle (Radz.) 40–42, 44, 91, 93, 95–99, 102, 136, 293, 331, 334, 369 Rogozhskii Chronicle 43, 293 Roskilde Chronicle 150 ‘royal inscription’ of Vladimir 10, 128, 140–147, 151, 156, 157, 165, 391, 392, 394 royal inscriptions 140–141, 145, 147, 389, 391, 392 runic inscriptions 17, 22, 71, 141, 147, 148 Russkaia Pravda (early Rus laws)  18, 35, 147, 242, 353 Shorter Version (Kratkaia Pravda) 23, 174, 265–269, 329, 338, 340, 341 seals 14, 15, 17, 21–23, 25, 27, 171, 173 Secret History of the Mongols 8

457

Index of Texts Second Pskovian Chronicle see Pskovian Chronicles Serbian Alexandria 49 Sima Qian’s Records of the Grand Historian 146 Simeonovskaia letopis’ see Symeon Chronicle Six [Seven] Ages of the World 86 Smolensk charters 26, 29, 353–354, 399 Snorri Sturluson’s Heimskringla 150 Sofiiskaia pervaia letopis’ see First Sophian Chronicle Song of Igor’s Campaign (Slovo o polku Igorere) 25 Sophian Chronograph 52 Speech of the Philosopher 399 Sumerian King List 71, 146, 153 Sviatoslav Olgovich’s Statute (Ustav Sviatoslava Olgovicha) 353, 354 Sviatoslav’s Miscellany (Izbornik Sviatoslava) 67, 405 Symeon Chronicle 39, 333 ‘Tale of bygone years’ see Povest’ vremennykh let Tale of the Blinding of Vasilko of Terebovl 36, 54, 55, 59, 321, 363 Tale of the Capture of Constantinople 225 Tale Why the Cave Monastery Is So Called 54, 79 Teshata and Iakim’s treaty 29 Textus Roffensis 269 Theodoricus Monachus’s History 150 Thietmar of Merseburg’s Chronicle 109, 123, 125, 126, 135 Torzhestvennik 406 treaties between Novgorod and its princes  29, 214 treaties between Rus and Byzantium 22, 35, 92, 100, 328, 329, 338, 353

treaty of Novgorod with Gotland and German cities 173 Trinity Chronicle 37, 39, 43, 93, 96, 98, 332, 333 Trinity Chronograph 49, 51, 52 Tver Compilation (Tv., Tverskoi sbornik) 43, 174, 181–185, 187, 188, 271, 293 Typikon see Alexios Stoudites Uspenskii Miscellany 46 Ustiug Chronicle 43 Varlaam of Khutyn’s charter 29, 171 Västgöta Law 341 Vilno Chronograph 52 Virgil’s Aeneid 168 Vladimir II Monomakh epistle to Oleg, son of Sviatoslav 15, 25 Instruction (Pouchenie) to Sons 25, 35, 65–66, 87, 140, 391, 394 prayer 25 Vladimir’s Statute (Ustav Vladimira) 23, 143, 353 Voimeritsy cross 23 Warsaw Chronograph 52 wax tablets 13, 15, 327, see also Novgorodian Psalter Word on the Life and the Death of Great Prince Dmitry Ivanovich see Life of Dmitrii Donskoi  Ynglingasaga 157 Ynglingatal 156 Zlatostrui 47, 406 Zuozhuan 390

Index of Manuscript Shelfmarks Manuscripts with which I worked de visu are marked with an asterisk. Cambridge *Corpus Christi College, 173

Oxford 233, 340

London *BL, Cotton Caligula, A. xv 86 *BL, Cotton Domitian A. ix 233 BL, Cotton Faustina A. x 87 BL, Cotton Faustina B. ix 237 BL, Cotton Julius B. xiii 237 *BL, Cotton Tiberius B. i 233 *BL, Cotton Tiberius B. iv 234 *BL, Cotton Titus D. xxvii 85 *BL, Cotton Vespasian, B. vi 88, 164 BL, Stowe 944 88

258 85, 88 233 236 257 86

Rome Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Gr. 840 407 Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 12 258 Saint-Petersburg

Moscow GIM, Chud. 4 GIM, Chud. 21 GIM, Syn. 31-д GIM, Syn. 132 GIM, Syn. 262 *GIM, Syn. 325 GIM, Syn. 330 *GIM, Syn. 786 RGADA, 181, 279/658 RGB, 173.I.100 RGB, 173.I.236 RGB, 304.I.1 RGB, 304.I.2 *RGB. 304.I.762

Bodleian Library, Bodley, 297 Bodleian Library, Bodley 579 *Bodleian Library, Laud Misc. 636 Bodleian Library, Rawlinson B 503 Corpus Christi College, 197 St John’s College, 17

407 46, 407 405 406 406 68, 69, 407 253–254, 406 38, 406, 407 42 46, 407 42 408 408 68

BAN, 4.9.37 406 *BAN, 16.4.4 40 *BAN, 17.8.36 42, 195 BAN, 34.5.30 40 BAN, 45.11.16 42 *BAN, Tekushch. postupl., 1107 202 RNB, F.п.I.46 406 *RNB, F.п.IV.2 38, 407 *RNB, F.IV.230 40 *RNB, F.IV.603 42 *SPbII RAN, 11, 240 42, 195, 201

Index of Geographical and Ethnic Names Names such as Rus, Old Rus, Kievan Rus are not included into this index, as they are mentioned almost in every page. I also see no sense in the inclusion into the index of such terms as the Slavs, Slavonic, as well as general terms such as the West, Europe, the Near East, etc. Churches, monasteries, streets, and other locations within a city or its close vicinity are listed as sub-rubrics of the city in question. Abingdon 239, 240 Africa 9 Akkad 146 America 9 American Indians 71 Angles 162 Anglo-Saxon England, Anglo-Saxons 7, 9, 10, 70–90, 133, 147, 148, 151, 152, 154–159, 162–165, 233, 238–240, 304, 314, 340, 371, 394, 397 Antiochia 56 Arctic Ocean 173 Armenia 150, 394 Asia 9 Assyria 141, 146, 389 Ballshi 142 Belarus 11, 129 Belgorod (near Kiev) 116, 136, 137 Beloozero 199 Belz 123 Berestie 124–126 Bernicia, kingdom 151 Black Sea 130 Blekinge 141 Bohemia 8, 117, 123, 147–149, 151, see also Czechs  Britain 79, 107, 143, 158, 159, 162, 164, 169 British Isles 10, 233, 234, 241 Britons 151, 152, 162, 163 Bulgaria 17, 20, 21, 26, 46, 47, 71, 74, 107, 109, 113, 129, 141, 142, 149, 153, 156, 157, 389, see also Volga Bulgaria Bury St Edmunds 87, 238, 257, 258 Byzantium 1, 6, 7, 19, 22, 23, 35, 44, 51, 57, 60, 66, 67, 71, 76, 77, 86, 92, 100, 103, 109, 110, 121, 123, 130, 133, 136, 140, 142, 145, 149, 156, 167, 202, 286, 287, 328–330, 338, 353–355, 358, 399–404, 407

Cairo 23 Cambridge 11 Canterbury 154, 165, 239, 240 St. Augustine’s Abbey 74 Celts 71, 156 Chalcedon 403 Cheriokha, river 200 Chernigov (Chernihiv) 11, 44, 199, 206, 296, 299, 301, 337, 356, 360, 386, 403 Chersones see Korsun China 71, 145–147, 153, 304, 389–391 Chud(s), Finnic people 200, 209, 211, 275, 276 Constantinople 67, 129, 136, 194, 225, 232, 278, 286, 320, 350, 354, 399, 400, 406, 407 Coodmanham 168 Crimea 23, 129, 132, 168 Cumans (Polovtsy) 160, 287, 301, 322, 350, 360, 362, 365 Czechs 117, 170, see also Bohemia Dalriada, kingdom 143, 240 Danube, river 129 Degsastan 174 Deira, kingdom 151 Denmark 108, 141, 148–150, 165, 394 Derwent, river 68 Dnieper, river 133, 168, 355 Dnieper Rapids 130, 132, 133, 136, 168 Drevliane, East Slavonic ‘tribe’ 112, 113, 315 East Anglia, kingdom 164 East Slavs 17, 18, 91, 113 Eesti see Chud(s) England 8, 9, 68, 84, 107, 238, 239, 313, 327, 333, 334, 373, 380, see also Anglo-Saxon England Essen 84

460

Index of Geographical and Ethnic Names

Estonia 200, 209–211, 274 Exeter 88 Finland 202 Finnic-speaking peoples 173, 200, 205 First Bulgarian Empire see Bulgria Frankia, Frankish State 71, 75, 77, 85, 154 Frösö (Jämtland, Sweden) 141 Galich (Halych, in South-Western Rus) 28, 29, 66, 287, 322, 354, 355, 381 Galician-Volhynian Land 52, 55–57, see also South-Western Rus Germanic peoples 7, 71, 163 Germans 17, 83, 207, 230, 320, 361 Germany 84, 123, 173 Glen, river 169 Gnezdovo 21 Golden Horde 60, 224, 229, 232, 277, 286, 372 Gorodets 293, 335 Gorodishche, near Novgorod 63, 65, 232, 261, 262 Annunciation Church 21, 63, 261 Gotland 173, 340 Grand Duchy of Lithuania see Lithuania Great Moravia 17 Greece, Greeks 56, 125, 129, 149, 150, 167, 286, 302, 345, 354, 394, 399, see also Byzantium Gulf of Finland 205 Gzen, river 205, 274 Häme, Finnic people 125, 202 Holy Land 237 Horde see Golden Horde Humber, river 164 Hungary 57, 108, 117, 147–150, 165, 170, 341, 354, 355 Iaroslavl see Yaroslavl Iceland 123, 148–150, 394 Inisfallen 235–236, 238, 239 Iona 240 Ireland 54, 71, 236, 239–243, 304, 313, 314, 371, 373, 380, 387, 391 Iron Gates 210 Israel 163 Italy 8

Jämtland 141 Jarrow see Wearmouth-Jarrow Jelling 141 Jerusalem 232 Jews 23, 50, 52, 53, 162 Kalka, river 225, 279 Karelians 17, 228 Kedipiv (Keava, Kedenpe?), stronghold in Estonia 211 Kent, kingdom 85, 150, 152, 154, 163, 165, 166, 269 Kerry, county in Ireland 236 Khazars 129, 132, 133, 139 Kiev (Kyiv) 11, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 35–38, 40, 44, 46, 53, 60, 66, 80, 82, 89, 91, 92, 94, 97, 104, 108, 112–114, 118, 122–127, 130, 132, 134, 136, 137, 153, 154, 158, 160, 168, 169, 171, 172, 192, 194–204, 206, 207, 211–213, 216, 223, 228, 238, 259, 265, 267–269, 276, 278, 279, 284, 286, 287, 294–305, 307, 314–317, 321–323, 325–331, 336, 337, 341, 342, 345–348, 350, 351, 355, 357–366, 368, 370–373, 377, 378, 380–386, 392–396, 401, 402, 405 Cave (Pecherskii) Monastery 25, 26, 37, 54, 59, 79, 80, 92, 98, 101, 103–106, 121, 124, 144, 281, 294–303, 307, 326, 336, 337, 339, 348, 351, 355, 359, 361, 363–366, 370, 372, 382–385, 391, 392, 394–396, 402 Desiatinnaia Church 114, 116, 117, 121–123, 125–127, 130, 134–140, 142–144, 169, 353, 391 St. Lazar’s Monastery 373 St. Sophia Cathedral 23, 25, 53, 59, 60, 104, 117, 124–126, 209 Vydubichi Monastery 36, 97, 294, 296, 297, 302, 303, 330, 331, 336, 359, 384, 395 Kopys’ 200 Korsun (Chersones) 129–132, 136, 137, 167, 169 Kostroma 38, 68 Hypatian Monastery 38 Kulachska, river 275, 276 Kuli (Norway) 141

Index of Geographical and Ethnic Names Kulikovo field 225, 238 Kyiv see Kiev Ladoga 173, 179, 320, 356, 403 Lagash 145 Latinians 300 Lindisfarne 80 Lindköping 340 Lipitsa, river 293, 370 Lismore 236 Lithuania, Grand Duchy of 30, 58, 129, 229, 232, 278, 399 Lithuanians 207 Liverpool 314 Livonia, Livonian Order 57, 230, 232, 320 Lubech 127, 363 Mediterranean 77 Medvezhia Golova (Otepää) 274 Melrose 235, 237–239 Mercia, kingdom 82 Mesoamerica 140, 153, 389 Mesopotamia 146, 389, 391 Minsk 301 Mongolia, Mongols 8, 14, 66, 83, 89, 173, 252, 286, 308, 370, 372, 374–375 Mongolian Empire 224 Moravia 118, see also Great Moravia Moscow 11, 17, 42–44, 58, 65, 109, 128, 173, 225, 228, 232, 252–254, 268, 278, 281, 332–334, 337, 342, 394, 407 Murom 199, 210, 362 Murom Island in the Onega Lake 87 Muscovite State 30, 60, 286, 334, 366, 399, 400 Neva, river 57 Nizhny Novgorod 38, 44, 293, 333, 335, 394, 407 Cave Monastery 294, 335 Northeastern Rus (Rostov Land, Suzdal Land) 29, 30, 38, 42, 44, 57, 173, 228, 275, 291–294, 301, 302, 305, 315, 317, 321, 323–326, 328, 331, 359, 363, 366–372, 378, 380, 382, 383, 385–387, 392, 394–396, 401, 402 Northern Dvina, river 200

461

Northumbria, kingdom 76, 78, 81, 82, 85, 88–90, 147, 149, 151–155, 158, 163–166, 394 Northwestern Rus 10, 14, 294, 302, see also Novgorodian Land Norway 108, 141, 148–150, 165, 394 Novgorod the Great 8, 10, 13–20, 25, 26, 29, 30, 37, 38, 42–44, 57, 58, 61–63, 65–67, 70, 80, 86, 94, 101, 102, 104, 106, 118, 124, 125, 127, 153, 156, 158, 168, 171–278, 281, 282, 284, 290, 294, 299, 302, 304–308, 312, 314–323, 325–332, 335–341, 351, 353–360, 365–367, 369–373, 375, 377, 378, 380–388, 392–396, 401–404, 406, 407, see also Gorodishche Annunciation Monastery on Lake Miachino 66, 87, 253, 255–257, 259, 260, 290, 328, 335, 337, 373, 406 Antonii’s Monastery of the Nativity of the Virgin 215, 231, 373 Bishop (Piskuplia) Street 191, 207 Great Bridge 65, 262, 403 Iaroslav’s Court 227 Khutyn Monastery of the Savior (SpasoKhutynskii) 29, 171, 224, 263 Liudin End 14 Michael Street 376 Nereditsa Church of the Savior 16 Nerevsky End 318 Plotnitsky End 320 Prusskaia Street 319 Resurrection Monastery 222 St. Barbara’s Nunnery 231 St. Basil Church 376 St. Boris and Gleb’s Church in Bishop Street 191–193, 207, 209, 262 St. Euphemia’s Monastery in Plotniki  320 St. Forty Martyrs’ Church 318 St. George’s (Iuriev) Monastery 26, 27, 61, 62, 171, 185, 230, 231, 243–249, 252–253, 257, 260–262, 290, 294, 318, 327, 332, 335–337, 373, 396, 406 St. Jacob’s Church in Dobrynia Street  185, 214–216, 260 St. Michael’s Church in Michael Street  376

462

Index of Geographical and Ethnic Names

Novgorod the Great (cont.) St. Nicholas’s Church 248 St. Sophia Cathedral 25, 59, 65, 124, 171, 191, 200, 204–209, 213, 214, 224, 246, 257, 259, 261–264, 270–272, 276, 335, 337 Trinity Church 62 Viazhishchi Monastery of St. Nicholas  263 Virgin Church 62 Zverinets 205 Novgorodian Land 30, 173, 228, 229, 232, 241, 252, 273, 367

Raplamaa, county in Estonia 211 Riazan 225, 372 Rome, Roman Empire, Romans 51, 56, 67, 71, 77, 148, 162 Rostov the Great 38, 42–44, 67, 80, 199, 200, 210, 225, 261, 290–292, 296, 302, 304, 326, 335, 337, 366–370, 372, 373, 377, 378, 382, 386, 394, 395, 406, 407 Rostov Land see Northeastern Rus Rus (in narrow sense: Middle Dnieper region)  347, 355, see also Southern Rus Rusa (Staraia Russa) 26, 28, 173, 228 Russia 11, 282, 283, 354, 366

Oka, river 210 Oreshek (Noteburg, Schlüsselburg) 249 Otepää see Medvezhia Golova

Sarai, capital of the Golden Horde 372 Saxons 159, 162 Scandinavia, Scandinavians 17, 22, 121, 141, 147–149, 156, 157, 210, 230, 320 Scotland 237, 239, 240, 327 Scots 164 Serbia 17, 74 Sergiev Posad see Trinity Monastery of St. Sergii Silver Bulgarians see Volga Bulgaria Sinai 232 Skara 341 Smolensk 17, 21, 26, 29, 62, 211, 228, 351, 353–355, 399 Solun see Thessaloniki Sosols, group of Chuds 207, 209 South Slavs 8, 17 Southern Rus 212, 220, 223, 301, 324, 354, 366–368, 377, 383 South-Western Rus 28, 30, 40, 55, 84, 343, see also Galician-Volhynian Land Staraia Ladoga see Ladoga Staraia Russa see Rusa  Stugna, river 362 Suffolk 257 Sumer 140, 145–147 Suzdal 38, 41, 179, 199, 227, 228, 274, 276, 291–293, 333, 335, 363, 366, 368 St. Dimitrii’s Church 363 Suzdal Land see Northeastern Rus Sweden 57, 83, 123, 141, 173, 340, 341

Pechenegs 130 Peipus, lake 57 Peresechen 113 Pereyaslavl-upon-Dnieper 38, 41, 44, 99, 130, 136, 137, 199, 306, 327, 330, 335, 337, 345, 355, 356, 360, 372, 377, 386, 394 Pereyaslavl-Zalessky (Pereyaslavl of Suzdal)  42, 292, 293, 325, 368, 369, 388 Perun’s Shallow 168 Peterborough 240, 249 Pisa 8 Poitou 249 Poland, Poles 57, 71, 117, 118, 123, 125, 127, 129, 133, 139, 147–149, 151, 170, 194, 360, 361, 399 Poliane, East Slavonic ‘tribe’ 114 Polotsk 205, 264, 272–274, 301, 315, 360, 364 Polotsk Land 301 Polovtsy see Cumans Prague 148 Pskov 8, 29, 30, 35, 43, 44, 58, 59, 63, 65, 82, 173, 200, 207, 228, 232, 249, 268, 273–276, 306, 320, 337, 356, 394, 403 Persi, line of fortifications 273–275 Trinity Church 63 Putivl 299 Radimichi, East Slavonic ‘tribe’ 129, 132, 139 Rakovor (Rakvere, Wesenberg) 319 Ramsey 85

Tallinn 211 Taman Peninsula 23, 202

Index of Geographical and Ethnic Names Tatars 57, 224, 279, 306, 382 Terebovl 54 Thessaloniki (Solun) 17 Thetford 259 Tmutarakan 23, 142, 202 Toropets 232 Torzhok 173 Trebizond 232 Trinity Monastery of St. Sergii (now Sergiev Posad) 42, 59, 332 Tumashch 342 Turks 350 Tver 38, 43, 44, 46, 70, 173, 232, 261, 293, 337, 379, 380, 394, 407 Savior Cathedral 293 Ukraine 11, 343 Ulichi, East Slavonic ‘tribe’ 113 Ur 146 Urals 173, 188 Urartu 140, 389 Varangians 22, 108, 114, 157, 158, 159, 328, 329 Vasilev 132 Västergötland 341 Velikaia, river 200 Venice 8 Viatichi, East Slavonic ‘tribe’ 129, 132, 139 Vikings 82, 83, 89 Vladimir-of-Volhynia 279, 357 Vladimir-upon-Kliazma 38, 44, 57, 58, 173, 232, 277, 279, 286, 291–293, 302, 331, 336, 337, 366–370, 372, 382, 402

463

Dormition Cathedral (Uspenskii sobor)  50, 64, 377 Nativity of St. Mary Monastery 302, 336 St. Dimitrii’s Church 50 Vod’ see Votians Voimeritsy (on River Msta) 24 Volga, river 199, 372 Volga Bulgaria 129, 132, 139 Volkhov, river 65, 191, 202, 207, 262 Volok 200, 205 Votians (Vod’), Finnic people 205 Vruchii (Ovruch) 130 Vyshgorod 108, 342 Wales 164 Wearmouth-Jarrow, twin monastery in Northumbria 77, 79, 148 Wells 87 Wessex, kingdom 75, 81, 82, 89, 155, 156, 164, 165 West Slavs 8, 17 Winchester 87 New Minster 87 Worcester 238, 258 Yaroslavl 11, 67, 370 York 79, 80, 168, 169, 239, 240 Yotvingians 129, 139 Yugra 188, 221 Yuriev (Tartu, Derpt) 207, 232 Zhdania Gora 356  Zhelian’, river 61 Zvenigorod (in South-Western Rus) 28

Index of Persons People with the same name are listed, as a rule, in the chronological order of their deaths. Patronymics are given in a form ‘son of X’. Baptismal names of Rus princes, where needed, are given in brackets after ‘princely’ (traditional) names. As most of Rurikid princes occupied several thrones during their lives, one or two principal ones are cited. All year-dates cited are those of life, not of reign. In some cases years of death given by sources probably are not trustworthy (e.g. those of 10th-century Rus princes), but I nevertheless cite them for purposes of easier identification of persons. Names of modern scholars are in italics. I include into this index names of scholars to whose works I only refer in footnotes, but I do not, in most of the cases, include the names of editors of collective volumes. Abramovich, Dmitrii A. 47, 54, 406 Adam 56 Aidan, St., bishop of Lindisfarne (d. 651) 152 Adrianova-Peretts, Varvara P. 91, 119 Ælfwine, abbot of New Minster (Winchester) (d. 1057) 85 Ælfwine, bishop of Elmham (the 11th century) 258 Æthelberht, king of Kent (d. 616) 163, 165, 166 Æthelfrith, king of Northumbria (d. c. 616) 163, 164 Æthelnoth, archbishop of Canturbury (d. 1038) 258 Æthelstan, king of England (d. 939) 83 Æthelweard, English ealdorman and historian (the 10th century) 84, 85, 133 Æthelwulf, Anglo-Saxon poet (the 9th century) 79–80 Akent’ev, Konstantin K. 53 Akindin, abbot of the Kievan Cave Monastery (the 12th century?) 298 Alcuin, Anglo-Saxon scholar (d. 804) 77, 79–80 Aleksandr Nevskii, St., son of Iaroslav, prince of Vladimir (d. 1263) 35, 57–59, 82, 83, 181, 224, 268 Alekseev, Anatolii A. 48, 49 Alekseev, Iurii G. 268 Alekseev, Mikhail P. 72 Aleksii, archbishop of Novgorod (d. 1388)  217, 218, 374

Aleshkovskii, Mark Kh. 4, 37, 101–103, 105, 111, 114, 118, 120–122, 127, 191, 196, 198, 260, 282, 283, 358 Alexander the Great, king of Macedon (d. 323 B.C.) 50 Alexander see also Aleksandr Alexios Stoudites, patriarch of Constantinople (d. 1043) 253, 406 Alfred the Great, king of Wessex (d. 899)  75, 82–84, 149 Alpatov, Mikhail A. 7 Amartol see George Hamartolos Anastas of Korsun (around 1000) 167 Andrei Bogolubskii (the ‘God-Loving’), son of Iurii, prince of Vladimir (d. 1174) 322, 323, 325, 366–368, 370, 377, 385, 388, 392 Andrei, son of Aleksandr, prince of Gorodets and Vladimir (d. 1304) 65, 68, 179, 262 Andrei, son of Klim, posadnik of Novgorod (d. 1315) 65 Andreicheva, Marianna Iu. 5, 168 Andrew, apostle 161 Androshchuk, Fedir 142 Anisimova, Tatiana V. 6, 46, 47, 51, 407 Anna, wife of Vladimir I (d. 1011) 121 Anna, wife of Iaroslav the Wise (?) 272 Anna, abbess of St. Barbara’s, Novgorod (d. 1167) 231 Antonii Rimlianin, St., abbot (d. 1147) 215 Antonii, archbishop of Novgorod (d. 1232)  62, 173, 217, 223, 226, 320

Index of Persons Aquila, Apostle 64 Ari the Wise, Icelandic scholar (1067/ 8–1148) 148, 150 Aristov, Vadym (Vadim) Iu. 3, 12, 57, 99, 101, 110, 112, 129, 132, 133, 138, 295–297, 331, 345 Arkadii, bishop of Novgorod (d. 1163) 62, 172, 217, 222, 223, 231 Artamonov, Iurii A. 12, 136, 297, 339, 386 Artsikhovskii, Artemii V. 40 Arutiunian, Nikolai V. 141 Arutiunova-Fidanian, Viada A. 12 Askold, prince of Kiev (d. 882) 315, 316 Asmud, Rus noble (active in 945–6) 316 Asser, bishop of Sherborne (d. 908/9)  82–84, 87 Augustine, St., archbishop of Canterbury (d. 604) 165 Avram, tysiatsky of Novgorod (the 14th century) 248 Bagge, Sverre 148, 150, 156 Baines, John 1 Bakhrushin, Sergei V. 110, 111, 114, 125, 126, 135, 139, 196, 198 Baldwin, abbot of Bury St Edmunds (d. 1097/8) 258 Balovnev, Dmitrii A. 114 Barankova, Galina S. 48 Barnes, Michael P. 141 Basil, St. 376 Basil II, Byzantine emperor (d. 1025) 129 Bassalygo, Leonid A. 172, 197 Bately, Janet M. 75, 81, 154 Beazley, C. Raymond 171 Bede the Venerable, monk of Jarrow (d. 735)  10, 72, 74, 76–79, 81, 82, 84–90, 107, 122, 147–159, 162–170, 394 Begunov, Iurii K. 58 Beliaev, Dmitrii D. 9, 12, 140, 153, 282 Beliaev, Ivan D. 282 Berezhkov, Nikolai G. 4, 298, 299, 400, 401 Beshevliev, Veselin 141, 142 Best, Richard Irvine 236 Bestuzhev-Riumin, Nikolai K. 2, 202, 282, 283, 295, 297 Bibikov, Mikhail V. 405 Biggs, Frederick M. 75

465 Birnbaum, David 91 Blagoi, Dmitrii D. 285 Blud, Rus voevoda (the 10th century) 315, 316 Bobkova, Marina S. 12 Bobrov, Aleksandr G. 12, 43, 59, 184, 194, 218, 252, 253, 263, 271, 278, 281, 328, 340 Bogdanov, Ivan 153 Bogdanov, Sergei V. 249, 253 Bolesław I the Brave, king of Poland (d. 1025)  117, 123, 125 Bolesław II, king of Poland (1041/2–1082)  360 Boris I, king of Bulgaria (d. 907) 142 Boris, son of Gavsha, Novgorodian (active in 1262) 376 Boris, son of Vasilko, prince of Rostov (1231–1277) 334 Boris and Gleb, St., sons of Vladimir (d. 1015)  37, 49, 50, 98, 104, 108, 114, 150, 199, 204, 317, 325, 388 Botvinnik, Mark N. 49 Brazhnikova, N.V. 48 Bredehoft, Thomas A. 83, 84, 88 Briachislav, son of Iziaslav, prince of Polotsk (d. 1044) 121, 122, 124 Brisbane, Mark 171 Brooks, Nicholas 238, 239 Broun, Dauit 35, 237, 327 Brown, George H. 77 Bubnova see Drobysheva Budy, Rus voevoda (active in 1018) 315 Buganov, Viktor I. 5, 6 Bugoslavskii, Sergei A. 93–95, 102, 129 Bukhin, Boris L. 12 Bukhina, Maia F. 12 Bukhina, Olga B.  12 Burgess, Richard W. 31, 33, 51, 68 Byrhtferth, monk of Ramsey (d. c. 1020) 85 Cædwalla, king of Gwynedd (d. 634) 151, 162 Caesar, Gaius Julius, Roman dictator (100–44 B.C.) 76 Campbell, Alistair 80, 83, 84 Canute IV, St., king of Denmark (d. 1086)  108 Charlemagne, Frankish emperor (d. 814) 83

466 Charles-Edwards, Thomas 387 Cherepnin, Lev V. 20, 105, 114, 116, 134, 138, 268, 282 Chernova, Maria N.  12 Chernysheva, Margarita I. 47 Chiesa, Paolo 77, 152 Chubarian, Aleksandr O. 12 Chudin, Kievan noble (the 11th century) 316 Clanchy, Michael T. 73 Clement I, St., bishop of Rome (d. 99) 129, 300 Clement see also Kliment Cnut the Great, king of Denmark, England, and Norway (d. 1035) 83, 258, 259 Cnut IV see Canute IV Coifi, Northumbrian pagan priest (the 7th century) 166 Colgrave, Bertram 77, 78, 87, 152, 155, 156, 162–163, 164–169 Confucius 390 Conner, Patrick W. 88 Constantine I, St., Roman emperor (272–337) 67 Constantine of Preslav, Bulgarian writer (around 900) 406 Constantine VIII, Byzantine emperor (d. 1028) 129 Constantine Manasses, Byzantine historian (the 12th century) 107 Constantine see also Konstantin, Cyril Cooper, Jerold S. 140, 146 Cosmas of Prague, Czech historian (d. 1125) 148, 151, 157 Cross, Samuel Hazzard 91 Curta, Florin 12 Cyril (Constantine), St., inventor of Slavonic script (827–869) 17, 26 Cyril see also Kirill Dąbrowski, Dariusz 55 Dalmat, archbishop of Novgorod (d. 1273)  216, 217, 225, 227, 318 Daniil, Rus abbot (the 12th century) 49, 194 Daniil Zatochnik (the Immured, the 12th or the 13th century) 25, 26 Daniil, St., son of Aleksandr, prince of Moscow (d. 1303) 65, 262

Index of Persons Danilevskii, Igor N. 5, 7, 12, 286–289, 334, 399 Dashkevich, Iaroslav R. 343, 344 Daumantas see Dovmont David, king of Israel 163 Davyd, son of Sviatoslav, prince of Chernigov (d. 1123) 195, 200, 203, 350, 363 Davyd, son of Rostislav, prince of Smolensk (1141/2–1197) 228, 357 Davyd, archbishop of Novgorod (d. 1325)  196, 210, 217 Degregorio, Scott 77 Demestik, Kievan noble (the 11th century)  316 Deopik, Dega V. 304 Dieten, Ioannes Aloysius van 287 Dionisii, archimadrite of St. George’s, Novgorod (d. 1194) 188 Dionisii, bishop of Suzdal and Nizhny Novgorod, metropolitan of Kiev (d. 1385) 38, 293, 294, 335 Dir, prince of Kiev (d. 882) 315 Dmitrii, son of Konstantin, prince of Vladimir (d. 1383) 38, 293 Dmitrii Donskoi, son of Ivan II, prince of Vladimir (d. 1389) 35, 58, 59, 82, 83, 277 Dmitrii Shemiaka, son of Iurii, prince of Moscow (d. 1453) 278 Dobrovolskii, Dmitrii A. 12, 111, 300 Dobrynia, Rus noble (the 10th century) 103, 200, 210, 315, 316 Dobrynia, son of Iadreiko see Antonii, archbishop Dovmont (Daumantas, Timofei), prince of Pskov (d. 1299) 35, 58, 59, 82, 83 Droblenkova, Nadezhda F. 59 Drobyshev, Maksim I. 12 Drobysheva (Bubnova), Maria M. 12, 60, 61, 120 Dudika, slave of Novgorodian bishop (the 11th century) 207 Dumville, David N. 33, 85, 86, 88, 156, 164, 225, 235, 257, 258, 334, 340 Dzhakson see Jackson Edgar, king of England (d. 975) 87 Edmund, St, King of East Anglia (d. 869)  258

Index of Persons Edwin, king of Northumbria (d. 632/3) 151, 154, 163, 165–170 Efrem, metropolitan of Kiev (the 11th century) 53, 199, 207 Efrem, metropolitan of Pereyaslavl-uponDnieper (the 11th century) 306, 363 Efrem, Novgorodian cleric (the 11th century) 198, 200 Einhard, Frankish scholar (d. 840) 83 Emma (Ælgifu), English queen (d. 1052) 83 Epifanii the Wise, monk of St. Trinity Sergii’s Monastery (d. c. 1420) 59 Eremin, Igor P. 4, 34, 35, 285 Erusalimskii, Konstantin Iu. 12 Esif, archimandrite of St. George’s, Novgorod (the 14th century) 247–249, 253 Eudokia, Byzantine empress (d. 1096) 51 Euphemia, St. Martyr (d. 303) 403 Eusebius Pamphili, bishop of Caesarea (263–339) 56 Evans, Nicholas 238, 387 Evdokimova, Aleksandra A. 17 Evfimii II, archbishop of Novgorod (d. 1458) 272 Evgenii (Bolkhovitinov), metropolitan 298 Evstafii, posadnik of Novgorod (the 14th century) 248 Fasmer, Maksim R. 407 Fedor, St., noble of Chernigov (d. 1246) 181 Fennel, John 249 Feodor, bishop of Novgorod (d. 1077) 201, 205 Feodor (Feodorets), bishop of Rostov (d. after 1169) 291, 366 Feodosii I, St., abbot of the Kievan Cave Monastery (d. 1074) 37, 54, 79, 92, 98, 295, 307, 359–361, 372 Feodosii II, abbot of the Kievan Cave Monastery (d. 1156) 298–301, 312, 348, 355, 357, 373, 384 Feognost (Theognostus), metropolitan of Kiev (d. 1353) 407 Feoktist, abbot of the Kievan Cave Monastery, bishop of Chernigov (d. 1123) 295, 298, 372 Feoktist, archbishop of Novgorod (d. 1310) 217

467 Feopempt (Theopempt), metropolitan of Kiev (the 11th century) 125 Flechner, Roy 227, 239–243 Flower, Robin 233 Foley, W. Trent 162 Fonkich, Boris L. 407 Foot, Sarah 31, 33 Forbes, Nevill 171 Franchuk, Vera Iu. 301, 343, 348, 352, 354, 361 Franklin, Simon 11–17, 24, 25, 28, 47, 50, 51, 282, 283, 339, 343, 352–355 Frealaf, progenitor of Anglo-Saxon kings  164 Freeman, Martin 35 Fylypchuk, Oleksandr 407 Gabriel see Gavriil Gaidukov, Petr G. 23, 25, 142 Gaimster, David 171 Gallus Anonymus, historian (c. 1113) 148, 151, 157 Gameson, Richard 73, 75 Garipzanov, Ildar 147, 158, 159 Gavriil, Novgorodian (d. 1163) 62 Gavriil, archbishop of Novgorod (d. 1193)  217, 221, 222, 231, 253, 255, 257 George, St. Martyr 248 George Hamartolos, Byzantine monk (the 9th century) 46, 47, 52, 100, 102, 107, 407 George Syncellus, Byzantine chronicler (d. 810) 47, 48, 52, 107 German, bishop of Novgorod (d. 1095) 196, 201 German Voiata, Novgorodian priest (d. 1188) 37, 185, 215–217, 260, 303, 307 Gildas, Brittonic writer (the 6th century)  162 Gippius, Aleksei A. 5, 7, 12, 16, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 29, 36, 49, 53, 55, 60–62, 64, 91, 94, 95, 97–102, 104–106, 109, 111, 113, 115, 117, 118, 120–122, 126, 135, 168, 173, 179, 180, 184, 188, 189, 191, 192, 195, 197, 203, 212, 213–217, 219, 223–226, 230, 244, 245, 247, 259, 260, 269, 314, 318, 325, 330, 336, 344, 345, 352, 357, 363, 375, 395, 402, 406 Giso, bishop of Wells (d. 1088) 87

468 Giuriata, Novgorodian posadnik (around 1100) 197 Glassner, Jean-Jacques 146 Glazyrina, Galina V. 12 Gleb, St., son of Vladimir (d. 1015) see Boris and Gleb Gleb, son of Sviatoslav, prince of Novgorod (d. 1078) 200, 205, 206, 272 Gleb, son of Vseslav, prince of Minsk (d. 1119) 297 Cleb, of Riazan princely family (active in 1218) 225 Gneuss, Helmut 73, 76 Godman, Peter 77 Goffart, Walter 147 Golb, Norman 23 Golubovskii, Petr V. 5 Gordiata, Kievan noble (the 11th century) 316 Gorodsha, Novgorodian (the 12th century) 320 Gorun, owner of an amphora (?, the 10th century) 21 Goven, dweller of Zvenigorod (the 12th century) 28 Granberg, Jonas 172 Gransden, Antonia 73, 83, 233, 238, 327, 333 Gräslund, Anne-Sofie 141 Grazhdankina, Tatiana A. 379 Gregory, St 255 Gregory, bishop of Tours (d. 594) 87, 148 Gregory I the Great, pope of Rome (d. 604) 165 Grigorii, deacon (the 11th century) 25 Grigorii Tsamblak, metropolitan of Kiev (d. 1420) 278 Grinev, Nikolai N. 267–269, 340 Grocock, Christopher 77 Guimon, Dmitrii V.  12 Guimon, Galina B.  12 Guimon, Ilia V.  12 Guimon, Konstantin T.  12 Guimon, Mikhail T.  12 Guimon, Sonia V.  12 Guimon, Valentin V.  12 Guimon, Vadim T.  12 Günzel, Beate  85 Gvozdetskaia, Natalia Iu. 162

Index of Persons Hamartolos see George Hamartolos Hammond, Karen 75 Haraldr Bluetooth, king of Denmark and Norway (d. 985) 141 Harrison, Julian 35, 237 Harrison, Kenneth 151, 152, 154 Hart, Cyril 85, 235 Hengist of Kent 163 Henry, abbot of Peterborough (in 1128–33) 249 Higham, Nicholas J. 79, 107, 162 Hilarion see Ilarion Hill, Thomas D. 75 Hines, John 71 Horsa of Kent 163 Horsey, Jerome, English diplomat (d. 1626) 334 Howlett, David 87 Hristova, Daniela S. 57 Hunter Blair, Peter 152–154, 164 Iakim, dweller of Pskov (the 13th century) 29 Iakov, Kievan monk (the 11th century?) 65, 104, 106, 108, 116, 128, 161 Iakun, son of Miroslav, Novgorodian posadnik (the 12th century) 197, 318 Ian, son of Vyshata, Kievan noble (d. 1106) 102–104, 202, 264, 307 Ianin, Valentin L. 20, 23, 25, 29, 65, 172, 179, 195, 197, 208, 209, 230–232, 247, 282, 317, 353 Ianish, Nikolai N. 282 Iaropolk, son of Sviatoslav, prince of Kiev (d. 978) 112, 125, 130, 316 Iaropolk, son of Iziaslav, prince of Vladimirof-Volhynia (d. 1086) 297, 322, 323, 361 Iaropolk, son of Vladimir, prince of Kiev (d. 1139) 355, 358, 365, 385 Iaropolk, son of Rostislav, prince of Vladimir and Torzhok (d. 1180) 368 Iaroslav the Wise, son of Vladimir, prince of Kiev (d. 1054) 20, 23–25, 35, 46, 53, 93, 107, 114–117, 119–127, 135, 139, 142, 144, 154, 157, 161, 172, 199, 200, 204, 205, 207, 209–211, 264–272, 276, 282, 338, 341, 353, 360, 361, 364, 377, 379, 380, 399

Index of Persons Iaroslav, son of Iziaslav, prince of Kiev (d. after 1174) 351, 357 Iaroslav, son of Vladimir, prince of Novgorod (d. after 1207) 62, 227, 265, 379, 380 Iaroslav, son of Vsevolod, prince of Vladimir (d. 1246) 27, 41, 292, 368, 370, 378 Iaroslav, son of Iaroslav, prince of Vladimir (d. 1272) 214 Ida, king of Bernicia (the 6th century) 174 Igor, son of Rurik, prince of Kiev (d. 945) 22, 112, 113, 130, 161, 316, 328 Igor, son of Iaroslav, prince of Smolensk (d. 1060) 211 Igor, son of Oleg, prince of Kiev (d. 1147) 323, 342 Igor, son of Sviatoslav, prince of NovgorodSeversky (1151–1201) 299 Ikonnikov, Vladimir S. 7 Ilarion, metropolitan of Kiev (d. after 1051)  11, 53, 54, 78, 87, 118, 119, 161, 165, 406 Ilia, son of Iaroslav the Wise, prince of Novgorod (the 11th century) 199, 200 Ilia (Ioann II), archbishop of Novgorod (d. 1186) 185, 216, 217, 223, 231, 253, 255–257, 386 Ilovaiskii, Dmitrii I. 296 Ingigerd (Irina), wife of Iaroslav the Wise (d. 1050) 123, 272 Ioakim of Korsun, bishop of Novgorod (d. 1030) 198, 200, 210 Ioann, abbot of the Kievan Cave Monastery (active in 1089) 295 Ioann I, archbishop of Novgorod (abdicated in 1130) 216 Ioann II, archbishop of Novgorod see Ilia Ioann, bishop or Rostov (d. 1214) 291, 292, 367 Ioann III, archbishop of Novgorod (d. 1417) 217, 218, 227, 231 Irina see Ingigerd Ishchenko, Dmitrii S. 253, 256 Isoaho, Mari 12, 57, 58, 83 Istrin, Vasilii M. 4, 6, 46–49, 51, 52, 76, 101, 107, 202, 285, 297, 406 Itlar, Cumanic ruler (d. 1095) 322, 362 Iurasovskii, Aleksei V. 338, 339, 343 Iur’eva, Irina S. 40, 55

469 Iurii, son of Zhiroslav, Novgorodian (d. 1136) 403 Iurii Dolgorukii, the ‘Long Hands’, son of Vladimir, prince of Kiev (d. 1157) 62, 342, 348, 358, 366 Iurii, son of Vsevolod, prince of Vladimir (d. 1238) 291–293, 368–370 Iurii, son of Dmitrii, prince of Zvenigorod and Moscow (d. 1434) 277 Ivan, son of Tvorimir, Rus voevoda (active in 1043) 315 Ivan I Kalita, son of Daniil, prince of Moscow and Vladimir (d. 1340) 65, 252 Ivan III, great prince of Moscow (1440–1505) 173, 277, 278 Ivanov, Aleksandr A. 29 Ivanov, Viacheslav Vs. 66, 141, 392 Ivanova, Natalia P. 399 Iziaslav, son of Vladimir, prince of Polotsk (d. 1001) 121, 122 Iziaslav, son of Iaroslav, prince of Kiev (1024–1078) 105, 114, 121, 199, 200, 207, 211, 360, 361 Iziaslav, son of Vladimir, prince of Murom (d. 1096) 362 Iziaslav, son of Mstislav, prince of Kiev (d. 1154) 295, 300, 342, 351, 354, 355, 357, 364, 384 Iziaslav, son of Davyd, prince of Chernigov and Kiev (d. 1161) 364 Jackson (Dzhakson), Tatiana N. 12, 160 Jacob, St 205 Jacob, deacon of York (the 7th century) 152 Jacob see also Iakov Jezierski, Wojtek 84, 85 John, St 255 John Chrisostom, archbishop of Constantinople (d. 407) 406 John Malalas, Greek writer (d. 578) 47, 52, 56, 406 John of Worchester, English historian (the 12th century) 238, 258 John see also Ioann, Ivan Johnson-South, Ted 80 Jones, Charles W. 151, 152, 154, 155 Jordanes, historian (the 6th century) 148

470 Joseph Flavius, historian (the 1st century) 48, 52, 76 Jusupović, Adrian 55, 57, 66, 315 Kachenovskii, Mikhail T. 2 Kalaidovich, Konstantin F. 243 Kalinin, Vitalii A. 23, 142 Kalinina, Tatiana M. 12 Karamzin, Nikolai M. 39, 333 Karger, Mikhail K. 111 Karpov, Aleksei Iu. 295, 298 Karyshkovskii, Petr O. 110, 140 Kashtanov, Sergei M.  12, 13, 16, 22, 30 Ker, Neil R. 74, 234, 235, 257, 334 Keynes, Simon D.  12, 82, 83, 86–88, 164 Khoriv, founder of Kiev 315 Khoroshev, Aleksandr S. 196, 202, 210 Khoruzhko, Novgorodian (the 12th century) 320 Khristina, abbess of St. Barbara’s, Novgorod (d. 1195) 231 Kii, founder of Kiev 315 Kilunov, A.F. 285 Kirby, David P. 151, 153–155, 166 Kirik, Novgorodian scholar (the 12th century) 87, 188, 215–217, 220, 231, 303, 404 Kirill I, bishop of Rostov (d. 1230) 291, 292, 334 Kirill II, bishop of Rostov (d. 1261) 291, 292 Kliment Smoliatich, metropolitan of Kiev (the 12th century) 278, 350, 386 Kliment, archbishop of Novgorod (d. 1299)  65, 217, 262 Kliment, Novgorodian (the 13th century) 29 Kloss, Boris M. 40, 185, 294, 332 Klug, Ekkehard 38, 293 Komendová, Jitka 8 Koniavskaia, Elena L.  12, 262, 293, 302 Konovalova, Irina G.  12 Konstantin, son of Dobrynia, posadnik of Novgorod (the 11th century) 103, 200, 210, 212, 266 Konstantin, son of Mikula, posadnik of Novgorod (d. 1147) 403 Konstantin, son of Vsevolod, prince of Rostov and Vladimir (d. 1218) 228, 291–293, 333, 368–370, 385, 392

Index of Persons Konstantin, son of Viacheslav, Novgorodian (d. 1247) 224, 318 Kostomarov, Nikolai I.  2, 282, 283, 285 Kotliar, Nikolai F. 56, 265, 295 Krom, Mikhail M. 172 Kuchkin, Vladimir A. 17, 55, 58, 198, 225 Kukushkina, Margarita V. 40, 41 Kulikowski, Michael 31, 33, 51, 68 Kunik, Arist 119, 120 Kupchinskyi, Oleg A. 343 Kurnosov, Aleksei A. 285 Kuzenkov, Pavel V. 22, 48, 402 Kuzmin, Andrei V.  12, 111 Kuzmin, Apollon G. 105, 134 Kuznetsov, Anatolii M. 29 Kuznetsov, Andrei A.  12, 293 Kvirkvelia, Olga R. 6, 230, 304 Lager, Linn 141 Laistner, Max L.W. 148 Lapidge, Michael 73, 75–78, 82–85, 148 Lappo-Danilevskii, Aleksandr S. 285 Laushkin, Aleksei V. 283, 284, 381, 387 Lavrenchenko, Maria L.  12, 345, 346, 352 Lavrent’ev, Aleksandr V. 64 Lavrentii, archimandrite of St. George’s, Novgorod (d. 1338) 246–249 Lavrentii, monk of the Cave Monastery of Nizhny Novgorod (?, active in 1377) 36, 38, 303, 333 Lazar, abbot of Murom Island (d. 1391) 87 Leo I the Great, St., pope of Rome (d. 461) 300 Leo the Deacon, Byzantine historian (the 10th century) 76 Leofric, bishop of Exeter (d. 1072) 85 Leon, bishop or Rostov (the 12th century) 292 Levison, Wilhelm 154 Levitskii, Nikandr M. 133 Likhachev, Dmitrii S. 4, 58, 91, 105, 106, 114, 119, 120, 202, 204, 215, 252, 259, 260, 273, 275, 283–285, 287, 343, 363, 388 Lind, John 231 Lindkvist, Thomas 340, 341 Lint, Theo Maarten van 150 Lipkin, Mikhail A.  12 Litovskikh, Elena V.  12

Index of Persons Litvina, Anna F.  12, 66, 215 Liverani, Mario 146 Logunov, Aleksandr P.  12 Looijenga, Tineke 141 Łowmiański, Henryk 122 Lucanus (39–65), Roman poet 77 Lugota, son of Ovstrat, Novgorodian (d. 1215) 319 Luka Zhidiata (Zhiriata), bishop of Novgorod (d. 1059) 200, 207, 209, 211, 266, 270 Luka, bishop or Rostov (d. 1189) 291, 292, 367 Lukin, Pavel V. 8, 172, 173 Lunt, Horace 91, 117 Lurie (Lur’e), Iakov S. 3, 4, 43, 49, 277, 280, 331, 333 Lut, son of Sveneld (the 10th century) 112, 316 Luttercott, Karl 87 Lybed’, sister of founders of Kiev 315 MacAirt, Seán 236, 238  McClure, Judith 163, 170 McCormick, Michael 33 McGurk, Patrick 258 McKitterick, Rosamond 68, 75 MacNeille, Eóin 236 Mäesalu, Ain 211 Maiakovskii, Ilia L. 282 Maiorov, Aleksandr V. 55 Makeeva, Irina I. 48 Mal, prince of the Drevliane (d. 945) 315 Malalas see John Malalas Malfred (d. 1000) 121, 127 Malko of Lubech, father of Malusha and Dobrynia 316 Malingoudi, Jana 22 Malusha, concubine of Sviatoslav (the 10th century) 200, 316 Malyshevichi, Novgorodian family (the 12th–13th centuries) 244, 307, 317, 318 Manuil (Manuel), bishop of Smolensk (the 12th century) 354, 357 Maremiana, abbess of St. Barbara’s, Novgorod (succeeded in 1167) 231 Markevich, Aleksei I. 7, 283, 285 Markevich, Andrei M.  12

471 Martirii, archbishop of Novgorod (d. 1199)  62, 188, 189, 217, 221, 222, 231, 380 Matilda, abbess of Essen (d. 1011) 84 Matuzova, Vera I.  12 Matveenko, Vera A. 46 Medyntseva, Albina A. 14, 20, 22, 24 Melnikova, Elena A. 5, 7, 12, 22, 72, 91, 100, 141, 147, 148, 156, 157, 159, 264 Mereminskii, Stanislav G.  12, 33, 73, 75 Meshcherskii, Nikita A. 48–50, 76 Methodius, St., archbishop of Great Moravia (815–885) 17, 26 Metlitskaia, Zoia Iu. 12, 239, 304, 314 Michalowski, Piotr 140, 146 Michelle, Robert 171 Mikhail, St., son of Vsevolod, prince of Chernigov and Kiev (d. 1246) 181 Mikhail, St., son of Iaroslav, prince of Tver and Vladimir (1272–1318) 68 Mikhail, son of Aleksandr, prince of Tver (1333–1399) 70 Mikhalko, son of Iurii, prince of Vladimir (d. 1176) 331, 358, 367, 368 Mikhalko (Mitrofan), posadnik of Novgorod (d. 1206) 62 Mikheev, Savva M. 5, 12, 19, 23, 25, 64, 105, 106, 108, 113, 115, 116, 118, 122, 125, 126, 135, 137, 138, 151, 196, 325 Miliutenko, Nadezhda I. 108, 120, 128–130, 135, 137–140, 198, 292, 293, 302 Miller, Molly 151–155 Miller, Sean 84 Miller, Thomas 78 Miller see also Müller Mirzoev, Vladimir G. 285 Mistisha, son of Sveneld (the 10th century) 316 Mitrofan, archbishop of Novgorod (d. 1223) 173, 217, 218, 223, 318, 402 Moisei, abbot of the Kievan Vydubichi Monastery (active in 1198) 296, 302, 303, 396 Moisei, archbishop of Novgorod (d. 1362)  217 Moldovan, Aleksandr M. 53, 161, 406 Morozov, Sergei A. 34 Mortensen, Lars Boje 108, 147, 150, 165, 282 Mouchard, Florent 351

472 Mstislav, son of Vladimir I, prince of Chernigov (d. 1036) 123 Mstislav, son of Iziaslav, prince of Novgorod (d. c. 1069) 200 Mstislav the Great, son of Vladimir Monomakh, prince of Kiev (1076–1132)  21, 27, 98, 171, 195, 196, 200, 203, 243, 274, 342, 353–355, 358, 362, 364, 365, 380, 385 Mstislav, son of Andrei, prince (d. 1172) 367, 377 Mstislav, son of Rostislav, grandson of Iurii, prince of Rostov and Novgorod (d. 1178) 62, 368 Mstislav the Brave, son of Rostislav, grandson of Mstislav, prince of Novgorod (d. 1180) 272–273, 299 Mstislav, son of Davyd, prince of Novgorod (d. 1189) 228 Mstislav the Fortunate (Udatnyi), son of Mstislav (d. 1228) 227, 229, 275 Мüller, Gerhard Friedrich 2 Мüller, Ludolf 94, 95 Murav’eva, Ludmila L. 40 Murianov, Mikhail F. 72 Mynors, R.A.B. 77, 78, 87, 152, 155, 156, 162–163, 164–169 Nasonov, Arsenii N. 4, 38, 43, 44, 105, 108, 120, 134, 135, 138, 246, 252, 280, 285, 296, 327, 335, 345, 346, 366 Nazarenko, Aleksandr V. 12, 53, 72, 94, 106, 108–110, 113, 116–120, 122, 123, 125–127, 133–138, 144, 151, 154, 199, 272, 300, 372, 379 Neradets, killer of Prince Iaropolk in 1086  361 Nestor, monk of the Kievan Cave Monastery (around 1100) 2, 37, 92, 98, 303, 328 Nevzorova, N.N. 49, 50 Nieke, Margaret R. 143 Nifont, archbishop of Novgorod (d. 1156)  172, 215–217, 220, 221, 231, 354, 357, 359, 384, 386 Nikephoros, patriarch of Constantinople (d. 829) 67, 79, 87, 261, 406, 407 Niketas Choniates, Byzantine historian (around 1200) 287

Index of Persons Nikifor, Kievan noble (the 11th century) 316 Nikifor, archimandrite of St. George’s, Novgorod (the 14th century) 249 Nikita, metropolitan of Kiev (d. 1125) 34 Nikolskii, Ivan M.  12 Nikolskii, Nikolai K. 114 Nikolskii, Sergei L.  12, 268 Nikon, abbot of the Kievan Cave Monastery (d. 1088) 104–106, 150, 202, 295, 303, 372, 392 Nikulin, Nikolai I. 7 Niphon see Nifont Novikova, Olga L. 48 Obolenskii, Mikhail A. 42, 292 O’Brien O’Keeffe, Catherine 240 Ó Cróinín, Dáibhí 68 O’Donoghue, Heather 12 Ogilvy, Jack D.A. 75, 76 Okhotnikova, Valentina I. 58 Olav II, St., king of Norway (d. 1030) 108 Oldřich, duke of Bohemia (d. 1034) 117 Oleg, prince of Kiev (d. 912) 315, 316, 328, 329  Oleg, son of Sviatoslav, prince of Drevliane’s land (d. 975) 112, 125, 130 Oleg, son of Sviatoslav, prince of Chernigov (d. 1115) 61, 347, 362–364 Olga, princess of Kiev (d. 969) 22, 108–111, 114, 116, 128, 140, 167, 288, 315 Olgovichi, branch of the Rurikids 347 Olma, Kievan noble (the 11th century) 316 Orchard, Nicholas 85 Orlov, Aleksandr S. 285 Orlova, Tatiana K.  12 Orlova-Guimon, Ludmila M.  12, 68 Orosius, Paul, historian (d. 420) 75 Ostromir, posadnik of Novgorod (the 11th century) 25, 103, 171, 200, 211, 212 Ostrowski, Donald 57, 58, 91–97, 101, 102, 158, 160, 170 Oswald, St., king of Northumbria (d. 641/2)  152, 154, 155 Ovstrat, Novgorodian (d. 1215) 319 Page, Raymond I. 86 Pakhomii, bishop or Rostov (d. 1216) 291, 292

Index of Persons Parkes, Malcolm B. 74, 340 Pashuto, Vladimir T.  72, 343 Patrick, St., bishop of Ireland (the 5th century) 54 Paul, Apostle 66 Paul the Deacon, historian (d. 799) 148 Paul Orosius see Orosius Paulinus, St., bishop of York (d. 644) 166, 168 Pautkin, Aleksei A. 344, 381 Pavel, Novgorodian (d. 1234) 244 Pechnikov, Mikhail V.  12, 253 Pelteret, David A.E. 87 Penda, king of Mercia (d. 655) 162 Pentkovskii, Aleksei M. 406 Perevoshchikov, Vasilii M. 297 Perfetskii, Evgenii Iu. 260 Peter the Great, tsar of Russia (1672– 1725) 399, 400 Petr, diak of Ostromir (the 11th century) 25 Petr, son of Ilia, Rus noble (d. 1147) 307 Petr, son of Borislav, Kievan noble (the 12th century) 295, 303, 322, 348 Petrov, Aleksei V. 265, 268 Petrov, Dmitrii A. 192 Petrova, Maria A.  12 Petrukhin, Vladimir Ia.  12, 50, 158 Pichkhadze, Anna A. 48, 49 Pimen, abbot of the Kievan Cave Monastery (the 12th century) 298, 299 Piotrovskaia, Elena K. 46, 48, 67, 68, 76, 405–408 Plummer, Charles 80, 152, 234 Podobedova, Olga I. 282 Podossinov (Podosinov), Aleksandr V.  12 Podskalsky, Gerhard 286 Pogodin, Mikhail P. 213, 219 Pokrovskii, Mikhail N. 280 Polikarp, archimadrite of the Kievan Cave Monastery (d. 1182) 297–299, 301, 366, 373 Polikarp, monk of the Kievan Cave Monastery (around 1200) 54 Polonskii, Dmitrii G. 300 Polud, Novgorodian (the 12th century) 320 Poppe, Andrzej 128, 135–137, 286, 371 Potin, Vsevolod M. 72 Pratt, David 87

473 Presniakov, Aleksandr E. 5, 315 Price, Richard 54 Priselkov, Mikhail D. 4, 7, 39, 104–106, 252, 286, 287, 291, 293, 296–300, 302, 303, 366, 407 Pritsak, Omeljan 23, 40 Procopius of Caesaria, Byzantine historian (the 6th century) 76 Prokhor, diak of Ostromir (the 11th century) 25 Prokhor, abbot of the Kievan Cave Monastery (d. 1126) 298, 299, 365, 372, 373 Prokhorov, Gelian M. 40, 41, 43, 59, 292, 333 Proksha, son of Malysh, Novgorodian (d. 1207) 318 Prozorovskii, Dmitrii I. 215, 216, 261 Rædwald, king of East Anglia (the 7th century) 164 Ray, Roger D. 166 Rogneda, wife of Vladimir I (d. 1000) 121, 122 Rogvolod, prince of Polotsk (d. 980) 315 Rollason, David 82 Roman, son of Mstislav, prince of Galich and Kiev (d. 1205) 287, 347 Romanos IV, Byzantine emperor (d. 1072)  51 Romanova, Anastasia A. 70, 407 Romanova, Olga V. 55 Romenskii, Aleksandr A. 138 Rostislav, son of Vladimir, prince of Tmutarakan (d. 1067) 202 Rostislav, son of Vsevolod, prince of Pereyaslavl-upon-Dnieper (1070–1093) 362 Rostislav, son of Iurii, prince of Pereyaslavlupon-Dnieper (d. 1151) 368 Rostislav, son of Mstislav, prince of Smolensk and Kiev (d. 1167) 62, 195, 202, 351, 354, 357 Rostislav, son of Rurik, prince of Kiev (1172–1218) 347 Rowley, Sharon M. 78 Rozhdestvenskaia, Milena V.  12 Rozhdestvenskaia, Tatiana V.  12, 16, 19 Rumble, Alexander 12 Rumiantseva, Marina F.  12

474 Rurik, founder of the dynasty 144, 157 Rurik, son of Rostislav, prince of Kiev (d. 1212) 287, 296, 302, 331, 347, 351, 367, 368 Rurik dynasty, Rurikids 8, 29, 53, 91, 156, 157, 171, 172, 204, 227, 229, 277, 302, 314, 315, 321, 323, 341, 351, 354, 358, 359, 371, 378, 382, 383, 388, 396 Rushforth, Rebecca J.  12, 86, 257, 258 Rybakov, Boris A. 198, 295, 297, 343, 348, 355 Rybina, Elena A. 13 Sæmundr the Wise, Icelandic scholar (1056–1133) 148, 150 Salmina, Marina A. 59 Saul, king of Israel 163 Savva, archimandrite of St. George’s, Novgorod (d. 1226) 62 Saxo Grammaticus, Danish historian (d. c. 1220) 148, 150 Schaeken, Jos 13, 14, 352 Schlözer, August Ludwig von  2, 7 Scully, Diarmuid 79 Sedov, Vladimir V. 61, 62 Sergii (Spasskii), archbishop 272 Sevalnev, Aleksandr V.  12, 252, 253 Shaikin, Aleksandr A. 160, 161 Shakhmatov, Aleksei A. 3, 4, 36, 40, 51, 93–95, 98–102, 104–106, 108–111, 113, 114, 119, 120, 129–131, 134, 137, 139, 171, 174, 191, 192, 195, 198, 199, 202, 206, 211, 213, 215, 219, 243, 247, 249, 259, 267, 280, 282, 286, 297, 328 Shaw, Richard 150–152, 166 Shchapov, Iaroslav N. 29, 88, 143, 194, 353, 399, 407 Shchavelev, Aleksei S. 5, 7, 12, 61, 118, 119, 149, 197, 264, 275 Shchegoleva, Ludmila I. 46 Shchek, founder of Kiev 315 Shelamanova, Nina B. 73, 74 Shepard, Jonathan 8, 281, 323, 359, 360, 364, 391 Shibaev, Mikhail A. 43, 263 Shletser see Schlözer Shmidt, Sigurd O. 406–408 Sidorov, Aleksandr I. 75

Index of Persons Silvestr, abbot of the Kievan Vydubichi Monastery, bishop of Pereyaslavl-uponDnieper (d. 1123) 36, 97–100, 294, 302, 303, 328, 329, 331, 336, 396 Sima Qian, Chinese historian (d. 86 B.C.)  146 Simeon ‘the Proud’, son of Ivan, prince of Moscow and Vladimir (d. 1353) 248 Simeon, archbishop of Novgorod (d. 1421) 217, 218, 231 Simon, bishop of Vladimir and Suzdal (d. 1226) 54, 292, 293 Sirenov, Aleksei V.  12 Sisam, Kenneth 88 Sivak, Svetlana I. 209 Skoren, deacon of St. Sophia Cathedral, Novgorod (active in 1296) 65, 262 Smith, Hugh 233 Smyth, Alfred P. 304 Snorri Sturluson, Icelandic scholar (1179– 1241) 148, 150 Sodko, Novgorodian (the 12th century)  191–193, 207 Sokolova, Lidiia V. 26 Solomon, king of Israel 170 Soloviev, Sergei M. 113 Sotnikova, Marina P. 142 Sozon, St. Martyr 253 Spasskii, Ivan G. 142 Spiridon, archbishop of Novgorod (d. 1249) 216, 217, 223, 224, 227, 318 Stefan, bishop of Novgorod (d. 1068) 201 Stefan, abbot of the Kievan Cave Monastery, bishop of Vladimir-of-Volhynia (d. 1094) 295 Stefanovich, Petr S. 8, 101, 284, 328 Stepan, Novgorodian (the 12th century) 15 Stepan the Bearded, diak of Moscow (the 15th century) 278 Stepanov, Nikolai V. 4, 399–401, 403 Stephen I, St., king of Hungary (d. 1038)  108, 117 Stevenson, William H. 82, 83 Stodnick, Jacqueline 86, 88 Stoliarova, Lubov V. 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 64, 65, 73, 74, 212, 255–257, 262, 263, 325, 405–407

Index of Persons Story, Joanna 68, 81, 85, 154, 155 Strakhova, Olga B. 115 Stratonov, Irinarkh A. 269 Stroev, Pavel M. 2 Suetonius, Gaius Tranquillus, Roman historian (d. after 122 A.D.) 76 Sukhino-Khomenko, Denis V.  12, 72 Sukhomlinov, Mikhail I. 2, 7, 282, 285 Sven Aggesen, Danish historian (the 12th century) 148, 150 Sveneld, Rus voevoda (the 10th century) 112, 113, 315, 316 Sverdlov, Mikhail B. 338 Sviatopolk I ‘the Accursed’, son of Iaropolk, prince of Kiev (d. 1019) 23, 123, 125, 127, 142, 154, 199, 338, 341 Sviatopolk II, son of Iziaslav, prince of Kiev (d. 1113) 61, 103, 200, 362–364, 379–381 Sviatopolk, son of Mstislav, prince of Novgorod (d. 1154) 63, 221, 351, 357 Sviatoslav, son of Igor, prince of Kiev (d. 972) 21, 23, 111, 112, 125, 130, 140, 161, 316, 380 Sviatoslav, son of Iaroslav, prince of Chernigov and Kiev (1027–1076) 67, 199, 200, 205, 360, 361, 405 Sviatoslav, son of Oleg, prince of NovgorodSeversky (d. 1164) 215, 261, 307, 342, 353, 356, 403 Sviatoslav, son of Rostislav, prince of Novgorod and Toropets (d. 1170) 62, 195 Sviatoslav, son of Vsevolod, prince of Yuriev and Vladimir (1195–1253) 370 Sviatoslav, son of Mstislav, prince of Novgorod and Smolensk (the 13th century) 179 Sviatskii, Daniil O. 245 Sylvester see Silvestr Symeon of the Admirable Mountain, St 255 Symeon Logothetes, Byzantine writer (the 10th century) 46 Symeon see also Simeon, Simon Szarmach, Paul E. 75 Szerbowitz-Wetzor, Olgerd P. 91 Tacitus, Publius Cornelius, Roman historian (c. 56–c. 120) 76 Tatishchev, Vasilii N. 2, 43, 198

475 Teshata, dweller of Pskov (the 13th century) 29 Temčinas (Temchin), Sergejus (Sergei) Iu. 53, 118, 119 Terebenin, Vladimir S. 38 Theodore, St. Martyr 60 Theodoricus Monachus, Norwegian historian (the 12th century) 150 Theodosius see Feodosii Theophanes the Confessor, Byzantine chronicler (d. 817/8) 48 Thietmar, bishop of Merseburg (d. 1018)  109, 123, 125, 126, 135 Thorkell the Tall, earl (the 11th century) 258 Tikhomirov, Ivan A. 259 Tikhomirov, Mikhail N. 38, 114, 134, 406 Timberlake, Alan 3, 5, 19, 36, 38, 99, 100, 101, 103, 106, 109, 161, 185, 187, 189, 226, 290, 292, 294, 295, 325, 336 Timofei, abbot of the Kievan Cave Monastery (active in 1130) 298, 299, 365 Timofei, Novgorodian sexton (the 13th century) 20, 37, 214–216, 223–225, 227, 260, 303 Tishin, Vladimir V. 350 Titus Livius, Roman historian (d. 12 or 17 A.D.) 76 Tolochko, Oleksiy (Aleksei) P.  12, 37, 55, 56, 99, 107, 108, 110, 122, 132, 133, 145, 149, 158, 195, 269, 279, 296, 402 Toporov, Vladimir N. 7 Topychkanov, Andrei V. 284 Tristram, Hildegard L.C. 86 Trotskii, Isaak M. 243 Tsyb, Sergei V. 105, 111, 114, 120, 138, 399–401, 403 Tugutov, Aleksei I. 8 Turilov, Anatolii A. 88, 108, 198 Turlygin, Anton A. 15 Tury, prince of Turov 315 Tvorogov, Oleg V. 6, 34, 47–52, 99, 101, 328, 334 Ukhanova, Elena V. 19 Uleb, Novgorodian (the 11th century) 210 Ulianov, Mark Iu.  12, 146, 153, 390 Upyr Likhoi, Novgorodian priest (the 11th century) 20, 25

476 Usachev, Andrei S.  12, 156 Uspenskii, Boris A. 18, 66 Uspenskii, Fedor B. 12, 215 Utkin, A.A. 48 Václav see Viacheslav Varlaam, abbot of the Kievan Cave Monastery (before c. 1062) 295 Varlaam, St., abbot of the Khutyn Monastery near Novgorod (around 1200) 29, 171 Varvara, abbess of St. Barbara’s, Novgorod (succeeded in 1195) 231 Vasilii, annalist (around 1100) 36, 55, 303, 350, 363 Vasilii, abbot of the Kievan Cave Monastery (from 1182) 298–301, 373 Vasilii, Novgorodian monk (active in 1262)  376 Vasilii, son of Iaroslav, prince of Kostroma and Vladimir (d. 1276) 68 Vasilii Kalika, archbishop of Novgorod (d. 1352) 217, 218, 225, 245–249, 261 Vasilii II the Dark, son of Vasilii I, prince of Moscow (d. 1462) 277, 278 Vasilko, son of Rostislav, prince of Terebovl (d. 1124) 36, 54, 321, 322, 350, 363, 364, 388 Venediktov, Aleksei A.  12 Viacheslav (Václav), St., duke of Bohemia (d. 935/6) 62 Viacheslav, son of Vladimir, prince of Kiev (d. 1154/5) 342, 348, 350 Viacheslav, son of Proksha, Novgorodian (d. 1243) 224, 318 Vilkul, Tetiana (Tatiana) L. 5, 6, 12, 48–52, 55–57, 94, 95, 97, 101, 102, 110, 127, 172, 192, 195, 209, 227, 281, 296, 303, 327, 330, 345, 346, 351, 356, 364, 379, 408 Vinokurova, Marina V.  12 Virgil, Roman poet (70–19 B.C.) 168 Vladimir I, St., son of Sviatoslav, prince of Kiev (d. 1015) 10, 20–24, 53, 65, 67, 91, 93, 104, 106–110, 114–118, 121, 124, 125, 127–140, 142–144, 146, 150, 151, 153, 154, 156, 157, 160, 161, 165–170, 199, 200, 265, 267, 272, 315, 316, 353, 377, 391, 392, 394, 399

Index of Persons Vladimir, son of Iaroslav, prince of Novgorod (1020–1052) 123–125, 200, 202, 204, 207, 209, 211, 266, 270–272 Vladimir II Monomakh, son of Vsevolod, prince of Kiev (1053–1125) 15, 18, 25, 26, 35, 61, 65, 66, 87, 97, 98, 140, 281, 302, 322, 323, 347, 354, 358, 362–365, 371, 380, 385, 391, 394 Vladimir, son of Vsevolod, prince of Novgorod (active in 1136) 356 Vladimir, son of Davyd, prince of Chernigov (d. 1151) 364 Vladimir, son of Iaroslav, prince of Galich (d. 1199) 299 Vladimir, son of Sviatoslav, prince of Vshchizh (d. 1201) 41 Vladimir, son of Vasilko, prince of Vladimirof-Volhynia (d. 1288) 402 Vodoff, Wladimir 243, 247, 249, 253, 259 Vodolazkin, Evgenii G. 6, 46, 47, 50, 51, 71, 77, 158, 285 Vogelsang, Kai 390 Volchii Khvost, Rus voevoda (active in 984)  315 Vorotislav, Kievan noble (the 11th century)  316 Vovin, Aleksei A.  8 Vovina-Lebedeva, Varvara G.  2, 3, 6 Vseslav, son of Iziaslav (d. 1003) 121 Vseslav, son of Briachislav, prince of Polotsk and Kiev (d. 1101) 200, 205, 264, 272–276, 360, 361 Vseslav, son of Vasilko, prince of Polotsk (the 12th century) 273 Vsevolod, son of Iaroslav, prince of Kiev (d. 1093) 105, 120, 121, 199, 200, 360–362 Vsevolod (Gavriil), son of Mstislav, prince of Novgorod (d. 1138) 27, 63, 65, 120, 171, 216, 217, 243, 261, 274, 354, 355–358, 403 Vsevolod, son of Oleg, prince of Chernigov and Kiev (d. 1146) 356, 403 Vsevolod (Dimitrii) the ‘Big Nest’ (Bolshoe Gnezdo), son of Iurii, prince of Vladimir (d. 1212) 67, 68, 228, 291, 292, 302, 331, 347, 358, 366–370, 372, 379, 385, 387, 392, 402 Vsevolod, son of Konstantin, prince of Yaroslavl (born 1210) 370

477

Index of Persons Vvedenskii, Anton M. 129 Vyshata, Rus noble (the 11th century) 103, 202, 315 Vysheslav, son of Vladimir, prince of Novgorod (around 1000) 200 Vysotskii, Sergei A. 28, 60, 61 Vytautas (Vitovt), great prince of Lithuania (d. 1430) 278 Wallis, Faith 77 Webber, Teresa 258, 259 Westgard, Joshua A. 82 White, Hayden 33 Whitelock, Dorothy 78, 87 William of Malmesbury, English historian (the 12th century) 83 Willibrord, St., Anglo-Saxon missionary (d. 739) 87, 155 Woden, progenitor of Anglo-Saxon kings 163, 164 Wood, Ian N. 77

Wood, Susan 151–153, 155 Wormald, Fransis 155 Yanin see Ianin Yaropolk see Iaropolk Yaroslav see Iaroslav Zabelin, Ivan E. 283 Zalizniak, Andrei A. 13, 18, 20, 24, 25, 29, 344, 345 Zenkovsky, Serge 57 Zhiriata see Luka Zhidiata Zhiroshka, Novgorodian (the 12th century) 320 Zhivlova, Nina Iu. 156 Zhivov, Viktor M. 18, 19, 22, 49, 71, 76, 285 Zhukovskaia, Lidia P. 67, 405, 406 Zimin, Aleksandr A. 25, 174, 198, 267–269 Zuckerman, Constantine 105, 108, 111, 113, 115–118, 122, 125, 126, 191, 203, 269 Zupitza, Julius 233