Tatiana Vilkul (Тетяна Вілкул)

‘LUDIE’ (PEOPLE) AND PRINCE IN CONSTRUCTIONS OF 11th–13th CENTURY CHRONICLERS (in Russian)
The book explores the relationships between people and prince in Rus’, studying the phenomenon of popular assemblies (“veche”). The author focuses on defining the descriptive principles used by the sources when depicting interactions between “people” and prince, and examines these through the prism of the chroniclers’ attitudes and narrative constructions. Attempts at recovering the historical reality behind the texts are also made, with a discussion of the social composition and competence of popular assemblies.
The first chapter surveys aspects of “social” terminology inherent in descriptions of popular unrest in the pre-Mongol narrative sources. The term “veche” and its range of meanings are examined, as are the correlations between the direct accounts of “veche” and indirect allusions to comparable situations. Specific usage of terms in the early chronicle compilations (Laurentian, Hypatian, and the Novgorod first chronicles) is scrutinized, including such terms as “liudie”, “narod”, “ves grad”, “druzhina”, “sbor”, boyare”, and “ot mala i do velika”, and this usage is analyzed against the background of similar terminology present in the Slavonic translations of Scripture, Byzantine chronographic literature, and hagiography. The author stresses that “social” terminology is fluid and lacks fixed meaning in accounts of popular assemblies.
The second chapter (“Narrative modeling in the parallel chronicle accounts”) treats the parallel accounts of conflict situations (i.e. accounts of the same conflict in two or more chronicles) and demonstrates that chronicles do not mirror the historical facts of political and social life. A sample consisting of several dozen parallel accounts enables the identification of three narrative models that guide the chronicles’ presentation: “exoneration or disapproval of a prince”, “conflicts with a prince” and “profile of a prince”. Variations in narration found in the parallel accounts are not random: a series of accounts reveals stable complexes of basic narrative elements (formants). The first two models (“exoneration or disapproval of a prince” and “conflicts with a prince”) exist in two basic versions: one that justifies and one that disapproves of a ruler. At times, these are complemented by the “neutral” version. These two versions mirror each other: formants with positive attributes are being substituted for the formants with negative attributes. For instance, the passivity of a character in one account corresponds to his active role in another; a positive profile is contrasted with a negative one. In two of the models, the chroniclers note disturbances of the “people” only if the exoneration of a prince and his conduct is intended. The general behavior of the town dwellers thus depends on the “pluses” and “minuses” set by the narrative.
The third chapter (“Composition and competence of the ‘veche’”) attempts to outline the competence resulting from the social composition of popular assemblies. Given the limitations imposed by surviving records and the narrative nature of the sources – the nomenclature of social categories is situational and artificial, and the chroniclers are often inclined to manipulate accounts of unrest – the author discusses potential ways of solving the issue of the composition of the “veche” and its competence. Unfortunately, the social composition, the number of participants, and the frequency of the assemblies are all but impossible to establish with any precision. Nevertheless, this bleak outlook is balanced by some positive inferences: one may assume that “veche” (participants in the assembly) and “druzhyna” (the princely retinue) were not isolated groups. It would appear that in times of social stability, these groups included the same individuals, embodying the society’s social elite. The groups only split when two leaders (princes) challenge each other and compete for the popular mandate. Furthermore, designations of large groups are used in the sources as substitutes for minor ones and vice versa. As a result, a prince or several high-ranking lords may represent “the whole realm”. On the other hand, when the chronicler was tasked with concealing the prince’s reprehensible conduct, “people” may stand for a few individuals of high rank.
The last chapter summarizes the chroniclers’ notions of interaction between the ruler and his people. Among the principal findings: in virtually all descriptions of “popular” activity, the chronicler nevertheless focuses on a prince as the central element of the narration; the notions of just and unjust popular assemblies depend on judgments concerning the “loyalty” and “disloyalty” shown by “people” to a ruler; the “veche” theme in the chronicles is marked by anxiety – for these are the moments of discontent that break the bond between the ruler and the people. The surviving records lack authentic statements about “veche” that would enable the recovery of the chroniclers’ attitudes toward popular assemblies. Only the parallel texts, in which the chroniclers’ notions make up the structural core of the narration, enable the retrieval of the ancient authors’ attitudes.

Old Rus’ historical texts can be divided into two categories: chroniclers (letopistsy) were tasked with writing “the history of the fatherland,” while “the world history” belonged to the domain of translators of the Byzantine chronicles and histories, as well as to compilers of chronographs (compendia). The monograph is the first to combine these two subfields of source studies.
Both areas contain intricate problems, the solution of which stretches over decades. In particular, any attempt to reconsider the relationships between pre-Mongol Kievan chronicles and early Rus’ chronographs would by necessity engage us into polemics with influential theories proposed by Alexey Shakhmatov and Vasiliy Istrin.
Chronographic texts offer a key to the puzzles of chronicle studies (letopisevedeniye) and vice versa, because both categories of writings served as reference texts for each other. However, the author of this book is primarily concerned with controversies in the field of letopisevedeniye; therefore, translated chronicles and chronographs are viewed through the lens of the issues posed by the early Rus’ chronicles. My arguments rest on the interpretation of chronographic quotations and paraphrases in the chronicles. Usually the sources allow us to trace the quotations back to particular versions of the text, to define various modes of citations and to gauge the ideological influence of world history works on original Rus’ writings. I am trying to identify if the quotations were borrowed from the complete translations of Byzantine chronicles that were popular in Rus’, or, conversely, from some Rus’ compilations (chronographs). With regard to the chronographs, special attention is given to those components which enable us to date them and, above all, the so-called “Chronograph po velikomu izlozheniju” (“…from the great narration”) which is generally believed to be the earliest of such compendia.
The present monograph comprises 4 chapters. Chapter 1 describes the textual criticism methodology, the historiography of interrelations between translated and original Rus’ chronicles; additionally, it provides a brief overview of my sources. Chapter 2 is devoted to the Primary Chronicle, the First Novgorodian Chronicle of the Younger Recension with chronographic components of both writings, including Hamartolos’s and Malalas works and the texts of “Chronograph po velikomu izlozheniju” family. Chapter 3 focuses on the early 13th century Kievan chronicle, covering a series of common fragments of the Laurentian and the Hypathian chronicles, and the traces of chronographic borrowings, which in conjunction offer a reliable basis for the stratification of the text of the Kievan chronicle. Chapter 4 deals with the evidence on the origins of chronographic compilations, examining the Chronographic Alexandria (Old Slavonic translation of Pseudo-Callisthenes’ Alexander Romance) as a whole and an insertion from Hamartolos in it, the Old Slavonic Octateuch, and Nikita Heraclea’s commentary on the Sermons of Gregory Theologian, i.e. the texts that allow us to date the chronographs, at least approximately.
In the present monograph, a number of issues are explored for the first time. These include a complex of chronographic quotations and parallels in the early 13th century Kievan chronicle, the origin of the chronographs’ initial parts, etc. In many other cases, a close examination of the sources calls for a radical revision of Shakhmatov’s and Istrin’s established theories and concepts.

Old Slavonic Book of Exodus forms a part of Pentateuch, Palaea interpretata and chronographs; many Old Rus’ writers used excerpts from Exodus in their compilations. A full translation of Exodus from Greek was made probably in Bulgaria in the time of King Simeon, at the beginning of the 10th century. This full translation, or so-called “chetij text”, has never been published yet. Critical edition of the Slavonic Bible is an old dream of slavists; the present edition aims at filling some gaps in this area. The publication is accomplished on the base of the Vilensky MS (the 16th century) of the 13th-century so-called Judean chronograph, with variant readings from the oldest textual witness of Slavonic Exodus, Troitsky (Lavrsky) Pentateuch (the 14th century), and some other manuscripts of the Chronographical, Russian and South Slavic recensions.

The paper explores the story of «Bohmite» (Mohammed) placed in the texts of the Chronicle by George Hamartolos and the family of the Chronograph according to the Great Narration. «Bohmit» for denotation of the prophet Mohammed appeared in early East Slavic writings only; South Slavic ones have no traces of such a name. While there are few sources about Muslim prophet in the Old Rus’ian period, the Hamartolos tells on this topic in detail. The story includes a biography and a medieval description of the teachings of Mohammed, as well as the «Bohmitic» concept of paradise. The Chronicle influenced the Tale of Bygone Years in its account of the preparation of the baptism of Rus’ (986-987) and other Old Rus'ian texts through it. Also, the Hamartolos’ story was included fragmentarily in the Trinity Chronograph, Chronographic Palea, the Ellinsky (Hellenic) Chronicle of the second redaction, etc. The aim of this study is to provide a comparative analysis of chronographic texts, as well as to make these sources of the Primary Chronicle easily available to scholars working in the field of medieval Ukraine and Russia. In terms of methods, this study applied textual and literary criticism. The academic novelty outputs a prime comparative analysis of the story about «Bohmit» in chronographic texts. Versions useful in further work on sources are published in the attached tables. Conclusions. Whereas the author of the Tale of Bygone Years borrowed only content from the Hamartolos (there are no direct citations), long fragments of later are reflected in the family of the chronographic texts. Though the story did not avoid abbreviations of phrases and words and plentiful changes in grammatical forms, there are practically no lexical substitutions. In general, the compiler of the Сhronograph tried to simplify the narration, avoiding opacity and making it more understandable for the reader. Βranches of the Chronograph uncover further transformations of the text. In particular, the Complete Palaea has some of its own omissions, and Ellinsky Chronicle contaminates two versions. The study reveals interesting features of the chronographic texts that clearly indicate that medieval Christian bookmen hard worked with the narration about the teacher of their Muslim neighbors, demonstrating, at the same time, the typical manner of treatment of the sources by the chronographer, which concerned the problems of early Old Russian chronicles.

Abstract: The presentation of the religion of “Bokhmit” (i.e. Muhammad) by the Bulgarian missionaries at the court of Prince Vladimir, reported by the Rus Primary Chronicle s.a. 986, is based upon the Slavonic translation of the Chronicle of George Hamartolos. The same Hamartolos’ text is preserved, in somewhat modified form, in the Chronograph according to the Great Narration. The author compares in detail the narrations by the Greek and the Rus chroniclers. Such a comparison highlights the intentions of the latter: what he opted to use, and what he omitted when composing the legendary narrative of the choice of the faith by Vladimir. The resulting narration was very mundane so that even dogmatic questions were reported as ‘not to eat pork, not to drink wine’, etc. The understanding of the principles of the composition helps to clarify the very devisings of the choice of the faith, including the dialogue of Vladimir with the Germans (“nemtsy”). Two possible ways of the formation of this narrative are suggested in the paper.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the Chronograph on the Great Narration family and other Old Russian compendia as well as its sources within the framework of the description of life of Alexander the Great and to restore the composition of the proto-text. Such features as repeated or on the contrary omitted fragments allow us to trace the stages of assembling the compilation. The study applies the methodology of textual criticism, literary criticism and comparative source studies. Article examine Alexander the Great story after the texts of the early extant representatives of the Chronograph on the Great Narration: the Trinity chronograph and the Complete Chronographic Palaea. Early editions of the Chronographic Alexandria, as well as the Slavonic Chronicle by George Hamartolos are systematically compared and analyzed by Vasily Istrin and other scholars. A series of textual tables demonstrates similarities and differences in the versions, numerous abbreviations, lexical substitutions and form substitutions, etc. Particular attention is paid to direct coincicences or any cases of similarities in the extant representatives of the Chronograph on the Great Narration versus other compendia which are not a part of that family. Conclusions. To describe the reign of Alexander the Great some borrowings from Slavonic Hamartolos were already incorporated into the chronographs along with the Chronographic Alexandria of the 1st edition. While the proto-text of the Chronograph on the Great Narration did not include the direct inserts from the Chronographic Alexandria, it used a corresponded record of the Slavonic Hamartolos. However, the compiler made a large number of abbreviations and introduced many of his own innovations in this piece. As for extant representatives of our Chronograph family, the Complete Chronographic Palaea is the closest version to the proto-text of the Chronograph on the Great Narration despite the fact that many other Palaea's readings are secondary. Meanwhile, the Trinity chronograph has its further individual divergences layered on common features of the Chronograph (above all it has incorporated the Chronographic Alexandria of the 2nd edition).

Some parts of the Complete Chronographic Palaea contain fragments of an Old Slavonic translation of the Bible, which was intended for personal home or monastic reading (chetij in Old Slavonic). The origin of this translation has not received much scholarly attention so far. The main purpose of this paper is to identify the version of the Book of Genesis used in the Palaea by comparing the textual traditions of the Slavonic Pentateuch, Octateuch and chronographs. The Complete Сhronographic Palaea is one of the Old Russian compilations containing both the Old Testament translations and chronographic sources. Its biblical part is built on the material of the Palaea Interpretata, as well as on the Slavonic “chetij” biblical translation, while the chronographic part has excerpts from the translated Byzantine chronicles after the version of the so­called Chronograph po velikomu izlozheniju with additions. Overall, the manuscript tradition of the Slavonic Octateuch includes three families. While interpolations from the Genesis in the Complete Palaea reveal little resemblance to two of them, namely, Russian and South Slavic recensions, we see dozens overlaps with the group of the Trinity Pentateuchs (Russian State Library, f.304. I, No.1 and No.45). The text of this group belongs to the third, Chronographic recension of the “chetij” Octateuch with specific features covering dozens of examples of identical innovations. However, some discrepancies with the Trinity Pentateuchs and convergence with the original readings preserved in two other recensions show that the compiler of the Complete Palaea was dealing with an earlier common protographe. The Chronographic recension itself was divided into two groups (Trinity Pentateuchs and Iudejsky Chronograph) approximately in the late 1100s or early 1200s and is now represented by only five manuscripts. Therefore, the evidence of the Complete Chronographic Palaea is important both for the textual analysis of the Old Slavonic biblical translations and for the history of the Old Russian chronographs as well.

The copy of the Ostrog Bible from the collections of Vernadsky National library of Ukraine (Kyr.4476p) contains a significant number of handwritten marginalia, representing an attempt of one of its readers to comment and translate biblical concepts from the Old Church Slavonic into the prosta mova. Especially interesting are his notes on the so-called Laws from the Book of Exodus with interpretations of legal formulas.
Its owner was Ioanykiі Seniutovych, abbot of St. Michael’s Golden-Domed Monastery (mentioned in 1710, 1713) and Archimandrite of Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra (1715–1729). Though the intellectual heritage of this Kyiv hierarch has not attracted the attention of scholars so far, a collection of books he left behind, most of which are commentaries on the Holy Scriptures, is known. Lesser known is the fact that Seniutovych himself or someone from the persons close to him elaborated his copy of Ostrog Bible so that each page contained various traces of his (their) thoughtful reading. Systematic comparison of Cyrillic and much more rare Latin notes on the margins with the 16th century Catholic and Protestant editions of the Bible brought an unexpected find. While on the whole the parallels have revealed the heavy impact of the Polish biblical translations, the main source for Ostrog Bible reader and commentator came to be the Krakow 1599 year edition of Jakub Wujek, which demonstrates literal coincidences of the texts. It seems that our reader has undertaken the difficult task of juxtaposing the Old Church Slavonic translation from the Greek Septuagint with the Polish translation from the Latin Vulgate. On the way of analyzing the texts he made both mistakes and correct conclusions regarding biblical semantics. Thus, the case study of just one fragment of this extremely interesting copy involves a lot of issues concerning the understanding of the Holy Scripture in Kyiv in the late 17th – 18th centuries.

The article examines new date regarding the history and transmission both the Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptisati, the important Byzantine source translated into Old Church Slavonic in the 11th century known as the Book of Jacob the Jew, and some Old Russian texts, with the emphasis on the Tikhonravov’ Chronograph. The background of my examination is provided by recent researches of A.Pereswetoff-Morath, which survey much borrowings from the Book of Jacob in the Kyivan Metropolitan Hilarion’s Sermon on Law and Grace and the Primary Chronicle or A Tale of Begone Years. The aim of this study is to expand the base of comparison of Doctrina Jacobi with Old Russian texts by drawing new source and specify features, applied by the authors of these compilations. The methods are textological, including textual and literary criticism. The academic novelty is tracing all quatations from Doctrina Jacobi in the Tikhonravovsky chronograph. Though was a compilation of the16th century, it largely consists of the very early texts, what determine its significance for the history of the booklearning in Old Rus’. Tikhonravovsky chronograph provides reliable material for textological
comparison, because it offers a bulk quotations from the Book of Jacob (more than 90 citations), while there are only a dozen ones in the Sermon of Kyivan Metropolitan Hilarion, and approximately
two dozens in the Primary Chronicle. Conclusions. The similar rearrangings of biblical citations in Tikhonravovsky chronograph and the Primary Chronicle point to an unknown early author from the
11th century that made a selection and reworked fragments from the Book of Jacob linking them in a totally different order. He create a lengthy “biblical collection”, that served as intermediary between
the translated Byzantine and original Old Russian sources. Taking into considerations these new materials, we have now construct the scheme of relations between our texts as: from the Book of Jacob to the lengthy “biblical collection” and from later to the Kyivan Metropolitan Hilarion’s Sermon on Law and Grace and the Primary Chronicle and so on. In the all, Tikhonravovsky chronograph shed new light on intricate problems of Kyivan Rus’ writing.

Abstract: The Book of Jacob the Jew (Yakov Zhidovin) is an early Slavonic translation of the Byzantine text Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati (634 or 640). The writers of Old Rus’ valued this polemical tract highly and borrowed from it liberally, as evidenced by such works as Sermon on Law and Grace (mid eleventh century), Tale of Bygone Years (early twelfth century), and Tikhonravov’s Chronograph (known in a single manuscript of the sixteenth century). Several parts of the Slavonic Book of Jacob display in turn an affinity with the Slavonic translation of George Hamartolos’ Chronicle, which has influenced the entire Old Russian historiographic tradition. Textual relations between the Slavonic Hamartolos and the Book of Jacob could be explained in two ways. According to the first scenario, the Slavonic translator of Doctrina Jacobi used the Chronicle directly; according to the second scenario, the borrowings were interpolated either by a later editor of the Book of Yakov or in only one branch of the manuscript tradition. The first hypothesis suggests that Hamartolos’ Chronicle might have already been known in Kiev prior to the year 1050.

Many of 11th–13th-century Old Rus chroniclers used translated Byzantine chronographic texts in their compositions. Borrowings from those texts serve as important textual markers, showing chroniclers’ preferences and distinguishing
di ferent source complexes in their hands. So, they shape our interpretations of the texts and provide invaluable testimony for the reconstruction of the process of the chronicles’ composition. One of the most important representatives of Old Rus secular literature, the 13th-century Galič-Volhynian Chronicle, is a complex bookish text that scholars have repeatedly tried to “stratify”. The ultimate goal was to define the portions or even the individual records made by each chronicler. Nonetheless, by now only two levels have been reliably reconstructed: the “Galician” (text for the 1200s–1260s) and the “Volhynian” (text for the 1260s–1290s) sections of this chronicle. The precise boundary between them has been localized s.a. 1260, 1264, or 1266. Starting from the studies by Alexander Orlov (1926) attention has been paid to the fact that the two sections differ, among other things, in the manner of borrowing from literary sources. The borrowings from the Chronicle of John Malalas, the History of the Jewish War by Flavius Josephus, the Chronicle of George Hamartolos, and the Alexander Romance (Alexandria) provide the most important data. While we find plenty of direct quotationsand allusions to the translated Byzantine chronicles in the “Galician” section, the similar material in the “Volhynian” section is much poorer. It is also believed that the compiler of the “Volhynian” section did not borrow directly from the chronographic sources, but used such borrowings via older chronicles, such as the Primary Chronicle and, especially, the Kievan Chronicle, which served as the main model for him. The revision of some textual data shows that this idea of intermediacy does not stand the scrutiny. Scholars were focused mainly on the borrowings from the Chronicle of Malalas, which cannot be a really good indicator in the analysis of the composing of the “Volhynian” section. First of all, the last exact parallels to Malalas’ text are found in the annals for the late 1250s. After that we see only non-unique expressions or rare words which might appear due to random coincidences. We can even assume that real quotations from this source stop after 1258 at all. Much more stable results reveal the comparing of the “Volhynian” section with the History of the Jewish War. Being the favorite text of the “Galician” compiler, Flavius’ History continued to be cited by the “Volhynian” one. Some quotations occur in the last section only. Others, although appear in both sections several times, more accurately are reproduced in the “Volhynian” section. All this means that the “Volhynian” author worked with the chronographic texts independently. So, there is no change in the complex of sources at c. 1260, but just a shift of the interest from chronographic sources to older Rus chronicles. The “Volhynian” compiler cannot be blamed for that, because the Kievan Chronicle and the Primary Chronicle were much more suitable models for his own entries than the translated chronicles. At the same time, this means that all the Galič-Volhynian Chronicle could be compiled at one time, either by one scribe whose manner of work changed, or by a group of scribes.

Захоплення та пограбування Києва 1169 року військами великої коаліції князів під проводом сина Андрія Боголюбського, як правило, зараховують до справ цього сильного суздальського князя. Деякі історики вважали, що він навіть змінив порядок наслідування в Давній Русі. Якщо раніше князі боролися за Київ і статус підвищувався після входження в столицю, то Андрій відправив військо із Суздаля й посадив свого брата Гліба на київському столі. Справи велися руками його старшого сина, Мстислава Андрійовича, утім, керівну роль виконував суздальський князь. Принаймні, так повідомляє придворний літописець Андрія Боголюбського. Однак чи було це тріумфом успішного дистанційного керування Київською землею?

The Interpretative Apocalypse in the Old Rus' Primary Chronicle.
The importance of the theme of the Second Advent in the Old Rus' historical writings, linked with general problem of historical events' perception through the prism of Sacred History in the Middle Ages, is widely discussed in the scholarly literature. The matters of apocalyptic expectations in the chronicles, histories and quasi-historical works in most detail are elaborated on the text of the Rus' oldest chronicle: the Primary Chronicle or the Tale of Bygone Years (Povĕst' vremennykh lĕt). However, the textual base for such studies is rather pure because we have not ample quotations from the Revelation of John here, while the long direct ones are practically non-existed. The text of the Revelation together with the interpretations of Andrew of Caesarea was translated into Old Slavonic early enough, so we can assume that all Old Rus' chroniclers were acquainted with Interpretative (Tolkovy) Apocalypse. Nevertheless, no part of the last book of the Bible was included into liturgical readings. Therefore, perhaps, we have comparatively low figure of quotes from the Revelation in the Old Rus' writings. What is below present an attempt to collect citations and allusions from the Interpretative Apocalypse of the Primary Chronicle. A close reading reveals a few more than dozen parallels, most of which, regretfully, are not too secure to draw on.

Співавтор Михайло А. Собуцький //Mediaevalia Ucrainica: Ментальність та історія ідей, т.IV (Київ, 1995), 5–37.
Статья древняя, одна из первых моих. С.Л. Николаев считает, что двойные да-конструкции являются первоначальным, а не вторичным вариантом (моя искренняя признательность Сергею Львовичу за критику).

The authors of the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle represented themselves as skilled bookmen, leaning on the range of texts: books of the Bible, the translated Byzantine chronicles, hagiographic writings and so on. As already have been noted in the previous studies, the Chronicle of John Malalas wаs amonst most favorit sources of our chroniclers. There are many precise quotes and rare loanwords from Malalas in the Galician part especially. The systematic study of all borrowings provides new date for the reconstruction of the composing of the Galician-Volhynian Сhronicle.
Автори Галицько-Волинського літопису показали себе як досвідчені книжники, що спиралися у своїй роботі над літописом на широке коло книжних текстів: книги Біблії, перекладні візантійські хроніки, агіогра-фія тощо. Як уже відзначалося у літературі, слов янський переклад Хроніки Іоана Малали виступав одним із найважливіших джерел наших літописців. Зокрема, у «галицькій» частині маємо велику кількість точ-них цитат та запозиченої рідкісної лексики з Малали. Систематичні студії над цими запозиченнями додають нові свідчення у реконструкцію формування Галицько-Волинського літопису.

Біблійні цитати у Галицько-Волинському літописі (ГВЛ) ніколи систематично не вивчалися, у численних виданнях цього зводу вони, на жаль, як правило не відзначені. У представленій статті досліджуються версії залучених галицьким та волинським книжниками біблійних книг, а також особливості посилань на Біблію у цьому цінному давньруському джерелі та способи їх компоновки з деякими іншими книжними джерелами. Ключові слова: Галицько-Волинський літопис, середньовічні літописи, Давня Русь, рецепція Біблії, текстуальна критика. The Galicia-Volhynian Chronicle's biblical quotations and allusions never have been studied systematically. Regrettably, numerous editions of this chronicle have not marked it's citations from the Bible. The present article deals with the versions of the biblical books had drawn to the chronicle by the Galician and Volhynia scribes, and also surveys parameters of references and layout with some other bookish sources in this valuable Old Russian text.

The campaign of Rus’ against Constantinople in 941 was reflected in several sources. In particular, the Primary Chronicle (Povest’ vremennykh let) put it under right 6449 / 941 year while the Novgorod First Chronicle of the Younger Recension along with several compilations of the Chronograph for the Great Narration’s circle placed the event under 6428 / 920. The prominent scholar Alexey Shakhmatov offered explanation for such different dating, creating a theory where both chronicle have a common core influenced by the earliest Chronograph. In his concept Povest’ vremennykh let in fact is not the “Primary” chronicle but is secondary after the Novgorod Chronicle. Textual analysis is complicated because all accounts are based on George Hamartolos’s text and sometimes versions differ one from another in the smallest detail. However, a comprehensive comparison of all data allows us to reconstruct the interrelations of these writings. It turns out that the compiler of the Novgorod First Chronicle produced contamination from fragments of the Chronograph for the Great Narration and borrowings from Povest’ vremennykh let itself, i.e. the Novgorod chronicle was created later than both of its sources.

The paper deals with the sources of the Primary Chronicle and Novgorodian First Chronicle in their accounts of Rus’ history «beginning» («поча ся прозывати Руская земля», «начало Рускои земли»). Special attention pays to the discrapancy in the dates 6360/852 or 6362/854 years and these entries content variety.

The article considers social concepts of “starci” («старци») and “stareishiny” («старѣишины») in the “Primary Chronicle” and the Old-Slavic “Octateuch”. It is traditionally argued, that references to the stareishiny describe certain pre-state, “tribal” realities. Nevertheless, the “Primary Chronicle” contains only one entry, where “startsi” and “stareishiny” are mentioned in regard to the period of emerging of Rus (the episode of the Polans’ tribute to the Chazars). On the contrary, other mentionings are related to the princely, or “Kievan” period. Among others, these concepts are widely used in the description of the rule of Vladimir Svyatoslavich. Information adduced in the chronicle is marked by strong influence of the biblical books and some other literary sources.

The paper deals with examples of biblical quotations in the Old Rus’ chronicles, such as “muzhi mudri i smysleni”, “Rusi est’ veselije piti” and others. The students of medieval Rus' in their studies often rely on the late versions of the Slavonic Bible translations that bring them in astray. The precise textual shape of the biblical citation is important for our better understanding of the chroniclers' implications and the very sense of historical data. I propose to involve the early witnesses of the Slavonic Octateuch that are more or less analogous of those that were accessible in the 11-13th centuries. In this paper some fragments of early Rus’ chronicles and Old Slavonic Octateuch are considered and analyzed under this angle.

The paper represents text-critical examination of the Tale of Bygone Years based on the old witnesses of this chronicle and the Book of Genesis. It is argued that comparison of various versions of the Bible quotations preserved in the so called Philosopher’s Speech presents a new solution to the problem of the complicated relation between early recensions of the Primary Chronicle.

This article focuses on the non-liturgical text of the Old Slavonic translation of the Book Exodus with it’s relations to the Greek tradition. Detailed comparison of the both versions indicates some omissions, lexical substitutions and errors in the Slavonic renderings, but the main feature of the translation is strict following it’s original. The paper pays attention to the problem of the possible revise with Greek text in some families of the Slavonic manuscripts as well.