Printer Friendly

Sergei Alekseevich Bugoslavskii, The Textology of Old Rus'/Tekstologiia drevnei Rusi.

Sergei Alekseevich Bugoslavskii, Tekstologiia drevnei Rusi [The Textology of Old Rus']. 2 vols., ed. Iurii A. Artamonov. 1: Povest' vremennykh let [The Tale of Bygone Years]. 2: Drevnerusskie literaturnye proizvedeniia o Borise and Glebe [Old Rus' Literary Works on SS. Boris and Gleb]. 312, 656 pp. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskikh kul'tur, 2006-7. ISBN 5955101551.

Andrei Leonidovich Nikitin, Tekstologiia russkikh letopisei XI-nachala XIVvv. [A Textology of Rus' Chronicles from the 11th to the Early 14th Centuries]. 1: Kievo-Pecherskoe letopisanie do 1112 goda [Chronicle-Writing at the Kievan Caves Monastery before 1112]. 400 pp. Moscow: Minuvshee, 2006. ISBN 5902073464.

M. F. Kotliar, V. Iu. Franchuk, and A. G. Plakhonin, eds., Galitsko-Volynskaia letopis': Tekst. Kommentarii. Issledovanie. [The Galician-Volynian Chronicle: Text, Commentary, Research]. 424 pp. St. Petersburg: Aleteiia, 2005. ISBN 58932975613.

Until Aleksei Aleksandrovich Shakhmatov (1864-1920) began his scholarly work in the late 19th century, the main goal of chronicle studies was to extract historical information from chronicle texts. Thus if two chronicles had basically the same information, it was thought unnecessary to publish the full text of the second chronicle. Likewise, it was thought unnecessary to provide variant readings from other copies in any systematic way. The editor simply chose one representative copy to edit. Shakhmatov was a major influence in revolutionizing the study of Rus' chronicles by exploring the language, alternative readings, and relationship of chronicles to one another. Chronicles then became an object of study in their own right. Editing of chronicles began in the 18th century when German scholars at the Academy of Sciences realized their importance and began their systematic study and publication. In the middle of the 19th century, the series Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei (Full Collection of Rus' Chronicles, hereafter PSRL) was begun with the goal of publishing all Rus' chronicles. Early editions tended to reflect the pre-Shakhmatovian view of the purpose of chronicle study. As a result, the first six volumes of the series had to be re-edited later. The total number of published volumes, now at 43, includes some volumes in more than one edition. (1)

In publishing a chronicle text, the editor has the choice of a number of ways to present it, depending on the goals of the edition and on the circumstances of the manuscript copies themselves. If one copy is clearly the best representative of the archetype or authorial text, then it should be used as the copy text and variants provided from the other copies only to show the history of the development of the text. If no single copy is best and if the manuscript tradition is "open" (i.e., no clear genealogical relationship can be established among the copies), then picking and choosing readings from different copies based on the knowledge, skill, and intuition of the editor is to be preferred. If the manuscript tradition is "closed" (i.e., a clear genealogical relationship can be determined), then a stemma should be used. A stemma is a genealogical representation of the relationship of copies of a text. One creates a stemma by comparing the similarities and differences in readings among the various copies and by grouping the copies accordingly. One can then use the stemma to help figure out the primacy of readings in cases where there is a difference among those readings. In addition, when only one manuscript copy of a chronicle text exists or when a "best representative" copy exists, then the editor has the choice of simulating the morphologic and paleographic features of that copy, including abbreviated forms, superscripts, titlos, accents, punctuation marks, specialized characters, ligatures, and so forth (note that even in this attempt at manuscript verisimilitude, the editor is expected to make choices of word division). When Shakhmatov prepared the Hypatian Codex (which includes the Povest' vremennykh let [The Tale of Bygone Years, hereafter PVL], the Kievan Chronicle, and the Galician-Volynian Chronicle) in 1908 for the second edition of volume 2 of PSRL, he used the Hypatian manuscript as his copy text (replicating many of its morphologic and paleographic features) and provided variant readings in a consistent and systematic way from the other significant copies--in that case, the Khlebnikov and Pogodin copies. When he prepared an edition of the PVL in 1916, he used all the copies that testified to that particular chronicle and chose what he thought was the primary reading from among their readings to create a hypothetical archetype. In that sense, he was treating the manuscript tradition of the PVL as open. He also rejected establishing a copy text, which required him to expand abbreviations, drop superscripts to the line, standardize specialized characters, divide ligatures, remove accents and titlos, and provide his own punctuation--in short, normalizing the text in general.

The three books under review represent different approaches to editing early Rus' chronicles, but only one of them produces an original textual result. All three, however, do contribute to the study of early Rus' chronicles, although not in the same ways.

In 1941, the philologist Sergei Bugoslavskii (1888-1945) published an article describing an edition of the PVL that he had prepared for publication based on the use of a stemma. His article appeared in a collection titled Starinnaia russkaia povest' (The Old Rus' Tale) under the editorship of the literary scholar Nikolai Kallinikovich Gudzii (1888-1965) and was detailed as to specifics, so it was probable Bugoslavskii had indeed prepared such an edition. (2) Yet his edition was not published at the time. Indeed, it was lost for over six-and-a-half decades. In 1950, the renowned scholar of all things Rus'ian Dmitrii Sergeevich Likhachev (1906-99) published his own edition of the PVL, which was not based on a stemma. (3) He considered stemmatics to be "mechanistic textology." (4) Likhachev's edition, which used the Laurentian manuscript as a copy text but in a normalized format, became the standard working edition of the PVL for early Rus' studies. Likhachev made no mention of Bugoslavskii's lost edition.

During the time I was preparing an edition of the PVL based on a stemma (hereafter HURl 2003), I inquired concerning the whereabouts of Bugoslavskii's unpublished edition, but my inquiries deadended. (5) Not only did no one I contacted know of his text, no one could confirm that Bugoslavskii had actually completed his edition for publication. As one may imagine, I was eager to see what choices he had made beyond those he described in his 1941 article.

Iurii Artamonov publishes in volume 1 of Tekstologiia drevnei Rusi the recently discovered typeset text of Bugoslavskii's lost edition. That edition had been miscatalogued in the Bugoslavskii papers in the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAN) fond 397, under the designation "introductory article to the publication of the Povest' vremennykh let." Artamonov attributes the previous non-publication of Bugoslavskii's edition and its "essentially being forgotten by researchers" to three considerations: (1) Bugoslavskii died (14 January 1945) before the end of the war; (2) Likhachev's work with the same title appeared in 1950; and (3) the text of Bugoslavskii's edition was catalogued under a faulty description (1: 24-25). The first point necessitates accepting that the initial publication of Bugoslavskii's edition was shelved because of the start of the war against Nazi Germany on 22 June 1941, and that it could not have been published during the war; the second point, that had Likhachev's edition not appeared, Bugoslavskii's edition would have been sought out or at least been acknowledged; and the third, that only one copy of Bugoslavskii's edition was produced or survived.

Artamonov provides a reconstruction of the events surrounding the preparation of Bugoslavskii's edition by the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. The noted fontologists Sergei Konstantinovich Shambinago (1871-1948) and Mikhail Nikolaevich Tikhomirov (1893-1965) were the referees. Both of them requested changes in Bugoslavskii's introductory article. They felt that his criticism of Shakhmatov was unjustified and should be eliminated. Bugoslavskii had developed an oppositional relationship toward Shakhmatov's method during his own work on the Boris and Gleb cycle. His opposition carried over into his work on the PVL. Shakhmatov's scholarly reputation had its ups and downs in Soviet academic circles, sometimes as a litmus test for or against party loyalty. (6) At this time, Shakhmatov's reputation was high--his lengthy article "'Povest' vremennykh let' i ee istochniki" (The Tale of Bygone Years and Its Sources) was about to be published in the prestigious journal Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury. Bugoslavskii, whose disagreements with Shakhmatov were purely scholarly and non-ideological, nonetheless complied with the request, eliminating the direct criticism of Shakhmatov (even referring to him as the "leading researcher of Rus' chronicle-writing" [krupneishii issledavatel' russkogo letopisaniia] and shortening the introduction considerably (some of what he deleted no doubt showed up in his 1941 article). Bugoslavskii's edition was signed into press (podpisano v pechat') in July 1940 (1: 23). From the looks of the edition, reproduced photographically in Artamonov's volume, it was completely typeset and ready for production a full 11 months before the beginning of the war. This would seem to suggest that another reason or reasons accounts for the delay in publication between July 1940 and June 1941. In addition, although it was more difficult to get published during the war, it was not impossible. Likhachev, for example, published a number of works between 1941 and 1945--including, during the blockade of Leningrad, Oborona drevnerusskikh gorodov (The Defense of Old Rus' Towns). (7) The possibility does suggest itself that the cataloguing under a faulty description was not entirely unintentional, although if it was deliberate, then that raises the question of whether it was meant to hide or to preserve the edition. Presumably if any other copies were made, they were destroyed or irretrievably lost, including the typesetter plates.

Artamonov finds it "particularly strange" that Likhachev made no mention of Bugoslavskii's edition, which had been approved for publication ten years earlier and in the preparation of which noted scholars had taken part (1: 11). In effect, Bugoslavskii's PVL edition had become a "nonedition," although Likhachev does mention Bugoslavskii's 1941 article in his book Tekstologiia (Textology), mainly to disagree with some of its claims. (8) Likhachev's 1950 edition of the PVL, as it turned out, was not the best-because-it-was-the-latest edition. It barely went beyond A. F. Bychkov's 1871 edition of the Laurentian Chronicle. Shakhmatov's 1916 edition of the PVL is superior to it. Although Shakhmatov disdained the use of a stemma, his choices of readings are closer to those that a stemma proffers, as indicated by Bugoslavskii's edition, than Likhachev's choices are.

One wonders how study of early Rus' history and culture would have differed if Bugoslavskii's edition of the PVL had become the standard one instead of Likhachev's. For one thing, Bugoslavskii treated the protograph of the Laurentian, Radziwill, and Academy copies of the PVL on a par with the protograph of the Hypatian, Khlebnikov, and Pogodin copies. He considered the Novgorod I Chronicle to derive from the latter protograph. This understanding of the relationship of the copies differed markedly from that of Shakhmatov, who viewed the Novgorod I Chronicle as deriving from the so-called Nachal'nyi svod (Beginning Compilation), a hypothetical source of the PVL. It also differed from Likhachev's understanding, in which the Laurentian Chronicle was given priority over all the other copies. The resulting differences affect specific readings rather than overall story lines in the PVL. Yet anyone studying the early Rus' principalities should be aware of these differences so as not to unknowingly perpetuate misconceptions.

For another, in the introduction to his edition of the PVL, Bugoslavskii delineates "two basic methods of the critique of texts"--the "conjectural method" and the method that "is based on the objective testimony of the very copies, the history of the text," which is what I am calling stemmatics. He describes the conjectural method as taking the "most correct and oldest copy of a text" and consulting other copies only when dissatisfied with the reading in the copy text to search for a better reading. In this method, according to Bugoslavskii, the editor "attempts to guess the thought of the author of the work and of his later redactors and copyists." The stemmatics method, instead, begins with the comparing of copies and their classification, which allows the editor to "recreate the history of the gradual changes in the text" (1: 61). It is clear from his 1941 article that Bugoslavskii associates the conjectural method with Shakhmatov, but it might also be applied to the text-editing method of Likhachev. Bugoslavskii found the conjectural method to be "in great degree subjective and little reliable" and dependent to a large extent on the "talent" of the editor. He also pointed out that the stemmatics method sometimes results in the intentional selection "of an incorrect reading for the original instead of a correct one, which is a later correction" by a redactor or copyist (1: 62). He comes very close here to describing the principle found in Western textual criticism of choosing the reading that explains the others. Bugoslavskii had described his own method of textual criticism in a small book titled Neskol'ko zamechanii k teorii i praktike kritiki teksta (A Few Remarks on the Theory and Practice of Textual Criticism, printed in Chernihiv in 1913) and applied his method in classifying and editing the copies of the Boris and Gleb cycle. Likhachev mentions Bugoslavskii's booklet in his Tekstologiia and devotes some space to arguing against the ideas contained therein. (9) In a sense, Likhachev's Tekstologiia overshadowed Bugoslavskii's Neskol'ko zamechanii k teorii i praktike kritiki teksta almost as completely as his 1950 edition of the PVL overshadowed Bugoslavskii's unpublished edition of the same work.

Volume 1 of Tekstologiia drevnei Rusi contains two essays by Artamonov, one on the life and academic heritage of Bugoslavskii, the other a preface to the publication of the texts. Then follows a photographic reproduction of the text of Bugoslavskii's edition of the PVL and a republication of his 1941 article from Starinnaia russkaia povest'. Volume 2 contains the text of Bugoslavskii's dissertation on the Boris and Gleb cycle, a republication of Bugoslavskii's 1928 edition of the Boris and Gleb texts, and a stenogram of the session of Bugoslavskii's defense of his dissertation in 1940. (10) A list of abbreviations and a name index rounds out volume 2. Those of us who study Rus' chronicles are immensely indebted to Artamonov for bringing to light Bugoslavskii's unpublished work and for making more accessible these previously published works of his.

Andrei Nikitin was a literary and cultural scholar who turned to the study of history and then became interested in early chronicles. He has published studies on a wide range of topics, including on the poetry of Nikolai Gumilev (1996) and Pavel Antokol 'skii (1997), on films of Sergei Eisenstein (1996), on Slovo o polku Igoreve (The Igor' Tale, 1998), as well as on the origins of the Oprichnina (1998), on satanism in the time of Ivan IV (1995), and on Metropolitan Hilarion's role in Rus' chronicle-writing (2003). His Tekstologiia russkikh letopisei XI-nachala XIV vv., no. 1: Kievo-Pecherskoe letopisanie do 1112 goda is the first volume of what was intended to be a four-volume columnar comparison of major chronicles from the 11th through the early 14th century. Volume 2 was to contain chronicle-writing to 1200 with a comparison of the texts of the Hypatian, Laurentian, Simeonov, and Moscow Compilation to the End of the 15th Century. Volume 3 was to carry the comparisons to 1306, and volume 4 was to include the Novgorod I Chronicle with parallel comparisons of Novgorod chronicles of the 15th century. According to the back-of-title-page blurb, Nikitin had completed the second volume before he died.

Volume 1 focuses on the PVL. Nikitin provides a brief introduction on "comparative textology as an instrument of the analysis of a chronicle text," in which he proposes the comparison of chronicle copies as an advance over the method of Ia. I. Berednikov and Shakhmatov (6) (i.e., the "conjectural" method, as Bugoslavskii called it). Nikitin does not mention Bugoslavskii's work nor does he seem aware that the method he is suggesting for chronicle studies is along the lines that Bugoslavskii used to edit the PVL. Then follows a section on "Kievo-Pecherskii chronicle-writing of the end of the 11th to the beginning of the 12th centuries." Nikitin thought the preface found in the Novgorod I Chronicle of the Younger Redaction was the original preface to the PVL, although it does not appear in any copy of the PVL. He attributes the authorship of this preface to Metropolitan Hilarion (1051-55), although there is little in the text itself to justify such an attribution. Nikitin mistakenly claims that this preface is found in the Commission copy of the Novgorod I Chronicle. Most of it comes from the Tolstoi copy, since only the end of it appears in the Commission copy. Then follows two sections of columnar comparisons, the first being the text of the Hypatian and Laurentian copies of the PVL to 1074 and the corresponding passages of the Commission copy of the Novgorod I Chronicle (18-272), the second being the text of the Hypatian and Laurentian copies of the PVL (273-337) from 1075 to 1112. Both sections have the respective texts arranged in parallel vertical columns. Nikitin uses the published versions of these texts, the Hypatian from Shakhmatov's 1908 edition (in PSRL, vol. 2), the Laurentian from Karskii's 1926 edition (in PSRL, vol. 1), and the Commission copy of the Novgorod I Chronicle from Nasonov's 1950 edition (which was then republished in the PSRL series as volume 3 in 2000, replacing the edition of 1841). Nikitin does not maintain the attempt by Shakhmatov and Karskii to render the manuscript texts faithfully but normalizes their texts, expanding abbreviations, dropping superscripts to the line, and adding modern capitalization and punctuation. Such standardization can, at times, create its own problems, such as expanding [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] to [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], (the deity) rather than to [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], (the river), or [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] to [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (king, khan) rather than to [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] or [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (emperor, kagan). (11) Nor does he key his layout of columns to any external published text, preferring to create his own internal numbering system. The task of finding a particular passage is thus made more difficult than if he had provided indexing numbers according to, say, Karskii's 1926 edition of the Laurentian Chronicle, as Ludolf Muller did in his translation of the PVL into German, (12) Cross did in his translation of it into English, (13) and as was done in HURI 2003.

Appendices include a comparison of the beginning of the Commission copy of the Novgorod I Chronicle of the Younger Redaction "with structural fragments of the Hypatian copy for 944/945 (6452); a comparison of the beginning of the Synodal copy of the Novgorod I Chronicle of the Older Redaction with Hypatian copy articles from 1016/17 (6524) through 1074/75 (6582); a comparison of articles of the Commission and Synodal copies with fragments of the Hypatian copy from 1075/76 (6583) through 1102/3 (6620); the article for 1043/44 (6551) according to the Hypatian and Voskresenskii copies; and the translation of the relics of Boris and Gleb according to the entry for 1072/73 (6580) in the Hypatian and Voskresenskii copies. Three works associated with Volodimir Monomakh--his Pouchenie (Teaching), letter to Oleg Sviatoslavich, and Molitva (Prayer)--round out the appendices. The volume also includes personal and geographical name indices, which do help one locate particular passages in the texts.

In effect, Nikitin has done a useful "cut and paste" job so that one can more easily compare parallel readings in these chronicle copies. Yet, as a result of his using published versions and not drawing on the manuscripts themselves, his edition incorporates and continues the mistakes found in those editions. (14) Nikitin also does not distinguish between a conjectural emendation on the part of the editors of these editions and the manuscript reading. For example, for the Laurentian copy of the PVL, Nikitin reports under the entry for 862 (6370), "[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]" (The eldest, Riurik, settled in Novgorod). But the Laurentian copy does not have the words "[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]" (settled in Novgorod). Those words are an emendation on Karskii's part. He took them from the no-longer-extant copy of the Trinity Chronicle of which it was reported that the words "[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]" were written above the line in the manuscript over the name "Riurik." In other words, they were not part of the original copying of the Trinity Chronicle either and may have been the result of contamination from the Novgorod I Chronicle of the Younger Redaction, which reports "[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]" (And the eldest, whose name was Riurik, settled in Novgorod). Even if Nikitin accepted Karskii's emendation, it would have been beneficial for the reader to be warned that those particular words do not appear in the manuscript. As it is, the Hypatian, Radziwill, Academy, and Khlebnikov copies all report that Riurik settled in Ladoga. A reader who looked no further than Nikitin's parallel columns would think that the Laurentian copy of the PVL was in agreement with the Novgorod I Chronicle of the Younger redaction in regard to this passage and that the Hypatian copy was the outlier. In fact, the Novgorod I Chronicle is the outlier here. Significantly, Likhachev in his 1950 edition of the PVL accepts the emendation of "[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]" (18), but Bugoslavskii heeds the stemma and, thereby, follows the reading of the Hypatian, Radziwill, Academy, and Khlebnikov copies: "[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]" (And the eldest, Riurik, settled in Ladoga [41 (91)]).

The advantage of Nikitin's volume is ease of use in having in one volume the PSRL-published versions of the Hypatian and Laurentian copies of the PVL and the Commission copy of the Novgorod I Chronicle. Certainly it is more convenient to use than the equivalent three volumes of PSRL or the three-volume interlinear collation that it was my privilege to compile and edit for the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute (HURI 2003). However, because Nikitin uses published versions and because he does not provide readings from the Radziwill, Academy, and Khlebnikov copies of the PVL or the Academy and Tolstoi copies of the Novgorod I Chronicle, the utility of his columnar comparison is limited. It should not be relied on alone by researchers. Instead, if access to the manuscript copies is not feasible, I can recommend either HURI 2003 or my glitchy PDF version at hudce7.harvard.edu/~ostrowski/pvl, which incorporates corrections and changes made since 2003. Best of all, however, will be, when completed, David Birnbaum's e-PVL, test pages of which can be found at www.clover.slavic.pitt.edu/pvl and which allows, among other features, word searches and access to scans of the manuscripts.

The book Galitsko-Volynskaia letopis': Tekst. Kommentarii. Issledovanie provides articles by the Ukrainian historian Mykola Fedorovych Kotliar (on Galicia and Volynia in the late 12th and 13th centuries [10-29] and on the composition, sources, genres, and intellectual characteristics of the Galician-Volynian chronicle [hereafter GVC] [30-60]) and by the linguist and Potebnia scholar V. Iu. Franchuk (on the Khlebnikov copy of GVC as a linguistic source [61-75]). Franchuk prepared the text of the GVC for publication (77-176), and Kotliar provides a detailed commentary (177-368). A list of abbreviations and works cited as well as name and geographical indices, compiled by A. G. Plakhonin, complete the volume.

The GVC is made up of two parts--the Galician (Halych) Chronicle (GC) with entries describing events from 1205 to 1258, and the Volynian Chronicle (VC), describing events from 1259 through the winter of 1289/90. The prevailing thinking is that the VC was not originally intended as a continuation of the GC but that the two were combined some time later. Shakhmatov proposed that the VC was reworked around 1307. (15) Kotliar proposed that the GVC was completed even later, possibly in the mid-14th century when the last part of the VC, after 1290, was lost (59, 368). The date of the entries in the GVC is a little off. So, for example, the entry describing events of 1205 is dated 6709, which equates to 1201/2; the entry describing events from 1256 to 1258 is dated 6768, which equates to 1260/61, and so forth. The Galician Chronicle is also known as the Chronicle of Danilo of Galicia (Halych), because it provides a narrative for the events of Danilo's life. The GVC constitutes the last part of the Hypatian Codex. The first part includes the PVL (with additional entries to 1116), and the second constitutes the Kievan Chronicle (describing events from 1118 to 1199).

The textual relationship of the copies of the GVC is straightforward, and perhaps as a result is not even discussed in the ancillary material of the volume (Kotliar reserved his analysis for the structural problems of the text). The Hypatian (15th century) and Khlebnikov (16th century) copies provide independent testimony about the archetype, although in practice the Hypatian tends to provide the better reading (i.e., closer to the archetype) when the Khlebnikov differs from it. Three derivative manuscript copies also exist. The Pogodin (17th century) is a direct copy of the Khlebnikov, and is useful only to fill in gaps in the Khlebnikov copy. The Cracow (18th century) is derivative from the Pogodin and is written in Latin script. The Ermolaev is an abbreviated and distorted copy of the Khlebnikov. For all intents and purposes, the Hypatian and Khlebnikov copies (and the Pogodin to fill in gaps in the Khlebnikov) are the only copies that need to be taken into consideration in editing the text, as was done here.

Franchuk gives the Hypatian and Khlebnikov copies equal status in his edition. Instead of following the practice of Shakhmatov in his editing of the text for publication in 1908, which was to use the Hypatian as the copy text and provide readings from the Khlebnikov and Pogodin copies in a critical apparatus, Franchuk creates a compilatory text, whereby words and phrases found in Hypatian but not in Khlebnikov are given in brackets, while words and phrases found in Khlebnikov but not in Hypatian are given in italics. Like Nikitin, he does not try to emulate rendering of the manuscript texts, but expands and standardizes the morphology and paleographic features while adding modern capitalization and punctuation. The footnotes are reserved for lexical variants of particular words. The resulting compilatory text takes us further from the archetype rather than closer, but it is in accord with the notion common in Soviet and Russian textology that the fuller text is to be preferred. If one eliminated both the bracketed and italicized text (except in those cases where there is a clear lacuna in either the Hypatian or Khlebnikov) then one would probably be closer to the archetype of the GVC. Nonetheless the text, commentary, and introductory articles of the Kotliar-Franchuk volume are a welcome addition to the study of Rus' chronicles.

Over ten years ago, with the passing of the eminent historian Iakov Solomonovich Lur'e, who accomplished extraordinary work on the Rus' chronicles, I bemoaned the future fate of chronicle studies. I am happy to report that my fears were unwarranted. Contemporary scholars continue to conduct serious research, of which these publications represent only a part, with the result that study of Rus' chronicles remains a vital field of scholarly endeavor. If chronicle studies are an indication of the health of the field in general, then the editing and publication of chronicle texts are an indication of the health of chronicle studies. Yet of the three editions of chronicles reviewed here, only Bugoslavskii's edition of the PVL, lost for almost two-thirds of a century, provides us an original text that will be cited by text critics for its choice of readings.

Harvard University Extension School

51 Brattle Street

Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

don@wjh.harvard.edu

(1) Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei (PSRL), 43 vols. (St. Petersburg/Petrograd/Leningrad and Moscow, 1841-2004 and ongoing).

(2) S.A. Bugoslavskii, "'Povest' vremennykh let' (Spiski, redaktsii, pervonachal 'nyi tekst)," in Starinnaia russkaiapovest': Stat'i i issledovaniia, ed. N. K. Gudzii (Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1941), 7-37.

(3) Povest' vremennykh let, ed. D. S. Likhachev, 2 vols. (Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1950).

(4) See the section titled "Krizis literaturovedcheskoi mekhanicheskoi tekstologii," in D. S. Likhachev, Tekstologiia: Na materiale russkoi literatury X-XVII vv., 1st ed. (Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1962), 6-20; 2nd ed. (Leningrad: Nauka, 1983), 8-24; 3rd ed. (St. Petersburg: Aleteiia, 2001), 14-29.

(5) Donald Ostrowski, comp. and ed., The Povest' vremennykh let: An Interlinear Collation and Paradosis, 3 vols., with associate editor David J. Birnbaum (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, 2003), 1 : XXXV n. 52.

(6) For a description of some of this, see my review of Ia. S. Lur'e, Obshcherusskie letopisi XIV-XV vv. (Leningrad: Nauka, 1976); and A. G. Kuz'min, Nachal'nye etapy drevnerusskogo letopisaniia (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 1977), in Kritika: A Review of Current Soviet Books on Russian History 16, 1 (1980): 7-8.

(7) D. S. Likhachev, Oborona drevnerusskikh gorodov (Leningrad: OGIZ, Gospolitizdat, 1942). Likhachev explains the publication of Oborona as a commission from local party officials to raise the morale of Leningraders. See D. S. Likhachev, interview, in the video Russia's War: Blood upon the Snow, vol. 2: Between Life and Death, Turner and PBS, 1997.

(8) Likhachev, Tekstologiia, 1st ed., pp. 89, 364, 522-23; 2nd ed., pp. 92, 378, 532; 3rd ed., pp. 95, 369, 520-21.

(9) Likhachev, Tekstologiia, 1st ed., pp. 21, 46, 161-62, 492; 2nd ed., pp. 25, 51, 177, 502; 3rd ed., pp. 30, 55, 176, 492.

(10) Bugoslavskii's dissertation was published in 2005 by N. B. Pak from a different copy in Subsidia Byzantinorossica, 3, byzantinorossica.org.ru/ser_sbr_v3.html. Artamonov provides editorial comments and additional citations that the Pak edition does not have.

(11) Only after the 12th century were[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], and [MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], conflated to [MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], alone and used indiscriminately for king, khan, emperor, and kagan.

(12) Die altrussische Chronik, zugeschrieben dem Monch des Kiever Hohlenklosters Nestor, in der Redaktion des Abtes Sil'vestr aus dem Jahre 1116, rekonstruiert nach den Handschriften Lavrent'evskaja, Radzivilovskaja, Akademicheskaja, Troickaja, Ipat'evskaja undChlebnikovskaja, trans. Ludolf Muller, vol. 4 of Handbuch zur Nestorchronik, ed. Muller (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 2001).

(13) Samuel H. Cross, "The Russian Primary Chronicle," Harvard Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature 12 (1930): 75-320. Reissued in 1953 after Cross's death with additional notes by Cross: The Russian Primary Chronicle: Laurentian Text, trans, and ed. Samuel Hazzard Cross and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor (Cambridge, MA: Medieval Academy of America, 1953).

(14) For the readings of the Hypatian and Laurentian manuscripts that were mistakenly reported in the published versions of Shakhmatov's and Karskii's editions, respectively, see Lenore Scheffler, Textkritischer Apparat zur Nestorchronik, vol. 2 of Handbuch zur Nestorchronik, ed. Ludolf Muller (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1977), passim. Roman Nikolaevich Krivko subjected Karskii's edition of the Laurentian Chronicle to a separate examination and pointed out over 150 errors in transcription in "Teoriia kritiki teksta i editsionnaia praktika: K vykhodu v svet novogo izdaniia Povesti vremennykh let," Russian Linguistics 29 (2005): 249-60.

(15) A. A. Shakhmatov, "Predislovie," PSRL, 2 (1908), v.
COPYRIGHT 2008 Slavica Publishers, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Ostrowski, Donald
Publication:Kritika
Article Type:Book review
Date:Sep 22, 2008
Words:5228
Previous Article:The occident within--or the drive for exceptionalism and modernity.
Next Article:N. E. Koposov, N. D. Potapova, and M. M. Krom, eds., Historical Concepts and Political Ideas in Russia in the 16th-20th Centuries: A Collection of...
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters