Recent Studies on Early Rus´ Chronicles

Abstract

Recent Studies on Early Rus´ Chronicles Donald Ostrowski (bio) Marianna Andreicheva, Obrazy inovertsev v Povesti vremennykh let (Images of Those of Other Faiths in the Tale of Bygone Years). 182 pp. St. Petersburg: Nestor-istoriia, 2019. ISBN-13 978-5446913930. Irina K. Chuhaeva, Chernihivs´ke litopysannia XI–XIII st.: Istoriohrafichnyj mif chy istyrychne dzherelo? (The Chernihiv Chronicles of the 11th–13th Centuries: Historiographical Myth or Historical Source?). 336 pp. Chernihiv: Desna, 2018. ISBN-13 978-9665026037. Sean Griffin, The Liturgical Past in Byzantium and Early Rus. ix + 275 pp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. ISBN-13 978-1108814843. $29.99. Adrian Jusupović, Kronika halicko-wołyńska (Kronika Romanowiczów) w latopisarskiej kolekcji historycznej (The Galician-Volhynian Chronicle [Chronicle of the Romanovichi] as an Annalistic Historical Collection). 208 pp. Cracow: Avalon, 2019. ISBN-13 978-8365880482. Textual scholarship … has … consequences for the status of the received text as evidence.1 —Simon Franklin When the 18th-century Russian historian Vasilii N. Tatishchev (1686–1750) began to write his historical narrative of Russia, he found that Rus´ sources, especially chronicles, had been insufficiently studied for him to accomplish that task. He began gathering letters and documents from Russian and European [End Page 151] archives and personal libraries, as well as chronicles from monasteries and the Old Believers. Among the extant chronicles he used were the Povest´ vremennykh let (PVL), the Novgorod I and IV chronicles, the Kievan Chronicle, and the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle. Boris M. Kloss and Vadim I. Koretskii remarked that Tatishchev was the first to classify Russian chronicles, dividing them into "general" (general´nye) and "local" (topografii).2 Despite almost three centuries of study of Rus´ sources and chronicles, and many advances in that study by giants in the field such as Aleksei A. Shakhmatov (1864–1920), Mikhail D. Priselkov (1881–1941), and Iakov S. Lur´e (1921–96), we find that we still do not have a sufficient understanding of Rus´ chronicles and sources. The works under review continue the attempt to get a grip on the study that Tatishchev began, but the results here are mixed. ________ Marianna Iur´evna Andreicheva is a doctoral candidate at the Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Sciences (RAN). Obrazy inovertsev v Povesti vremennykh let was her candidate's thesis from 2017. The PVL is the foundation Rus´ chronicle text, whose narration covers events from the Flood to 1117.3 The PVL is a combination of earlier Rus´ annal accounts and eyewitness reports that also incorporated material from other sources. In terms of its composition, the question is whether it can be considered a homogenous text written from beginning to end by one author who incorporated and at times modified other sources or the edited compilation of an existing work or works, such as the "Beginning Compilation" (Nachal´nyi svod), Redaction of the Monk Nestor, or Redaction of Hegumen Sil´vestr? In short, who wrote the words that appear in the text at any particular point? It is presumed that the author or authors of the PVL did not write the text of the treaties, but to what extent did the author modify the sources that were incorporated, and were such modifications done by the final author/redactor or by the compiler of the "Compilation of 1037," the "Compilation of 1073," or the "Beginning Compilation" (if there were such compilations). These are necessary questions to ask if one is trying to determine attitudes within the PVL. Whose attitudes are they? [End Page 152] Andreicheva divides her book into two parts or "chapters." The first chapter discusses how Slavic and Turkic pagans are represented in the PVL. The second chapter discusses how Muslims, Catholics, and Jews are represented there. She invokes ethnographic theories of the "other" to discuss how these "other believers" are represented. Andreicheva also uses text-critical comparisons. The early part of the PVL draws on the Greek Chronicle of Georgios Hamartolos, so she compares the passages in the PVL borrowed from Hamartolos to other similar passages in the PVL according to the Laurentian copy to show the influence of Hamartolos on the chronicler. She concludes that both the PVL and Hamartolos treat ethnographic groups first in a positive way...