Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Svâto-Tihonovskogo Gumanitarnogo Universiteta: Seriâ III. Filologiâ (Dec 2021)
Individual sources of Tikhonravov’s, Rogozhsky, and Trоitsky chronographs in the Hellenic chronicle of the 2nd recension
Abstract
The aim of this article is to prove the existence of a common source for the four Old Russian Chronographs: Tikhonravov’s (TC), Rogozhsky (RC), Troitsky (TR), and the Hellenic Chronicle of the 2nd Recension (EL-2). The methodology of the work is based on comparative textology and on the identifi cation of rare (non-typical of other Old Russian chronographs) common sources of these texts, with the involvement of the Greek originals that were the basis of their translations. The study continues the previously published observations by Oleg Tvorogov. When studying the composition of the Troitsky Chronograph, he revealed a number of its sources, refl ected only in the EL-2, and then he concluded that these sources belong to the convoy of the “Chronograph of Great Statement” (Khronograf po velikomu izlozheniiu) of the 2nd type (KhVI-2). This article examines the TC and RC represented in the non-contemporaneous copies made from two halves of the one archetype; the chronographs referred to the same sources of the KhVI-2 hypothetical convoy. As a result of comparative analysis, it has been possible to identify textual and compositional correspondences between TC, RC, and EL-2 on the material of Daniel 13, Josippon, the Life of SS. Constantine and Helena, and the Story on the Building of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (the Troitsky Chronograph is also involved in the study of the latter). Taking into account previously obtained similar results in relation to other common sources of TC, RC, and EL-2 (Legend about Daniel by Epiphanius of Cyprus, Zosima’s Journey to Rachmans, Alexandria of the 1st recension, Legend about the Posthumous Forgiveness for Emperor Theophilus, and also paraphrase of the 6370-year article in the Tale of Bygone Years), it is concluded that the compiler of the EL-2 involved not the KhVI-2 convoy, but a common archetype of the TC, RC, and TR. At the same time, some of these sources are transmitted more closely to the original in the TR, but the other part is absent due to the lacks in the protograph of the manuscript and due to additional editorial alterations of the common archetype for TC, RC, and TR.
Keywords
