Известия Уральского федерального университета. Серия 2: Гуманитарные науки (Sep 2020)

Genealogy of Filippovtsy Old Believers from the Collection of Manuscripts of the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences: Source Analysis

  • Nadezhda Morozova

DOI
https://doi.org/10.15826/izv2.2020.22.3.045
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 22, no. 3(200)
pp. 72 – 88

Abstract

Read online

This article considers The Genealogy of Orthodox Monastic Tonsure compiled by Severodvinsk scribe Stefan Frolov. There are three extant manuscripts of the work. One of them is part of the collection of council resolutions, polemic letters, and other works by Old Believers of the Filippovtsy concord (F19-331) acquired by the manuscript collection of the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences in 2018. The aim of the work is to provide a critical edition of the text and illustrate its structural peculiarities and those of its content, the specifics of the two versions and the principles of the author’s and the editor’s work. The material of the work is made up by three manuscripts of The Genealogy of Orthodox Monastic Tonsure kept in St Petersburg and Vilnius as well as manuscripts and their digital copies connected with the work in question. The author employs comparative, textological, descriptive, and other research methods. The study demonstrates that The Genealogy compiled by Stefan Frolov in 1879 describes two directions of monastic tonsure, i.e. one starting with bishop Pavel Kolomensky and the other originated by a monk from the Sevastyanov family. The initial part of The Genealogy is semi-legendary, as despite the fact that the text mentions real Old Believer figures, it is full of chronological discrepancies. There are two versions of The Genealogy, i.e. a draft authored by Frolov and bearing his autograph and a fair copy written three or four years later, after Frolov’s death, by an anonymous scribe supposedly in Moscow, at the Moscow Bratsky Dvor. The comparison of the two versions demonstrates that the editing of Frolov’s text followed two directions. First, the editor eliminated and abridged particular “private” information on certain monks, and, second, corrected (specified) their names or those of whole groups.

Keywords