On Nestor The Chronicler en

The President and Fellows of Harvard College
On "Nestor the Chronicler"

Author(s): Oleksiy Tolochko
Source: Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 29, No. 1/4, UKRAINIAN PHILOLOGY AND
LINGUISTICS IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY (2007), pp. 31-59
Published by: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41304501 .
Accessed: 29/09/2014 16:27
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute and The President and Fellows of Harvard College are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Harvard Ukrainian Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HarvardUkrainianStudies29,no. 1-4 (2007): 31-59.
On "Nestor the Chronicler"
Oleksiy Tolochko
By the turn of the nineteenth century, the name of "Nestorthe

Chronicler"was alreadyfirmly establishedin thescholarshipofthe Russian
Empireamong those of Herodotus, Thucydides, and other"fathers ofhistory."
a
Only privileged few who could enjoy the of
luxury independentthinking
daredto challengethe receivedwisdom.Amongthe dissidentminority was
Count SergeiRumiantsev, who in Januaryof 1814remarkedto Konstantin
Kalaidovichthathe,thecount,"doesnotbelievein Nestor,assumingall these
chronicles tobe cloisterrecordsandNestorhimself a creationofPetroMohyla"
(TaiGKeHe BepwTHecTopy,noHMTaacmm AeTonwcn MOHacTbipcKMMM 3annc-
KaMM, a caMoroHecTopa lleTpa MorwAbi(JjaGpMKOK)).1 Oddly enough,this
brilliantintuitionwas expressedbyan outsider(incontrastto hisfamouselder
brotherNikolai,Sergeiwas a man not burdenedbya profoundeducation),2
and hisinterlocutor, one ofthefewprofessional historians ofthetime,treated
thisremarkas theexcusableextravagance ofa dilettantegrandee.WhatCount
Rumiantsev reallymeantwas thattheonlysourceon whichhiscontemporaries
based theirknowledgeof Nestor'sbiographywas thePaterikof the Kyivan
CavesMonasterypublishedin 1661.Throughout theentireeighteenth century
thePaterikwas erroneouslyconsideredto be a Mohyla-sponsored publica-
tion.Therefore, thecountreasonedthatchroniclesattributed in thissource
to Nestor'sauthorshipmust,in fact,have been monasteryrecordsand not
thePrimaryChronicle;and furthermore, thatNestorhimselfas theauthorof
chronicleswas nothingmorethana fabrication (<J>a6pMKa)originating in the
seventeenth This
century. surprisingly strikinginsight enjoyed neitherpublicity
norfollowers at thetime.Kalaidovichnoteditas an oddityin hisdiary,which
was publishedhalfa centurylater.Evenhad thisinsightbeen made publicin
due time,itwouldhavebeen consideredtoo amateurishand out ofvogueto
be takenseriously. The mainstream historians wentin theoppositedirection,
trying to uncoverproofthatNestordidwritethePrimary Chroniclesometime
intheearlytwelfth century.Even thosewho opposed that idea neverconsidered

32 TOLOCHKO
Mohyla'stimesas thepossibleage whenthenotionofNestoras theauthorof

certainchroniclesoriginated.
Thereare reasonsto takeSergeiRumiantsev's What
conjectureseriously.
once sounded naive mightwell have been a profoundidea.3Ironically,his
famousbrotherNikolai- thechancellor, a
a manofbroadhistoricalinterests,
patronofscholarsand collectorofantiquities-was instrumentalin introduc-
ingto Russianscholarshipthe so-calledfragments of"Toparcha Gothicus,"a
forgerybyKarl BenediktHase.4 Theinsight oftheotherRumiantsev, unbiased
bygood education,mayfinally expiatethefamilysin.
byNikolaiKaramzin:
The dictumaboutNestorwas formulated
Nestor,whois to be calledthefather of Russianhistory,livedin the

eleventhcentury; he was giftedby a curiousmind, he listenedwith
attentionto theorallegendsofancienttimes,to thepopularhistorical
tales;he saw themonuments, he saw thegravesof theprinces;he
conversed withtheeldersofKyiv,
withpatricians, withtravelers,with
dwellers Rus'regions;
ofdifferent he readByzantinechronicles,church
notesandthusbecamethefirst ofourmotherland.5
chronicler
In a way,Karamzinrevealedthemannerbywhichantiquariansofhisown
generationwentabout reconstructing the Kyivanpast. As the sole product
ofKaramzin,thisportraitbelongsto thedomainofbelleslettres;itis notthe
assessmentofa textualscholar.The rhetoricis worthnotingas well.Nestor's
place in publicperceptionwas notonlythatofthefirstRus' writer;hisvery
namebecamea synonym and symbolofRussianhistory. Forthosewritingat
theturnofthenineteenth century, itwas a foregone conclusionthattheearliest
chronicletextcameto be knownas "Nestor'schronicle" or,evenmorecasually,
"theNestor."The firstattemptsto challengethe idea of Nestor'sauthorship
showed how the verypossibilityof his dethroningscandalizedthe public.
Thosewho daredwereplainlyaccused ofbeingunpatriotic and almostanti-
Russian(fortunately,no Germanstookpart inthecontroversy,andthe"Nestor
question"was nevertransformed intosomething analogousto the"Varangian
question" in Russian culturaldiscourse).
The skepticsraisedtheirvoicesratherearly,in the1830sand 1840s.They
sparkeda short-lived butveryintensediscussion,academicin naturebutwith
an overtoneof publicpolemics.The two sides ofthecontroversy exhausted
theirrespectivearguments very soon and the followingcentury onlythe
saw
repetition of the same pros and cons. Nobody was convinced and the con-
troversy died peacefullyat theturnofthetwentieth century.Whatsurvived,

ON "NESTORTHECHRONICLER" 33
however,was a firmand persistent beliefthatNestordid indeedauthorthe

PrimaryChronicle; the lack of discussion onlyreinforced its generalaccep-
tance.Althoughneitherdetailsnortheveryphilosophyofthisdiscussionare
relevantformytopic,itis usefulnevertheless to recallitsmajorpoints.6
As iswellknown,threepiecestraditionally ascribedto Nestorhavesurvived
to ourtime:theso-calledLection(Chtenie)on Borisand Gleb,theLifeofSt.
FeodosiioftheCavesMonastery, andthePrimary Chronicle.Itwas established,
by almost the first
students of the problem, thatifwe agreeto accepttheidea
thatthefirsttwowereworksbyNestor,a certainmonkoftheKyivanCaves
Monastery, thenwe mustruleoutthepossibility thatthechroniclecouldhave
beenwritten by thesame person. A number offactualcontradictions between
theundisputedpiecesbyNestorandthechroniclewerefound.7 Manyscholars
havenotedthatthefirsttwoworksdiffer considerably from the chroniclein
termsofstylistics.The notionofa singleauthorwas mostdamaged,however,
by the discovery thatNestor,theauthorofthevitas,and Nestor,thealleged
authorofthechronicle,presentedtotallydifferent biographicalinformation.
In the entryfor1051fromthe PrimaryChronicle,the authorinsiststhathe
cametotheCavesMonastery whileSt.Feodosiiwas itsfather superiorandwas
admittedbyhimat theage ofseventeen.Similarly, in theentryof1091,while
tellingthestoryoftransferring St. Feodosii'srelics,theauthorstatesthathe
was thesaint'sdisciple.NestortheauthoroftheLifeofSt. Feodosii,however,
tellsus thathe did not see the saintwhilehe was alive,thathe came to the
monastery laterandwas madea monkbyStefan, thethenfather superiorofthe
Caves Monastery.Unliketheauthorofthechronicle,who was rathercritical
ofStefan,Nestortheauthorofthevitashad a veryhighopinionofhim.
The defendersof Nestor'sauthorshipof the chroniclewere apparently
unable to overcomethese difficulties. Theirattemptsfollowseveralrather
simpletracks:(1) thereweretwoNestorsin theCaves Monasteryat thesame
time,one ofthemtheauthorofthevitas,theothertheauthorofthechronicle;
(2) theautobiographical detailsin thechronicledo notbelongto Nestorthe
authoroftheentirePrimaryChronicle;and (3) Nestortheauthorofthevitas
mustbe sacrificedto maintainhis authorshipof the chronicle.The second
approachprovedto be themostpopular,especiallyafterAlekseiShakhmatov
beganto dissecttheonce monolithic textintoa seriesof"pre-Nestor" stages.8
The PrimaryChroniclenowcame to be viewedas a fusionofchronologically
divergent layersof textpennedbyvariousauthors,a workto whichNestor
gave finalshape and grandeur.This analysisofferedwhatappearedto be a
textologicallysound basis forthe idea thatthe "autobiographical" sections
mighthavebeeneitherinterpolations intoNestor'soriginaltextor someunac-
knowledgedcontributions bypreviousauthors"inherited" byNestor'swork.
Themajorand mostobviousdefectofall thediscussionswas thatthescholars
involved,regardlessof theiractualposition,viewedthe issue in thecontext

34 TOLOCHKO
oftheeleventhand thetwelfth centuries,whereasthe"Nestorquestion"does

notbelongthere.The idea thata certainmonkoftheCaves Monasterycalled
Nestorwas theauthorofthePrimaryChronicleoriginatedseveralcenturies
later,and thediscussionshouldbe movedto thattime.Once setin itsproper
literaryand intellectualmilieu,the originsand truemeaningof the Nestor
mythare revealed.
Itremainsa firmfactthatnota singletextdatingfromtheelevenththrough
thefourteenth centurydiscussesNestor'sactivity as a chroniclewriter. Not a
singlecopyofa chronicle(withone notableexception)bearshisname,whether
ina title,ina colophon,orinthetextitself.On thecontrary, we knowperfectly
wellthenameofthemanwho signedthetextofthePrimaryChronicle,and
it is not Nestor.The onlypersonto have claimedthe authorshipof the Pri-
maryChroniclewas Sil'vestr, thefathersuperioroftheKyivanSt. Michaels
Vydubychi Monastery. In a colophon,Sil'vestrdeclaredthathe "wrote"the
chroniclein 1116whileVolodimerMonomakhwas thegrandprinceofKyiv.9
Ironically,mostscholarstendto regardSil'vestras an impostorwho hijacked
Nestor'swork.Thereis something veryodd in thiswillingness to rejectdirect
sourceevidenceinfavorofmereconjecture, as scholarshad no specialreasons
foritthenas now.10 Withsuchevidence,theburdenofproofwas patently on
Nestor'ssupporters. Yetitwas alwaystheskeptics'positionthatwas presented
as revisionistand iconoclastic.One mustaskinsteadwhyNestor'snamecame
to be attachedto thePrimaryChronicleat all?
It seems thatnobodywho has studiedNestor'sproblematicauthorship
ofthe chroniclehas raisedthequestionof how thetraditionof "Nestorthe
Chronicler" penetrated thescholarlydiscourse.He was alreadyinthetextbooks
long before any of us ever startedto learnour firsthistory, apparently from
timeimmemorial. ButhowdidNestorgetthere?Untilthelate1730snobodyin
Russiaknewabouta chronicler Nestor.The firstto "discover"himwas Vasilii
Tatishchev. As lateas 1735he himselfstillthoughtthatthePrimary Chronicle
was writtenby a certain monk named Feodosii and asked the Academyto
send him"cTaporoKieBCKoro AeTonwcija, iMeHyeMoro OeoAOCMeBa."11 This
was a widespreadview,based on a misunderstanding ofthechronicle'stitle
(Feodosii became the authorbecause "OeoAocbeBa"was viewed to be the
genitiveoftheauthor'sname [HepHopM3iâ OeoAocbeBa]and notthenameof
themonastery [OeoAocbeBaMOHacTbipn]).12 ButTatishchev eventually changed
his mind.As thesomewhatmystifying storygoes, sometime in 1720 or 1721
he obtainedin Siberiafroman unspecifiedOld Believera copyofa chronicle
withNestor'snamein thetitle(whichTatishchevcalledtheRaskol'nikcopy).
Tatishchev founda secondcopyofa chronicle withNestor'snameinthelibrary
of PrinceDimitriiGolitsyn(the so-calledGolitsyncopy).Tatishchevknew
theKyivanSynopsis(thefirstbook on historyeverto be printedin Slavonic),
whichcontainsquitea numberofreferences to "NestortheChronicler," and in

ON "nestor the chronicler" 35
additionhe knewthe1661editionoftheKyivanCavesPaterik,whereNestor's
vitaappearedforthefirsttime.Consequently, Tatishchevwas able to writea
special chapterforhis RussianHistory , "On Nestorand His Chronicle."13 In
thischapterTatishchevtriedto sketchNestor'sbiography and to establishthe
rangeofhisliterary works,chroniclewriting ofall.EvenbeforehisRussian
first
Historycame out,Tatishchev'scopies ofthechroniclewerethoughtto have
perishedin a fire.Theseenigmaticcopies,whichno one was able to examine,
introducedNestorto nationalfame.
Be thatas it may,RussianHistoryremainedunpublisheduntillaterin the
centuryand thusforsome timetheRussianpublicstillcherishedthenotion
of Feodosiithe Chronicler.This mythwas finallydestroyedby FedorMiller
(GerhardFriedrichMiiller).In the April1755issue of his periodicalEzhe-
mesiachnye sochineniia , kpol'ze i uveseleniiusluzhashchie, Miillerpublished
a special article"O rossiiskomletopisateleprepodobnomNestore."As edi-
torof Tatishchev'sRussianHistory , Miillerknewhis papersintimately and
simplyreproduced Tatishchev's earlierobservations. Later Prince Mikhail
Shcherbatovand Major Ivan Boltinwould base theirassessmentsof Nestor
theChronicleron Miiller'sand Tatishchev's works.However,themonument
to Nestorwas erectedbyAugustLudwigvon Schlozer.In spiteofthefactthat
bothofTatishchev's chroniclecopieswithNestor'snamewerebelievedto have
beenlostand similarones notyetdiscovered, Schlozercalledhisfamousbook
"Nestor."14 Schlozerwas viewedas an indisputableauthorityon everything
concernedwiththePrimary Chronicle:hisstudymadea revolution in Russian
scholarship, and hisverdictwas takenas finalformanyyearsto come.
Itis easyto surmisethateverything thatRussianscholarsknewaboutNestor
camethrough a singlemedium-Tatishchev, andthathe himself learneditonly
thanksto hisacquaintancewithRuthenian, or moreprecisely, Kyivantextsof
theseventeenth century.AlongsidetheSynopsisand Paterikthisprovenance
shouldbe suggestedforbothofTatishchev's chronicles.The Golitsyncopyis
thewell-known ErmolaevcopyoftheHypatianChronicle,and theRaskolnik
copycan be identified as a descendantof the Khlebnikovcopyof the same
chronicle.15 In otherwords,theoriginofthetradition ofNestortheChronicler
is traditional ; thatis,theacademiccommunity (and evensucha sophisticated
textualcriticofhistimeas Schlozer)assumedwithoutanyverification a rather
local Kyivantradition,one thatwas unknownelsewherebeforethe second
quarteroftheeighteenth century. Thuswe areled to lookto thesixteenth and
seventeenth centuriesas thetimeofNestor's"birth"and to Kyivas a possible
place ofthatbirth.16
It wouldbe usefulforthepurposesofthisstudyto pretendthatwe know
nothingabouttheiconic"Old Rus' chroniclewriterNestor"and thatthevast
bodyofliterature on himwas neverwritten.My suggestionis to tryto trace
when,where,and in whichtextshis namefirstappearsas a chroniclewriter,

36 TOLOCHKO
whatkindsoftextswereascribedto Nestor,and howtheidea of"thefirstRus'

chroniclewriter"developed.
One generalobservationshouldbe made beforeI proceed.Traditionally
chroniclewritinghas been studiedas a moreor less uninterrupted process
commencingin theeleventhand endingin theearlyeighteenth with
century,
thechainofreplication neverseriously broken.Thisimaginedchronicle-writing
is
activity supposed to cover,more or less uniformly, all thelands of a more
or less preciselyimagined"Old Rus'"- thatis,essentially pre-MongolKyivan
space- whichsomehowsurvivedall thecalamitiesofsubsequenthistory. Set
in a fancifulcommonculturalspace,17 historywritingin theGrandDuchyof
Lithuaniaand laterin the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealthis viewednot
as a separatetextual traditionbut a mere extension of"all-Russianchronicle
writing," notmuchdifferent eitherinnatureorappearancefrom, say,Muscovite
chroniclesofthesameperiod.In fact,Ruthenian chroniclewriting witnesseda
very different development from that of Not
Muscovy. only didthe compilation
of new textsnot occur foralmostthreecenturies,18 thereproduction of old
textsstoppedas well.Fortheentireperiodfromthefourteenth tothesixteenth
centuryonlytwocopiesofOld Rus' chroniclesweremade:theRadziwillcopy
and the Pereiaslavl-Suzdal Chronicle(Letopisets PereiaslavliaSuzdal'skogo),
bothfromthefifteenth century and bothcopiedin LithuaniafromGreatRus-
sian originals.
Thus,in termsofMuscoviteand Ruthenianchroniclewriting, no common
space existedfromthe fourteenth centuryon, and bothtraditionsevolved
separatelywithverylittleinteraction ifany.Each one developedits own set
of ideas and concerns;each one drewon its own models and sources.No
significant exchangeofchronicletextsoccurredbeforetheearlyseventeenth
century.Therefore, "Nestor"could not have possiblylived in bothworlds.
Whereashis traditionis prominentin Ruthenianspace, it simplydoes not
existin theMuscovitecontext.
Muscovywitnessedan impressivesurgein chroniclewritingactivityin
thefifteenth century. Withthegrowthofpoliticaland military power,previ-
ously inaccessible chronicle copies became availablein Moscow, and central
authoritiestook advantageof the opportunity to gain access to local tradi-
tion,Novgorodbeingthe principalsource.Some majorcompilationswere
producedat thattimeand theywere replicatedin a greatmanycopies. It
was at thistimethatthewholeindustry ofchroniclewritingin Moscow was
launched,generating hundreds and hundreds of copies fromthe fifteenth
to the eighteenth centuries.Duringthefifteenth centurythe Hypatian-type
chronicle(whoselatecopieshaveNestor'snamein thetitle)was used several
times,servingas an important sourcefortheSophiaI Chronicle,theMoscow
Compilationofthelatefifteenth century, and others.Amazingly, noneofthem
shows anytracesof knowledgeof Nestor.For all theirdifferences, history

writingin the GrandDuchyof LithuaniasharesthisfeaturewithMuscovite

records.The LithuanianChronicles,theircopies largelyfromthe sixteenth
century, knowno Nestoreither(includingthesomewhatspuriousBykhovets
Chronicle,whichis based on theHypatian- typechronicle).It is believedthat
acrosstheborder,RenaissancePolishhistorians utilizedancientRuthenianor
Muscovitechronicles, someofthemapparently sincelost.In the1570sMaciej
Stryjkowski even undertooka special inquiryintoexistingchroniclecopies
availableintheGrandDuchy,havingamassedthelargestcollectionofhistime.
It is remarkablethatno Polishauthor,fromJanDtugoszto MarcinKromer
to MarcinBielskito Stryjkowski, knewanything aboutNestortheChronicler.
This,of course,is the argumentof silence,but it shows exactlywhatsuch
argumentsare expectedto show:in the successortraditionsto pre-Mongol
Kyivanchroniclewriting, therewas no notionofanymonkNestorauthoring
or evensimplycopyinga chronicle.
Nestor'snameappearsforthefirsttimein thetitleoftheso-calledKhleb-
nikovcopyoftheHypatianChronicle:'TIwb13c™ Bp,fcMeHvHbi(x) a&(t). HecTepa
HepvHopM3Jija. eew(Ao)cieBaMaHacTbipA ne(n)pcKaro.WKoyAoy e(c) noniAa
poy(c)icaa3c(m)aa.mkto b hcmnona(A)nepBoeKHA^cfe(Tw). mwicoyAoy poy(c)
Kaa 3eMAA CTaAae(c)."The codex in questionis fromthelate sixteenthcen-
tury.19Judging fromthefactthatin an oldercopyofthesamechronicle,inthe
Hypatianitself(1430s),Nestor'snameis notto be found,we can safelyassume
thatNestorwas notnamedas theauthorintheircommonancestor.20 Allother
copies of the Hypatiangroup that do containNestor's name are in factthe
descendantsof a singleKhlebnikovcopy.Thus,Nestor'sname is unmistak-
ablyan interpolation introducedbytheeditoror thescribeoftheKhlebnikov
codexand belongsto theend ofthesixteenth century. Additionalsupportfor
the suggestionthateven withinthistextualtraditionthe chroniclewas not
yetconnectedwithNestor'sauthorshipcomesfromGrandPrinceVytautas's
CircularEpistleof1415.Itdealswiththeconsecration ofMetropolitan Gregory
Tsamblakandjustifies thisactbyreferringto theprecedentofKlimSmoliatich:
"A to HaniAM ecMOHanwcaHO ctomttjb AeTonwcijex pyccKbix, b kmcbckom
mb BOAOAMMepcKOM mb mhwx"(Whichwe had foundwrittenin Ruthenian
chronicles,in theKyivand Volodymyr Chronicle,and in others).21 The "Kyiv
and Volodymyr Chronicle"is undoubtedly a chronicleoftheHypatiantype,
and the absence of Nestor'sname in referring to it is noteworthy. It is also
importantthatthe episode took place in 1415,veryclose to the date of the
Hypatiancopy,which,as it happens,does not mentionNestor.22 Thus,the
earliestactualcodex ofNestor's"authorship" appeared at the very end ofthe
sixteenth century.
Ifnotfroma previousprotograph, however, fromwheredidNestor'sname
findits wayintothe titleof the Khlebnikovcopy?It is truethatduringthe
fifteenth centurysometextsdo mentionchronicle-writing activitybyNestor.

38 TOLOCHKO
Thesereferences, however,are confinedto a singletradition, namely,thatof

theKyivanCavesPaterik.In theso-calledArseniiversion,preservedin a copy
from1406 (whichis consideredto be the original),in a storyabout Nikita
theHermit,thereis mentioned"HecTep"b, M>Ke HanwcaA-fcTonwceijb" (Nester
who wrotethechronicle).23 It seemsthatthiscasual remarkmade in passing
(Nestoris mentionedherein a listof otherearlyCaves fathers)24 gave rise
to further development of the Nestor theme in subsequent versions of the
Paterik.In 1460 and 1462twonew versionsofthePaterikwereproducedin
Kyiv,commissionedbythechoirmaster and laterservicesupervisorKasiian,
hencetheFirstandtheSecondKasiianredactions.ThetwoKasiianredactions
(butespeciallytheSecond)standoutfortheirunprecedented expansionofthe
Paterikwithexcerptsborrowedfroma chronicle.Followingthe hintof the
Arseniiredaction,Kasiianapparently assumedthattheauthorofa chronicle
at hisdisposalmusthavebeen Nestor,themonkoftheCaves Monastery. In a
story about the
Agapit Physician, Kasiian makes a reference to a source not to
be foundinanypreviousredactionofthePaterik : "HKO>Ke 6Aa>KeHHbiw HecTept
bt>A-fcTonMCijMHanncao 6Aa>KeHbix OTuefex,o A^MMHHe, IepeMiM, mMaTew,
mMcaKbin"(as the blessedNesterwroteabout the blessedfathersDamian,
Jeremiah, and Matthew,and Isaac in thechronicle).25
Kasiianwas guidedbya beliefthatthechroniclehe used was thesameone
mentionedin thePaterik. So in the FirstKasiianredaction,the storyabout
thebeginningsoftheCaves Monastery, borrowedfroma chronicleentryof
1051,was giventhetitle"HecTopa,MHMxa o6mtcam MaHacTbipa nenepbCKaro,
CKa3aHiehto paAMnpo3BacnnenepbCKbiM MaHacTbipb" (ByNestor,a monkof
theCavesMonastery, a narration on howtheCavesMonasterygotitsname).26
In the Second Kasiianversion,a chapteron thetranslationof St. Feodosii's
relics(borrowedfromthechronicleentryof1091)is ascribedto Nestoras well:
"HecTopa,MHMxa MaHacTbipa nenepbCKaro, o npeHecemw MonjeMb CBHTaro
npenoAo6Haro OTijaHainero 0eoAOcianenep'bCKaro" (A discourse byNestor,
a monkoftheCavesMonastery, aboutthetranslation of the relicsofourmost
venerablefather,FeodosiioftheCaves Monastery).27 Kasiianwentso faras to
insertNestor'snameintothoseplacesin thetextwherethenarrationwas in
thefirstperson.His confidencein Nestor'sauthorshipgrewfromversionto
version.Thus,at theend of a chapteron thefoundingoftheCaves Monas-
tery,insteadofthewordsofthefirstredaction,whichaccuratelyfollowthe
chronicletext(withoutthename)we read:"npwwAOx >Kema3T>k HeMy, xyAbiw
a3T>
mHeAOCTOMHbiwpa6-bHecTop-b, npwHTb m ma,TorAaxhTbmmcymy17ot
po>KAema Moero"(I, thewretchedand unworthy servantNestorcameto him,
and he acceptedme. I was thenin myseventeenth year).28 Kasiianapparently
was notembarrassed bythe factthat in
later, the Life of St. Feodosii,he himself
putdownon papertheactualwordsspokenbyNestor:"TO>KAe Mcnwca xt>a3"b
HecTopi),MHinBCfcx
rp-feiuHbiw bt>MOHacTbipw npenoAo6Haro OTijaHainero

©eoAOciaripiaTb>Ke6mxbt>HbnpenoAo6HbiM wryMeHOM Cre(j)aHOM mHKO^ce

ot ToronocTpbi^ceHb 6bixmMHMniecKWH OAe>KAa cnoAo6AeHbw (ThisI, thesin-
fulNestor,theleastofall themonksin themonastery ofourvenerablefather
Feodosii,havewrittendown.I myself was receivedintothemonastery bythe
venerablesuperiorStefanand was tonsuredand investedwiththemonastic
habitbyhim).29
The above evidencewas reviewedbyspecialistsseveraltimesin the past
withvaryingresults.The majorityof scholarstendedto rejectthe idea that
Kasiianhad a chroniclecopywiththename ofNestor:all theinterpolations
wereseen as theresultofKasiian'sown guesswork.Shakhmatov, too,agreed
thatKasiiandidnotpossess"someold chronicletextwiththenameofNestor"
and inventeditbydeduction;yetbysomestrangetwistofthought, inthenext
sentenceShakmatovinsistedthatit was "mostlikelythatKasiiancame into
possessionofa PVL copyin whosetitletherewas an indicationthatthePVL
was composedbyNestor."30
Kasiianwas thefirstto deducethatNestorwrotethechronicle. If,indeed,he
did notpossesssome chronicle"withthenameofNestor," thenhowcouldhe
arriveathissurmise?In fact,itwas hardforhimto reachanyotherconclusion.
Up untilthe 1630stherewas onlyone chronicletextavailablein Kyiv- the
Khlebnikov-type chronicle,and Kasiianhad no knowledgeaboutthedozens
moreabroad,in Muscovy.A singleremarkin thePaterikmatcheda single
copy.Kasiianmusthaveworkedon theassumptionthatthereexistedan "Old
Chronicle,"which,naturally, couldnotbe anyotherthantheone referred to in
thePaterik(theArseniiversion,as ithappens,notedonlyone personinvolved
in chroniclewriting-themonkNestor).Kasiiancould not haveavoidedhis
"discovery,"and,one shouldnote,his discoverycould onlyhavehappenedin
a Rutheniansetting.It would have been impossiblein Muscovy,wherethe
choiceofchronicleswouldhavebeentoo greatto guaranteeone rightselection.
Kasiian'signorance,fortunately, sparedhimthisanxiety.
Towardstheend ofthefifteenth centurywritersin Muscovyalso beganto
suspectthattheauthorwhowrotethechronicleentryof1091aboutthetransla-
tionof St. Feodosii'srelicsand the authorof the chroniclewas one and the
same person.The Moscow Compilationofthelatefifteenth centurycontains
thephrase"a3i>neerpfcuiHbm B3eMT>MOTbiKy" (and I, sinfulone,tooka spade),
intowhichitseditorinsertedtheaddition"wacemAfcTomicaHMe ce b to BpeMH
nwcax"(whowas also writing thischronicleat thattime).31 A Muscovitescribe
had takenthisfirststep,butproceededno further: he lackeda name.
Kasiianwas morefortunate, sincehe came to possesstwotextssimultane-
ously:thechronicletellingthestoryofSt.Feodosiiundertheyear1091(a rare
passagewritteninthefirstperson)and thePaterik,whichincludedtheLifeof
St. FeodosiisignedbyNestor.He assumedthemto be twopiecesbythesame
author.In addition,Kasiianhad thebenefitofthePaterik'shintaboutNestor

40 TOLOCHKO
writingsome unspecifiedchronicle.It was onlylogical forhim to assume

thattheentryof1091,and,byextension, thewholeofthechronicle,mustbe
Nestor'sworktoo.
Kasiianmadehisdiscovery in1460andconfirmed itin 1462.Eitherdatecan
serveas thebirthdate ofNestortheChronicler. Thatwould explain,among
otherthings, justwhyno Khlebnikov-type copywritten beforethatdatecould
supply the name ofNestor. By the end of the fifteenth century,however, some
Ruthenianbookloversstartedto makenoteofKasiiansdiscovery. The reader
oftheso-calledPereiaslavl-Suzdal Chronicleidentified, in theentryof1051,a
passagethathe had spottedbeforein theSecond Kasiianredactionand cor-
rectedthetextso thatitwouldagreewiththelatter 's reading:"btjhjkm ma3i>
HecTepnpuMAOXTj 17 xhT7> m
cymy npMHTb mh, cew >Ke mHanwcax."32
Duringthe fifteenth century,however,Kasiian'sproposaldid not enjoy
popularity. It was onlythefollowing centurythatsaw thefirstsuccessofhis
conjecture. When itwas decided to create a newcopyofthechroniclein Kyiv
inthe1560s(mostprobably, intheCavesMonastery, wheretheKasiianversions
had been produceda centuryearlier),theNestortraditionwas alreadywell
establishedlocally.Themanuscript producedis knownnowas theKhlebnikov
copy. The editor entrusted with the taskknewhisPaterikandconsulteditstext
whilecopyingthechronicle, sometimesevenhavingoriginalreadingsamended
according to the Paterik text.33Forsomeonewellversedin thePaterik , itwas
to
quiteeasy recognize identical passages while copying the chronicle text and
to notethattheyhad been attributed there to Nestor. We know that the scribe
recognizedat least one, the entryfor1051.Opposite the words"kt>HCMoy
>Kema3T>npiMAw(x) xoyAbiw. mh€aoctomhwm pa6T>"on themarginhe added
"hcctc(p)mhm(x)."34 The scribe ofthe Khlebnikov copywas atypical.He was
not a classicallytrainedphilologist, yethis interventions intothe textwere
generallythoseofa learnedman.He did not copytheoriginalslavishly, but
improved it ifhe saw fit:he unified the orthography to conform with the then
fashionable Balkanmodels,identified andcorrected somescripture quotations,
and offered conjectures, some ofthemquitereasonable.
The situationoftheKhlebnikoveditormirroredthatofKasiiana century
earlier.He,too,was undertheimpression thatthechroniclehewas working on
was theonlyone thathad everexisted,and he,too, had both the chronicle and
thePaterikon hiswriting desk.Theanonymous"monkoftheFeodosii'smon-
astery" in the chronicle's titlecriedout to be named,and theonlycandidate
forthejob was NestoroftheCaves Monastery. The interpolation ofhisname
in theKhlebnikov titlemadeitthefirstchronicleeverwrittenbyNestor.
Thelastdecadesofthesixteenth century weremarkedbya generaldecline
inliterary activity,and so thediscovery of the ancientchroniclewritten bythe
Caves monk Nestor went virtuallyunnoticed at the time.35 Besides, at a certain

pointtheKhlebnikov copyleftKyiv36
to resurfacethereonlyintheearly1620s.37
ThissecondcomingofNestorwas sensational.
In 1620theRuthenianOrthodoxwerevisitedbyTheophanes,thepatriarch
ofJerusalem. Leadersofthecommunity convincedhimto consecratea new
Orthodoxhierarchy, whichhe did in severalstages.The restorationof the
Orthodoxhierarchyby an Easternpatriarchunderthe militaryprotection
oftheCossackswas a majoreventin thelifeoftheKyivanmetropolitanate.38
The last eventof thismany-stagedprocesstook place in February1621,in
Zhyvotiv, a townthatbelongedto PrinceStefanSviatopolk-Chetvertyns'kyi,
an Orthodoxand a descendantof"oldKyivanprinces." The importanceofthe
momentwas apparently recognizedbymany. To mark the solemnities,the
old Rus' annalswerebroughton stage.Itwas in Zhyvotiv thattheKhlebnikov
copymade its dramaticentry.To commemoratethe patriarchsvisit,Prince
commissioned
Sviatopolk-Chetvertyns'kyi a copyof"Nestor'schronicle,"
which
was completedin March 1621.This is the manuscriptknowntodayas the
Pogodincopy.39
Withthepatriarchdepartedto Moldaviaand thePogodincopymade,its
original,the Khlebnikovcopy,disappearedagain (probablysentback to the
Movilaswho had apparently suppliedit forthe occasion). But not forlong.
The circumstances of its arrivalhad attractedattentionto such a rarity.
The
Khlebnikoventeredthescene at a verypeculiarmomentin Ruthenianintel-
lectuallife.Withtheirhierarchy restored,thoughillegal,theverylegitimacy
oftheOrthodoxlayin theirbeingsuccessorsto a millennium-long tradition.
Shortly beforethe"rediscovery," ZakhariiaKopystens'kyi had transformed his
anti-Uniate polemicsso theywouldincorporate based arguments.
historically
This strategy,whichpresentedthe UniateChurchas a noveltyand a break
withRutheniantradition, provedveryeffective. Yet Zakhariia,as all Ortho-
dox polemicistsofthetime,lackeddomesticdocumentsthatwouldsupport
suchclaims.He himselfhad to resortto Polishchroniclesforinformation on
Ruthenianhistory. The Orthodoxdesperately needed somethingthatwould
unambiguously and decisively underscore theirauthenticityand,byextension,
expose the fraudulent claimsof theiropponents. Here was the marketfor
"Nestor'schronicle."
ZakhariiaKopystens'kyi madethenote"Nestor'schronicle"in themargin
ofhisPalinodia ca. 1621-1623.Yetforthenextdecade itseemedto be simply
an inconsequentialepisode forthe Kyivanliterati.Thingschangeddramati-
callywhenPetroMohylabecame metropolitan ofKyivin late1632.Adopting
certainpracticesfromthe post-Tridentine Counter-Reformation, the new
metropolitan launchedan impressive campaignaimedat restoring theOrtho-
dox Churchto the standingit rightly deserved.The restitution of historical
memorywas amongtheprincipalmeansto thatend. Mohylasponsoredthe

42 TOLOCHKO
renovationofancientsitesthatwitnessed,as he believed,themomentwhen
Rus' was baptized;he encouragedinvestigations into Rus' history;and he
promotedtheresultsofthesestudiesin a seriesofpublicationsissuedbythe
Caves Monasteryprinting shop.
Bearingin mindthepastlinksoftheMohylas(Movilas)to theKhlebnikov
manuscript(see note 36), it is no wonderthatwe findit in the custodyof
PetroMohylain the1630s.Mohylaappearsto be itsfirst modernstudent.The
metropolitan collatedthe text with that of another chronicle,40 and he marked
somepassagesforSyl'vestr Kosov'sattention. BythetimetheKhlebnikov came
intoMohylaspossession,thebookwas in a deplorablestatewithitspagesout
of orderand some even lost. The codex was restoredin the 1630sand new
copiesproduced.
In itsnewformitservedas theprincipalsourcefortheso-calledHustynia
Chronicleproducedin the mid-i630sin the circleof Mohylas associates.
"NestortheChronicler" is presentedhereas themajorauthority and referred
to on numerousoccasions.
In 1635theCaves Monasteryprinting shop produceda Polishtranslation
ofthePaterik.Paterikonabo Zywoty SS. oycowpieczarskich was authoredby
Syl'vestrKosov, who had been directed to the Khlebnikov byMohyla.Kosov
mentionsNestorina listofhissourcesas "Sw§tyNestorZakonnikPieczarski,"
and refersto hischronicleelevenmoretimes.41
ThreeyearslaterAfanasiiKal'nofois'kyi publishedTeratourgema or the
Miracles...,a treatiseon miraclesperformed bytheCaves Monasterysaints.
Thebookwas intendedas a supplement to Kosov'sPaterikon. Italso mentions
Nestoramongitsmajorsources:"Sw^tyNestor,MonachPieczarski yKronikarz
Ruski."The appearanceofNestor'snamein thePaterikonand Teratourgema
indicatesthatbythistimetheformula"Nestorthe Chronicler"had already
been coined.Kal'nofois'kyi further increasedNestor'scitationindex:all in all
he refersto "Nestor'schronicle"nearlytwenty times.
Having been introduced in Kyiv in the early1630s,Nestorbecamean instant
celebrity.No wonder.Ata timewhentheKyivintellectuals groupedaroundthe
Caves Monasterywerestruggling to reviveRutheniantradition and historical
memory, the chronicle byNestor, a monk of theCaves Monastery, was a discov-
eryoftremendous importance. TheOrthodoxatlastcouldappealto a domestic
and,moreimportantly, ancientsource,composedwithintheverywallsofthe
monastery. As the majordefenderof Orthodoxy, the Caves Monasterywas
eager to use this to
opportunity promote itselfas a placewhereone ofitown
monkshad givenbirthto itsoldesthistoricaltradition. It thuswouldbecome
notonlythehubofthesacraltradition ofRus',butalsotheprincipal guardianof
itshistoricalmemoryabout"theglorioustimesofprincely rule." Kosovmade
thisclearin his dedicationto Adam Kysil',reminding hisbenefactor thatthe

ON"NESTORTHECHRONICLER" 43
Lavrais the"treasury ofRus' history,thenestoftheholyfathers, whereGod

preservedtheancientannals"42
Nestor'sreputationin theseventeenth centurywas also supportedbythe
new fashionof attributing to himthe entireCaves Paterik,as evidencedby
thetitleofKosov'sPaterikon(slowienskim ienzykiem przezswientego Nestora
ZakonnikayLatopiscaRuskiego przedtymnapisany).Itis difficult to determine
whatmade Kosov arriveat such a conclusion(chancesare,itwas a resultof
meremisunderstanding: the scribeof a copy used by Kosov was a certain
"AbflHOK Fromthistimeon,eachsubsequentmanuscript
HecTepeij").43 version
of thePaterikand printededitionsofthe textwould have Nestor'sname in
thetitle.And it is importantthattheallegedauthorofall thesePaterikswas
notsimplyNestor,butNestortheChronicler Nestor'schronicle-
.44Ironically,
writingactivity forthePateriksbecame moreimportant thanhis authorship
ofseveralvitas.
One mightforman opinion thatforKyivanintellectualsof the seven-
teenthcentury"Nestor"mayhave become synonymous witha certaintype
- -
of chronicle the Khlebnikovor a similarone whichbears Nestor'sname
in thetitle.To some extentthisis true.But moreoftenthannot,the actual
textscitedunderthislabel are notthoseofthe"genuine"Nestor.Thoughwe
mayrightfully suspectthatthe Khlebnikovcopywas not Nestor'swork,the
seventeenth-century writershad no doubtsthatit was genuineNestor. The
Nestormyth, however,wouldgeneratea seriesoffurther fakes,textsascribed
to Nestorthathavenothingto do withtheKhlebnikov copy."Nestor"became
an alias foranychronicle-liketextat all and virtuallyanychroniclecould be
called"Nestor"and be quotedunderhis name.
Such a custom,it seems,was inauguratedbytheveryfirstpromotersof
Nestor.Kosov, who had definitely read the Khlebnikov,glossed different
-
materialsas Nestor'swork forexample,thoseborrowedfromthe Second
KasiianredactionofthePaterik(thenarrationon thebeginnings oftheCaves
Monastery) and from theHustynia Chronicle (thepassageon the fivebaptisms
ofRus').Kal'nofois'kyifollowedhisexamplein Teratourgema. Althoughsome
ofthequotationsunderNestor'snametherewereclearlyborrowedfromthe
Khlebnikov, othersare obviousquotationsfromtheHustyniaChronicle(the
account about the renovationof the Churchof the Dormitionby Symeon
Olel'kovychin 1470or thelegendofBatu'sdeathin Hungaryin 1247)and still
othersare borrowingsfromthe Second KasiianredactionofthePaterik. In
one instance,a reference to Nestormasksa borrowingfromKopystens'kyi's
foreword to theLavraeditionoftheHomiliesofSt.JohnChrysostom on Four-
teenEpistlesbySt.Paul (thelegendon theoriginsofthe"gifts ofMonomakh,"
in itsturnborrowedbyKopystens'kyi, mostprobably, fromtheSophia I or a
similarchronicle).45

44 TOLOCHKO
FromtheverybeginningsoftheNestormythno particularchroniclewas
understoodas a workbyNestor,butratherthechronicleas a genre,or more
broadly, anytexton history. One important thingshouldbe mentionedinthis
connection.AllthecopiesoftheolderversionoftheHustyniaChronicle(five
out ofeight)attribute itto Nestor("A'fcTonwceij'bTBopemeF[pn(A)6Harw vvija
HarneroHecTopa MOHaxaMOHa(c)TMpa nenepcKaro,ia>Kew HauiOMPocciw-
ckomtj"), and some ofthemevenprovidetheexactdateofcomposition, 1073.
Thedate,ofcourse,is a lateinvention: 1073 was the year when the Dormition
CathedraloftheCavesMonastery was founded, a dateofspecialsymbolism for
themonastery. ThetitlewithNestor'snamewas notpartoftheoriginaldesign,
ofcourse,butitwas addedto theHustyniaChroniclerathersoon.Apparently,
formanycontemporaries thisadaptationof "Nestor'schronicle"seemed a
betterNestorthantheKhlebnikov itself.
Itwas equippedwithallthenecessary
embellishments ofthetime(footnotes, references to Polishhistorians, etc.)
Fromthe1630son,theNestormythwouldbe disseminated through various
agencies:byfiliation oftheKhlebnikov copies,bythespreadoftheHustynia
Chroniclecopies, and, most important, by the printingpressof the Caves
Monastery, which produced hundreds and hundredsofPateriks.
Thus, the so-calledUkrainian Chronograph (composedinthesecondquar-
teroftheseventeenth century), citingNestor,theCaves chronicler, quotes,in
fact,a corresponding passage from theHustynia Chronicle on therenovation
oftheDormitionCathedralbyPrinceSymeonOlel'kovychin 1470.In another
instanceitis theLifeofPrincessOl'ha in theversionoftheStepennaiakniga
thatis quoted whilereferencing Nestorthe Chronicler.And on two occa-
sionsit is theKronikaPolskabyMaciej Stryjkowski thatpretendshereto be
"Nestor'schronicle."46 Chancesare,theauthoroftheChronograph nevereven
saw theKhlebnikov copy,thebona fideNestor.All he knewwas theprestige
and authority associatedwithNestor'sname and thatto quote himwas the
fashionofthetime.
Sometimesitwas evennota history textatallthatwas presented as Nestor's
chronicle:in thepolemicaltreatiseIndicium(composedin 1638byan anony-
mous monkof theVinnytsiaMonastery),its authorquotes Supplementum
Sinopsis(a polemicaltreatiseof1632)butjustifies hispointbyremarking, "Toz
wlasnienasz historikruskiNestors. [on themargin:Nestor,historyk ruski],
posluszniks. Theodozego,archimandryty Pieczarskiego, w Kronicedzieiow
ruskichpisze."47 TheauthorofIndicium,probablycloseto theVinnytsia school
(and thus to and
Kalnofois'kyi Kosov), knew about the recent Kyivanvogue
andwantedto reflect it,buthad no chronicletextand triedto do hisbestwith
whateverlimitedresourceshe possessed.
Suchthingshappenednotonlyto provincials. EvenintheLavraitself, where
the mythoriginated,therewas an inclinationto do the same. The famous
Synopsis , a historicaltextofparamountimportance, is fullofquotationsfrom

ON "NESTORthe chronicler" 45
Nestor.Yet thosecitationsof sourceare in the same categoryas the mythi-

cal "numerousRus' chronicles," "ancientRus' chronicles,"
and even "vellum
chronicles" thattheSynopsismarshalsin itssupport.Allthesereferences were
aimedatproducingan imageofa verysolidpieceofscholarship, butinfactthe
toolsoftheauthorofSynopsis (whoeverhe mightbe) wereverylimited:besides
KronikaPolskabyMaciej Stryjkowski (and eventhisnot in theoriginal,but
ratherin a translated and abridgedform)and theHustyniaChronicle,he used
no otherhistoricalsources.48 The Synopsiswas veryimportantin spreading
theNestormyth.Firstpublishedin 1674and reissuedin 1678,withthreemore
editionsdated to 1680 (but in factprintedup to the 1690s),it was the first
historybestsellerin EasternEurope.The actualprintrunsare unknown,yet
thereis littledoubtthatforthenextcenturytheSynopsisremainedthemost
popularworkon Rus' history. For manyUkrainiansand Russiansit was the
firstand thelastbook on historytheyeverread,sometimesat a fairly young
age, and with it Nestor'sname was firmly in
imprinted memory.
Attempts to adaptNestorforeducationalpurposesweremaderatherearly.
Virtuallyall the Kyivansassociatedwiththe Nestormyth(SylvestrKosov,
AfanasiiKal nofois'kyi, Innokentii Gizel',FeodosiiSofonovych)wereteaching
intheKyivCollegiumatsomepointintheircareers.As thelastwillandthetes-
tament(1646)ofAfanasiiKal'nofois'kyi reveals,one ofNestor'sfirst
aficionados
puttogethera "paperback"editionofNestor'schronicle,whichis registered
amonghis books as "EmiTOMM chronologiaesanctipatrinostriNestorispro
recompositione puerisdanda, sciantgentissua acta"(Synopsisofourfather
ut
SaintNestor'schroniclecomposedfortheyoung,so theycan learnthedeeds
of theirhistory).49Thisworkis apparentlylost,and it remainsto speculate
whetherit was indeed an abridgmentof the Khlebnikov-type chronicle,or
a book similarto thelaterSynopsis.Anotherattemptwas morefortunate. In
the 1690s Lev Kyshka,the futureUniatemetropolitanof Kyiv,preparedan
abridgedPolishtranslationof a Khlebnikov-type chronicle,whichhe called
AnnatessanctiNestorisand apparently used whileteachingin a Volodymyr
school. Nestor,of course,neverwrotein Polishand could not have known
Annalesecclesiastici byCaesarBaronius(whichserveshereas thesourceofthe
chronological grid),yetunlikeKal'nofois'kyi,Kyshkaneverevenhintedthathis
workwas notwhattheCaves monkhad writtensix hundredyearsearlier.
In a word,Nestorbecamea sensationoftheearlyseventeenth centuryand
maintainedthatstatusthroughout therestofthecentury. And as is oftenthe
case witha celebrity, hisnamemusthavebeenwellknown,buthisworkswere
hardly read.50His reputationwas spreadandsupportedbya kindofpropaganda
campaignlaunched,controlled,and sustainedby the Caves Monastery.In
mostcases it was enoughonlyto mentionhis name or to makea reference
to hisworkto proveone'spoint.Bymid-century Nestorhad alreadybecome
such a powerfulauthority thathis chroniclewas even used in legaldisputes

46 TOLOCHKO
and provedto be superiorto anylegal document.When in 1656the Lavra

filedsuitagainsttheVydubychi Monasteryto gaincontrolovertheferryboat
routeacrosstheDnieperRiver, Vydubychi hegumenIhnatiiStarushych called
on Nestoras his principalwitness.He presentedthechronicleentryof1097
(itmentionsthatPrinceVasil'koRostislavich crossedtheDnieperon hisway
to Vydubychi), "6epyHM aoboa HecTopoM,KpoMHMKapoM a6o ahtoiimcljom
nenapcKMM kmcbckmm 3a (JjyHAaMeHT cnpaBbi CBoea." the Lavra,
Ironically,
Nestor's"birthplace," lostthecase and commissioners AntonZhdanovychand
FedorVyhovs'kyi, appointedbythehetmanBohdanKhmel'nyts'kyi, ruledin
favorofVydubychi Monastery.51
By the second halfofthecentury, Nestorwas rankedamongthemostimpor-
tantancientauthors.The prestigeofhis name turnedhimintoan authorof
vitasforthesecondtimein hiscareer.The so-calledUkrainianLifeofPrince
Volodymyr (startingwiththeprintededitionof1670)bearsNestor'snameinits
title:"Bbi6paHO 3JAfcTonncija Ptfcicorw,
npenoAo6Harw HecTopanenepcKorw."
(Itsmajorsources,however, thePaterikon
were of1635,theHustynia Chronicle,
andtheKronikaPolskabyMaciejStryjkowski.)52 Somewhatlater,inhisfamous
"Books of Saints'Lives,"Dymytrii TuptalocoauthoredwithNestorthe Life
of St. Volodymyr h
("ci icTopia 2cwTin ero co6paHa m3t> AfcTonwcija PycKoro
npenoAo6HaroHecTopa nenepcKaro"),the Lifeof Theodoreand Johnthe
Varangians("oi"bnpenoAo6HaroHecTopa A^Tomicija nenepcKaro"),and
some others.
The "real"Nestor- thatis, theKhlebnikov-type chronicles-had to com-
petewiththesesimulations. ShortlybeforetheSynopsiswas publishedbythe
Lavra,FeodosiiSofonovych, fathersuperiorofSt.Michael's"Golden-Domed"
Monastery inKyivproducedhisChronicle Taken fromAncient Annalists(1672).
Itstitlerecommended theworkas thefusionof two Ruthenian classicauthors:
Nestorand Stryjkowski ("KpoMHMKa 3 AfcTonMCijo^) CTapoAaBHwx, 3 CBJiToro
HecTopanene(p)cKoro KMeBCKoro, a TaiGKe3i>kpomhmk In terms
noACKMX'b").53
of content,it was indeed veryclose to the Khlebnikov-type text(although
Nestorherespoke in a heavilyPolonizedRuthenian),yetit provedfarless
successfulthantheSynopsis.
Withthe numberof Nestor-basedcompilationspretendingto be origi-
nalsgrowing, itwas hardto tellrealfromfake.Evenexperiencedwriterslike
Dymytrii Tuptalosometimeshad difficulty discerningwhichwas which.As
early as the 1690s he knew both "Nestors,"the Khlebnikovand theHustynia
chronicles, the he
yet way quoted Nestor in "The CatalogoftheMetropolitans
ofKyivwitha BriefChronicleAppended"(1691)and in hisfamous"Booksof
Saints'Lives"provesthathe hardlydistinguished betweenthem.
Forall his fame,Nestorremaineda rathermythicalfigure.Nobodyknew
exactlywhenhe livedor exactlywhathe wrote.Anychroniclecould be pre-
sentedas written byNestorandeverything thatwas knownaboutancienttimes

was presentedas ifreadfrom"Nestor'schronicle." Beforethe1660stherewas

considerableuncertainty about the biographicaldetailsof Nestor'slife:the
authoroftheChronograph was certainthatNestorwas a nearcontemporary of
St.Ol'ha (thetradition ofthePaterik);thathe was a discipleofSt.Antonii;that
he was acceptedintothemonastery bySt. Feodosiibutat thesame timealso
byStefan.The titlesoftheHustyniaChronicleinsistedthatNestorwrotethe
chroniclein1073.Oddlyenough,nobodyintheseventeenth century seemedto
noticethatthechronicleNestorwas creditedwithwritingcontinuesthrough
thetwelfth and closes at theveryend ofthethirteenth century. The Primary
Chronicle,theKyivanChronicle,and eventheGalician-Volhynian Chronicle
ofthethirteenth century (allthree are Hypatian-type manuscripts) attrib-
were
utedto "Nestor." One oftheseventeenth-century studentsoftheKhlebnikov
codex,havingreachedtheend oftheGalician-Volhynian Chronicle,notedin
themargin:"3a^ e(cT) kohei^Tj Kpo(h)hmkm HecTopoBw."54
AlthoughNestoris referred to as a saintfromtheverystart(and as early
as 1638Kal'nofois'kyi was able to showNestor'srelicsin thecaves),theexact
momentofhis canonizationis notknown.Nestor'sfirstvitaappearsonlyin
thePaterikof1661(reissuedbyDymytrii Tuptalounder27 October)55 and is
of
clearlycomposed biographical data alreadyfound in the Second Kasiian
redaction.56 ThedateofNestor'scommemoration also revealsitslateorigin:27
Octoberis thefeastdayofmartyr NestorofThessaloniki.ServicesforNestor
are knownonlyfromthebeginningoftheeighteenth century.
All thisinconsistency, uncertainty, and lack of preciseknowledgeis not
surprising. Withan explosivegrowthin popularity, thatis whatone would
expect.His becamea brandname.Variouspeoplego on recordtrying to claim
familiarity with Nestor's name, ifnot his works. Any text even remotely con-
cernedwithhistory assertedthatithad Nestoramongitssources.Anytexton
history was believedtobe Nestor'swork.Itmattered notthatpeoplehada very
vaguenotionofwhenNestorlivedorwhathe authored.Thepicture, then,is of
an expandingmyth.The cumulativeeffectoftheseratherchaoticefforts was
thatNestorcame to be viewedas themostimportant writerofKyivantimes,
withtheRus' Chroniclebeinghismajorachievement.
The overviewofwhathappenedto Nestorduringtheseventeenth century
allowsseveralobservations:(1) Nestor'sriseto prominencewas made pos-
sible bythe specificconditionsin whichpost-UnionRuthenianintellectual
lifedeveloped;(2) therewas no traditionregardingNestorindependentof
theSecond KasiianversionoftheKyivPaterik; (3) Nestor'sfamewas spread
eitherbyerroneously attributed textsor throughKhlebnikov-type copies of
the chronicle;(4) no chroniclewithNestor'sname in its titleever existed
beforetheKhlebnikov and itsdescendants;and (5) Nestor'snamein thelatter
is an interpolation made in thelatesixteenthcenturyundertheinfluenceof
theKasiianredactionofthePaterik.To sumup: despitetheunwavering belief

48 TOLOCHKO
in theearlymodernperiodthatthetraditionregarding Nestorwas based on

sourcesnow lost,all we haveis thesole spuriousevidenceoftheKhlebnikov
copy.NestormayhavewrittenthePrimaryChronicle,butthereis no wayof
knowingit.
Fora longtimeNestor'smythremaineda localRuthenian tradition unknown
elsewhere.Evenin thefirstdecades oftheeighteenth century, in all of Rus-
sia onlyformerstudentsoftheKyivCollegiumsuchas FeofanProkopovych,
StefanIavors'kyi, or Dymytrii Tuptaloknewthattherewas a majorRus' his-
torianNestorthe Chronicler,whereastheiryoungercontemporary Vasilii
Tatishchevtwentyyearslaterwouldstilllook forthe"chronicleof Feodosii."
Amongforeigners onlyJohannes HerbiniusknewaboutNestor(he calledhim
"Ruthenorum historicuschronologusNestor"),and thatwas simplybecause
he had visitedKyivand theCaves Monastery, was toldaboutNestor,and was
shownhis gravein thecrypts.Herbiniussguidehappenedto be Innokentii
Gizel'.
Still,thereremainin Tatishchevsworkstwo enigmaticchronicleswith
Nestorsnamein theirtitles,also believedto havebeenlostafterthehistorian
had died.Theyare supposedlywitnessesofa traditionindependentfromthe
Khlebnikovcopy.The firstof thesechronicles,knownas the Golitsyncopy,
is certainlyof Ukrainianorigin.Afterall, PrinceDimitriiGolitsynwas the
voivodeofKyivand manyofthemanuscripts in hisvastcollectioncame from
to
Kyiv.Contrary popular belief, the Golitsyncopyhas survived.It is well
knownand was publishedseveraltimesas theErmolaevcopy.57 Formanya
scholartheGolitsyncopyseemedancient(supposedly, a copyofa pre-Mongol
manuscript), since Tatishchevhad reported that itlacked a Galician-Volhynian
portion. Yet Tatishchev also noted thatthe manuscript written
was ina "White
Russianhand,"the standarddescriptionof Ukrainian hands throughout the
eighteenth century. Somepeculiarities ofthecodexas describedbyTatishchev
lead to copies ofthe Khlebnikovgroup:"B HeMMHoroepa3TepHHO, 3HaTHO,
c neroohomcnwcbmaH, tot noBpe>KAeH 6ma, m6o Ha noAHx Toro >Ke rnicija
pyKOK) npwnMCbiBaHo TaKo:*3Aehchto npopoHeHO.' Oh kohhmtch b 1198-M
roAy, ho OKOHHaHMe eroyTpaneHo: a n0T0M19AeTcnycTH hchtoHenopHAOHHO
HOBewinee BbinwcaHO."58 One can recognizeherea similarglossin theKhleb-
nikov("t#(t) MHoroHoro(c)H8Ma(in)")59 and an identicalone in theIarots'kyi
(1651)and Ermolaev(1710s)copies ("TtfrbnepecTtfnAeHO a^ttj ei").60
Why did Tatishchev decide that the Ermolaev copy lacked a Galician-
Volhynianportion? The person who produced the Ermolaevclearlydis-
criminated betweentheKyivanChronicleand itsGalician-Volhynian sequel:
betweenthetwopartstwoblankfolios(fourand a halfpages)wereinserted;
the Kyivanparthas the old Cyrillicfoliation, whilethe Galician-Volhynian
portion has a newer Arabic one. It was thiscodicologicalseam thatprobably

ON"NESTORthe chronicler" 49
causedTatishchev's mistake:he (orthescribehe hadhired)didnotrealizethat

whatfollowedaftertheblankpageswas also a chronicletext.
The second chronicleTatishchevmentions,theRaskol'nikcopy,was very
similarto theGolitsyn: it,too,boreNestor'snameinthetitleanditstextended
at aboutthesame point,in 1197.Tatishchevclaimedthatitwas on vellum,"of
an old tongueand script," withiusy."Vellum"is quitepuzzling,but the iusy
are normalin the Balkanizedorthography of Ukrainianmanuscriptsof the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.Tatishchevreportedthatthechronicle's
titlewas "FIoBecTMBpeMHHHbix AewHecTopa, HepHopw3ijaOeoAOCweBa
nenepcKoroMOHacTbipa," whichunmistakably identifiestheRaskol'nikcopy
as belongingto thesame familyas theKhlebnikov.61
Finally,thepuzzlingabsenceoftheGalician-Volhynian Chroniclein one or
bothcopies(ifindeedtheylackedit)findsitsparallelinAnnatessanctiNestoris ,
mentionedearlier.ThisPolishtranslation was made froma Khlebnikov-type
originalthatapparently lackedtheGalician-Volhynian portion.62
We have thuscome fullcircleand it is timeto conclude.We have every
reasonto assumethatNestordid notcomposethePrimaryChronicleat the
beginning ofthetwelfth century. He mayhavedoneso,butnota singlepieceof
currentevidencecan documentit.Theidea ofascribingpriority inthewriting
to
oftheRus' Chronicle Nestor firstoccurred to Kasiian in the mid-fifteenth
century. The firstchronicle"written" byNestorwas the Khlebnikovcopyof
the late sixteenthcentury.This made Nestorthe ultimateMethuselah.He
was bornin thefifteenth century,spenthis earlyyearsin thesixteenth, and
become a celebrityauthorin the seventeenth. Nestor's"birthplace" was the
Caves Monastery, wherehe became an adoptedchildofthebrethren.
NestortheChronicler proveda veryaproposfigureforKyivanliterati ofthe
seventeenth century.He allowed Western educated with
intelligentsia a modern
senseofauthorship to relateto an otherwiseanonymousandfacelessmedieval
chronicletradition andto acceptitas theirown.His veryname- Nestor- that
so agreeablyremindedthoseschooledin classicalliterature (formerstudents
ofZamojskiAcademyortheKyivCollegium)oftheimageofHomer,provided
NestortheChroniclerwithsome nobleconnotations.
NestortheChronicleris theresultof"archeologicalresearch"carriedout
by groupedaroundtheLavraand theCollegium.TherealNestor,
intellectuals
a monkoftheCaves Monastery, authoredtwoveryimportant livesbuthardly
contributedto the chroniclewriting.He was an excellentwriterin his own
right, buthe shouldbe deniedthehonorofcomposingthePrimary Chronicle.
Ifwe stillsympathize withhis plight,we mayconsoleourselveswiththeidea
thatlosingan irrelevant name,we acquire one morefirst-rate writerof the
earlytwelfth century.

50 TOLOCHKO
Notes
1. "Zapiski vazhnye i melochnye K. F.Kalaidovicha," inLetopisi russkoi literatury i

drevnosti, ed.NikolaiTikhonravov, vol.3 (Moscow, 1861),pt.2,"Materialy," 82.
2. A general belief, whichwasunfair to SergeiRumiantsev. In the1770stheRum-
iantsev brothers becameacquainted withBaronGrimm, wholaterbecametheir
tutor.Grimm tooktheRumiantsevs totheNetherlands, wheretheystudied atthe
University of Leiden, then to Paris and Switzerland (inGeneva the Rumiantsevs
metVoltaire), andfinally toItaly(V.S. Ikonnikov, Opytrusskoi istoriografii, vol.1,
bk.1 [Kyiv, 1891],136).Thebrothers thuswereprobably thefirst Russians tohave
conducted theso-called GrandTour.
3. An1815letter from NikolaiRumiantsev toKyivan scholar ofantiquities Maksym
Berlyns'kyi givesus an insight intowhatwasconsidered to be seriousresearch
at thattime.Thecounturgedhimto lookmorecloselyintolocalantiquities,
hopingthathewouldfindtheoriginals ofthePravdaruskaia, theKyivan Caves
Paterik, and, most of the
precious all, parchment original of Nestor's chronicle.
"Perepiska gosudarstvennogo kantslera grafaN. P.Rumiantseva s moskovskimi
uchenymi," in Chteniia v Imperatorskom Obshchestve istorii
i drevnostei Rossiiskikh
pri Moskovskom universitete, 1882, bk. 1 (Moscow, 1882), 191-92.
4. Aswenowknow, thanks tothebrilliant study byIhorSevcenko; seehis"TheDate
andtheAuthor oftheSo-CalledFragments ofToparcha Gothicus," inByzantium
andtheSlavs: InLetters andCulture (Cambridge, Mass., 1991), 353-478.
5. N. M. Karamzin, "Ob istochnikakh Rossiiskoi istoriido XVIIveka," inIstoriia
gosudarstva Rossiiskogo, 5thed.,bk1 (St.Petersburg, 1842;repr., Moscow,1988),
xv.
6. Tworather oldsurveys oftheliterature stillremain veryuseful today:Ikonnikov,
Opyt russkoi istoriografii,vol.2, bk. 1 (Kyiv, P.
1908),334-417; Klepats'kyi, Ohliad
dzherel do istorii Ukrainy, pt.1 (Kamianets, 1920).A review ofmorerecent stud-
iescanbe foundinA. G. Kuz'min, Nachal'nye etapy drevnerusskogo letopisaniia
(Moscow, 1977);andinSlovar'knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnei Rusi:Xl-pervaia
pol.XIVv.(Leningrad, 1987),276-78.InEnglish a verygoodreview ofthedebate
on theauthorship is therespective sectioninSamuelH. Cross'sintroduction to
histranslation ofthePrimary Chronicle; see "TheRussianPrimary Chronicle,"
HarvardStudies andNotesinPhilology andLiterature 12(1930):80-86.
7. Thesearecatalogued inCross,"Russian Primary Chronicle," 81-85.
8. Shakhmatov summarized whathebelieved tobetheevidence forNestor's author-
ship in a specialessay "Nestor the Chronicler," firstpublished in a Festschrift
forIvanFranko; see his"Nestor Letopisets," Zapysky Naukovoho tovarystva im.
Shevchenka (Lviv)117-18(1914): 31-53;repr. inA.A.Shakhmatov, Istoriia russkogo
letopisaniia, vol.1,Povest' vremennykh let i drevneishie russkie svody ,bk. 2,Rannee
russkoe letopisanie XI-XII vv.(St.Petersburg, 2003), 413-28. He described "die
NestorFrage"as a problem especially dearto hisheart.Perhaps this emotional

stateofmindis responsible forthestatement that"themostsolidandauthentic

proof"ofNestor's authorship istheabsence(inthepast)ofa chronicle copywith
hisnameinthetitle(p.424).
9. Forourpurposesitdoesnotmatter whatthepropertranslation of"Hannc(a)x"
might be: it could stand for "composed," "sponsored," or even simply "commis-
sioned"(allthreewouldcoverthemedieval notionofauthorship). Itisimportant
thatSil'vestr claimed theauthorship ofthechronicle ataboutthesametimewhen
itisbelieved thatNestoralsomusthavebeenactiveinchronicle writing.
10. Thereasonsareemotional, notfactual. ItiswellknownthatShakhmatov, a firm
believer inNestor, waswilling torevisehisgeneral schemaofchronicle writing
severaltimesinordertoaccommodate Nestor's Shakhmatov
activity. finally came
up with the idea ofthree versions ofthe Primary Chronicle: thefirstwas composed
around1110byNestorwithhisnameinthetitlebutdidnotsurvive; thesecond
wassponsored in1116bySil'vestr (survived intheLaurentian, Trinity, Radziwift,
andAcademy copies), and the third was written in 1118 (now to be found inthe
copiesof the Hypatian type).Shakhmatov's stemma may well be accurate and a first
versionofthePrimary Chronicle orPovest' vremennyx let(hereafter PVL)maywell
haveexisted. itdoesnotexplain
Still, whyNestorshouldbeconsidered itsauthor.
Shakhmatov's stemma do
may just as well without Nestor, and his insistence on
Nestor's authorship is shown to be purely ideological,not textual. Shakhmatov's
constructions aretoowellknowntobe discussed hereatanylength. Ofgreater
interestisthefurther development ofhisideasbysomeofhisstudents, whobetray
anemotional component intheir argumentation. EvhenPerfets'kyi, Shakhmatov's
pupilanda devoted follower ofhisideas,alsodistinguished three versions ofthe
PVL.Theoldestone,byNestor, didnotsurvive initsoriginal formbutiswitnessed
by thetexts of the Sophia I and Novgorod IV chronicles. The second (as inthe
Laurentian, Trinity, and Radziwift copies) was commissioned by Sil'vestr.Finally,
thethird version (as intheHypatian-type chronicles) musthavebeena contami-
natedonebasedon thefirst two.Itis herethatNestor's namesurvived. Whyit
doesnotappearinthesecondversion isobvious: having plagiarized Nestor's work,
Sil'vestrmusthavesubstituted hisownnameforNestor's. "Inso doing," suggests
Perfets'kyi, "Sil'vestr notonlydeprived Nestorofhisdistinguished placeas the
firstRus'chronicler andhistoriographer, buthealsotriedto seizethisplacefor
himself" (EvhenPerfets'kyi, "Peremyshl's'kyj litopysnyi kodekspersho'i redaktsii
v skladikhroniky IanaDlugosha," Zapysky Naukovoho tovarystva im. Shevchenka
147[1927]: 36-42).Suchanemotional attack ona seemingly innocent Sil'vestr may
suggest that the whole schema was constructed with the intent ofrescuing Nestor
forthepantheon ofRus'historians. Thisis further supported bythescholar's
finalruling: "Itis clearthatmythorough discrimination amongtheextant texts
from different compilations andthethreeversions ofthePVLcompletely solves
theproblem ofNestor's authorship." YetPerfets'kyi wasnotabletoresolve some
majorproblems. Sil'vestr'scrime may have accounted for the absence of Nestor's

52 TOLOCHKO
nameinthesecondversion ofthePVL.Butwhyisitabsentinthefirst version as

well(SophiaI andNovgorod IV chronicles arealsosilenton Nestor)? Hisname
surfaces onlyinthelatest copiesofthelatest, thirdversion. Andfrom where would
thislastversion haverecovered Nestor's name,sincebothofitssources(i.e.,the
first andsecondversions) wereunableto supply it?Shakhmatov putitvaguely:
"TheNestortradition inthePVLinfluenced thatancient compilation thatserved
asthesourceforsomecorrections intheKhlebnikov copy of the sixteenth century"
(Shakhmatov, "Nestor Letopisets," 427).
11. S. L. Peshtich, Russkaia istoriografiia XVIIIveka,pt.2 (Leningrad, 1965),137;A. I.
Andreev, "Trudy V.N.Tatishcheva po istorii Rossii,"inV.N.Tatishchev, Sobranie
sochinenii, vol.1 (Moscow, 1994), 16.
12. ThetitleoftheRadziwift copyreads:"FloBecTb BpeMeHHbi(x) xhTb.nepHopM3ija
OewAOCbeBa MOHacTbipA nenepbCKaro, wicoyAa e(c) nouiAapoy(c)cKata 3eMAH.
mktob HennoHa(A) nepBoekh>kmtm." Radzivilovskaia letopis',vol.1 (St.Peters-
burg, 1994)(facsimile reproduction); PolnoeSobranie Russkikh Letopisei (hereafter
PSRL),vol.38 (St.Petersburg, 1989),11(normalized transcription). Othercopies
ofthePrimary Chronicle witha similar titlehadnotyetbeendiscovered atthe
time.
13. Tatishchev, Sobranie sochinenii ,1:119-21. Foranearlier (butidentical) version, see
ibid.,vol.4 (1995),44-46. Istoriia Rossiiskaia wasoriginally published in1767.
14. August Ludwig vonSchlozer, Nestor: Ruskiia letopisinadrevle-slavenskom iazyke,
3 vols.(St.Petersburg, 1809-1819). Several important textual criticsof their gen-
erations (Mikhail Pogodin, AlekseiShakhmatov, Mikhail Priselkov) followed suit
bygiving similar titlesto theirstudies. Shakhmatov entitled his1890inaugural
lecture atSaintPetersburg University "On Compositions by St. Nestor" andlater
taught the course "Nestor's Chronicle."
15. Formoredetails,see my"IstoriiaRossiiskaia " VasiliiaTatishcheva: Istochniki i
izvestiia (Moscow, 2005),102-69.
16. the
Oddlyenough, onlystudy thatclearly, ifinadequately, implied thepossibility
ofa lateorigin forthetradition ofNestoras theauthor ofa chronicle wasa short
articlebythesameEvhenPerfets'kyi, whoin lessthantenyearswouldswitch
totheopposite view;seehis"Do pytannia proNestoraPechers'koho," Ukraina:
Naukovyi tr'oxmisiachnyk ukrainoznavstva (Kyiv),no. 1-2 (1918):11-20.
17. Seesomeveryinsightful remarks byEdward Keenan, whoarguesthata common
Rus'spaceneverexisted, orifitoncedid,itwashistory bytheturnofthesev-
enteenth century. Edward L. Keenan, "Muscovite Perception ofOtherEastSlavs
before 1654- AnAgendaforHistorians," inUkraine andRussiainTheir Historical
Encounter, ed.PeterJ.Potichnyj etal. (Edmonton, 1992),20-38.
18. Theonenotableexception is theso-calledLithuanian Chronicles, a localevent
thatdidnotaffect thelandsoffuture Ukraine.
19. Untilrecently, theKhlebnikov copywastraditionally datedtotheveryendofthe
sixteenth century; see,forexample, A.A. Shakhmatov, "Predislovie," inPSRL,vol.

ON"nestor the chronicler" 53
2,2nded.(St.Petersburg, 1908;repr. Moscow, 1998),viii.Inhispreface tothe1998

reprintedition,BorisKlosssuggests, on thebasisofwatermarks, thatthecodex
musthavebeencopiedinthelate1550s-early 1560s;seeB.M. Kloss,"Predislovie
kizdaniiu1998g.,"inPSRL,2:G.
20. Thetitleis wellknown, butitis usefulto repeatithere:"rioB-fecTb BpeMCHHbix'b
a&(t).nepHopM3ija OeoAOCbeBa MaHacTbipA ITenepbCKaro. WKyAy ecTbnoniAa
PycKaia3eMAA mxtobhcm nonaAb ntpBtekha>km(t). CTaAa ecTb."Wemayassume
thatthisis thetitleofthethirdredaction ofthePVL (afterShakhmatov). The
authorship here is already attributed to an anonymous monk of "Feodosii'smon-
True,somecopiesofthesecondredaction
astery." (Radziwift andAcademy), too,
havea verysimilar titlenaming "amonkofFeodosii's monastery" as the author.Itis
bestexplained as a contamination a
by copy ofthe Hypatian type.The oldercopies
ofthesecondredaction (Laurentian andTrinity) didnotyetattribute authorship
to anyspecific person:"Ce noBi>CTM BpeMAHbHbi(x) a^t). WKyay ecTbnoniAa
3eMAA.
pycicaia kto bt> kmcb^ [Trinity: Hew] Hana nepB'feekha>km(t) m WKyAy pycKata
3eMAA CTaAa ecTb"(PSRL,vol.1,pt.1,2nded. [Leningrad, 1926],cols.1-2);this
is supported bythetitleofSophiaI: 'TIob'Sctm BpeMHHHbix a6t: OTKyâ noniAa
PycbKan 3eMAH mktob HewnepBO noHH khh>kmtm mOTKyAy Pycxaa3eMAH CTaAa
ecTb"(PSRL,vol.6, pt.1,2nded. [Moscow, 2000],1),Novgorod IV: "noB-fccTM
BpeMeHHbixi* a'Bttj,OTKoyAoy noniAa Pycnan 3eMAH, mktononabt>Hewkhh>kmtm
nepBoe, hOTKoyAoy PoycKan 3eMAH CTaAa ecTb"(PSRL,vol.4,pt.1,2nded.[Petro-
grad,1915],1),andtheNovgorod Karamzin chronicles: "FIoB'fccTM BpeMeHHwx
a^t, OTKyAy noniAa PycKaan 3eMAH m kto b Hew nonn nepBoe khh>kmtm mOTKyAy
PycKaa3eMAH CTaAa 42
ecTb"(PSRL,vol. [St.Petersburg, 2002],21).Thetitleof
thefirstredaction is a matter ofspeculation, ofcourse,sinceitdidnotsurvive,
ifiteverexisted. Inthisregard, seeDonaldOstrowski's remarks, inwhichhe,on
thebasisofthetallyofthemajority ofwitnesses, rulesinfavor ofa composite title
thatdrawsfrom boththesecondandthirdredactions, as closesttotheoriginal
in The"Povest ' let":AnInterlinear Collationand
("Introduction," vremennykh
Paradosis,ed.DonaldOstrowski, HarvardLibrary ofEarly Ukrainian Literature,
Texts10,pt.1 [Cambridge, Mass.,2003],lx-lxi).
Theproblem ofthe"original" titleofthePVLis ofmarginal interestforthis
study.Ofmuchgreater weight is thedifference inthetitleamongthecopiesof
thesecondredaction. It mayserveas yetanotherargument againstNestor's
authorship. Recently, Aleksei Gippiussuggested that the contamination ofthe
RadziwiftandAcademy copiesbya Hypatian-type textaffected theentire initial
portionofthePVL,including thetitle. Inother words, thescribeoftheRadziwiH-
Academy protograph begancopying thethirdredaction andonlylaterswitched
to hissecond-redaction source(AlekseiA. Gippius,"O kritike tekstai novom
perevode-rekonstruktsii Povestivremennykh let,"RussianLinguistics 26, no. 1
[2002],85-87).Thismeansthattheallusion to"themonkofFeodosii's monastery"
inthetitleofRadziwift- Academy copiesmadeitswaytherefrom theHypatian-

54 TOLOCHKO
typetext.Gippiusdoesnothintat thetimewhensucha contamination could

haveoccurred. Although anytimebetween thetwelfth andfifteenth centuriesis
possible, thelaterperiodseemsmorelikely. Itwouldmeanforus thatuntilthe
endofthefifteenth century, thetitlesofthethird redaction (as intheHypatian-
Khlebnikov-type copies) had not yet identified theanonymous "monk ofFeodosii's
monastery" as Nestor.
In spiteofGippius's insistence thattheallusionto the"monkofFeodosii's
monastery" must have stood in the originaltitle(Gippius, "O kritike,"121nl3), it
is clearlyan innovation ofthethird redaction, andan awkward oneatthat.One
wouldhaveexpected a different wordorder, withthenameoftheauthoreither
atthebeginning- "HepHopw3ija OeoAocbeBa MaHacTbipA nenepbCKaro noB-fccra
BpeMAHbHbDCbWKyAyAt>i"b. ecTb nouiAa..."- or atthe end- "Ce noBl>CTM...vvKyAy
pycicaca3€maa CTaAa ecTb.HepHopM3iâ OeoAOCbCBa MaHacTbipA nenepbCKaro." Yet
wefinditina veryunusualposition inthemiddleofthesentence. Theinsertion
cutthetitleintwo,having severed thepartthatexplains thecontent ofthework
fromitsname.Uninterrupted, thetitlereadsperfectly well. One mayguessthat
theinterpolation wasmadeinimitation oftheChronicle ofGeorgeHamartolos
("KHurbi BpeMeHHbiia m w6pa3Hbiia Tewprwa MHnxa"), but the editor gotitwrong:
herethenameoftheauthor comesattheendofthetitle.Infact,as I haveshown
elsewhere, theglossreferring tothe"monk ofFeodosii's monastery" wasinserted
intothetitlenotearlierthanthefirst decadesofthethirteenth century;see A.
Tolochko, "O zaglaviiPovesti vremennykh let,"Ruthenica 5 (2006): 248-51.
Onecannotbutnotetheobviousdevelopment ofthe"author theme" inthe
titlesofthePVL:from noauthor atallinthesecondredaction, totheanonymous
monkoftheCavesMonastery in thethird, to Nestorthemonkin theKhleb-
nikov.
21. Akty otnosiashchiesia kistorii ZapadnoiRossii, vol.1 (St.Petersburg, 1846),36.
22. One morecontemporaneous reference to theHypatian-type chroniclecan be
cited.In 1419,Zosima,thedeaconoftheTrinity Monastery, spent six months
inKyivduring hispilgrimage. He callsthecity"mrtvl mrAaBa BceMb rpaAOBOMb
pycKMMb" (Knigakhozhdenii: Zapiskirusskikh putishestvennikov XI-XVvv.,ed.N.
I. Prokof'ev[Moscow, 1984],120).Theform "rpaAOBOMb" istheidiosyncratic read-
ing found inthe Khlebnikov, vs. in the
"rpaAaMb" Hypatian "rpaAOMT>"and in the
Laurentian, Radziwift, andAcademy It
copies. suggests that in the earlyfifteenth
century intheGrandDuchytherewereKhlebnikov- typetextsincirculation, but
without Nestor's nameinthetitle.
23. Dmytro Abramovych, Kyievo-Pechers'kyi Pateryk: Vstup, tekst, prymitky (Kyiv,
1930),126.ForanEnglish translation, seeThePaterikoftheKievanCavesMonas-
tery,trans. MurielHeppell, Harvard Library ofEarly Ukrainian Literature,English
Translations 1 (Cambridge, Mass.,1989),145.
24. Foreachonea specific attribute is noted:Piminwasthefaster; Matfeiwasthe
percipient; Grigorii,themiracle-worker; Agapit, thephysician, andsoon.Literary

ON"nestor the chronicler" 55
ismentioned
activity onlyfortwo:"Nestor whowrote thechronicle" and"Grigorii
thecreator ofcanons."
25. Abramovych, Kyievo-Pechers'kyi Pateryk, 133.Shakhmatov suggested thatthe
passage isnot an addition ofthe Kasiian redaction, but was"omitted" in the Arsenii
redaction andthusmayreflect theoriginal wordsofPolikarp (Shakhmatov, "Nestor
Letopisets," 421).
26. Abramovych, Kyievo-Pechers'kyi Pateryk , 16.
27. Ibid.,78.
28. Slavonic:Ibid.,20. English translation: PaterikoftheKievanCavesMonastery ,
23.
29. Slavonic: Abramovych, Kyievo-Pechers'kyi Pateryk ,78.English translation: Paterik
oftheKievanCavesMonastery , 88.
30. Shakhmatov, "Nestor Letopisets," 421.
31. PSRL,vol.25 (MoscowandLeningrad, 1949),14.Thisreading wasinherited by
theVoskresenskaia Chronicle, the Tver Miscellany, andsome others.
32. In spiteofitserroneous name,givenbyitsfirst editor,thePereiaslavl-Suzdal
Chronicle is ofRuthenian origin.
33. A fewexamples: intheentry for1130,whichtellsthestory ofthedecoration of
St.Feodosii's tombbytheboyarGeorgii, thescribeoftheKhlebnikov addshis
patronymic- "Shimonovich," knownonlyfrom thePaterik ; intheentry for1091
abouttransferring therelicsofSt.Feodosii, thenameofthethenfather superior
oftheCavesMonastery wasadded,a namethatthescribecouldhaveborrowed
only from the list inthe Paterik.
34. Seethephotoreproduction oftheKhlebnikov: TheOldRus'KievanandGalician -
Volhynian Chronicles: TheOstroz'kyj (Xlebnikov) and Cetvertyns'kyj (Pogodin)
Codices,Harvard of
Library Early Ukrainian Literature,Texts8 (Cambridge, Mass.,
1990),70.Theglosswasfurther expanded inlaterreplicas ofKhlebnikov, namely,
theBundur of1651andtheErmolaev of1700:"cbhtmm HecTop'b, nwcapi? naTepnica
nenepcKaro m cee Kpomhmkm npMxoAt cbom MMeHMTT>" (PSRL, vol.2, appendix,
81).
35. Itwas,however, usedbytheauthors ofthewell-known forged charter totheCaves
Monastery recorded in1581byMeletii Khrebtovych intheLutsk provincial books.
Kyiv here was called "MaTM rpaAOBOM pycKoe 3eMAM," which, as we know, is an
individual reading of the Khlebnikov; see Arkhiv lugo-Zapadnoi Rossii, pt.1,vol.
1 (Kyiv,
1859),2.
36. Various conjectures aboutthefateofthemanuscript havebeenproposed, almost
all ofthempurely For
hypothetical. example, Omeljan Pritsak suggested that
themanuscript wasproduced inthecircleoftheOstrihAcademy sometime ca.
1575.Itwasthentransferred toKyiv byZakhariia Kopystens'kyi in1616(Omeljan
Pritsak,"Introduction," in OldRus' Kievanand Galician-Volhynian Chronicles ,
xxxiii-xxxiv).
Somestagesofthemanuscript's history canbe reconstructed onthebasisof

56 TOLOCHKO
notesattheendofthecodex.Oneofthemstatesthatthebookbelongs toVitold
Maroc(Romanian: VitoltMaraêanul), thelogothete ofMoldavia;thenextone
declares thatVitold thelogothete hadstolen thebookinthetownofKrosnyk from
a certain "father governor of Ustia."Vitold Maroc started his career as a client of
Moldavian hospodar Constantine Movila; then served his brother Jeremiah. In
1615heismentioned as oneoftheboyars ofJeremiah's widow, Elizabeth, inUstia,
theMovilas'Podilliaestate. VitoldMarocisalsoknown tohavebeensecretary to
Domna, Constantine Movilas widow, who lived in Ustia.
Apparently, thisconnection withtheMoldavian hospodar family helpedthe
manuscript to return to theCavesMonastery whenPetroMohylabecameits
archimandrite.
Shakhmatov suggested thatone marginal glosswitha computation from
the"start ofthechronicle" wasmadein1608andthatthemanuscript wasstillin
"Southwestern Russia"atthattime.Shakhmatov misread thedate(6370instead
ofthecorrect 6360),so theglosswasactually madein 1598(see thefacsimile
reproduction inOldRus'KievanandGalician-Volhynian Chronicles , 386).
37. TheKhlebnikov ora similar chronicle remained unknown inKyivuntiltheearly
1620s."Nestor's chronicle" is referredto forthefirst timebyKopystens'kyi ina
marginal note in the fourth chapter of his Palinodia ; see Lev Krevza's "Obrona
iednosci cerkiewney" andZaxarijaKopystens'kyj's "Palinodija',' Harvard Library
ofEarlyUkrainian Literature, Texts3 (Cambridge, Mass.,1987),560.Thismight
indicate thatKopystens'kyi didknowa chronicle withNestor's name.Thepassage
itselfindeedmight havecomefromtheGalician-Volhynian Chronicle account
aboutthecoronation ofPrince DanyloRomanovych. Itshouldbenoted, however,
thatnotallofPalinodia' s marginalia to
belong Kopystens'kyi himself; a greatdeal
ofthemaretheadditions oflaterreadersandownersofmanuscripts. Buteven
ifthereference in questiondoesbelongto Kopystens'kyi, itis probable thatit
emerged after 1621,whenthefirst draftofPalinodiawasfinished. Theallusion to
Nestor appears in the fourth chapter- that is,towards the end of thework. Itiswell
known thatKopystens'kyi continued toworkonPalinodiaafter 1621.Otherwise,
no passageorfactual detailinPalinodijacanbe demonstrated as comingfrom
theKhlebnikov copy, contrary to theopinion of the editors of its English transla-
see Lev Krevza's "A Church " and
tion; Defense of Unity ZaxarijaKopystens'kyj's
"Palinodia Sources andIgorStruminski, Harvard
, comp.BohdanStruminski
Library ofEarlyUkrainian Literature, English Translations 3, pt.2 (Cambridge,
Mass.,1995),954-57).Kopystens'kyi's sources onancient Rus'history werePolish
authors.
38. Fora survey oftheevents, see SerhiiPlokhy, TheCossacks andReligion inEarly
ModernUkraine (Oxford, 2001),111-23.
39. A lengthy colophon inhighstyle wascomposed describing thepatriarch's visit,his
blessing to the prince and his family,and the patriarch's departure to Moldavia.
In itspresent statethePogodin lacksthecolophon, butitwasstillinplaceinthe

1780s,whenthecopywasmadeforAdamNaruszewicz (theCracowcopy).The
colophon showsthatthestandard manner ofreferring tothechronicle as "Nestor's
annals"wasnotyetestablished. Thescribecalledit"Kniharekomyia Letopisec,
Ruskaja kronika kniazenijaRossyjskoho" (PSRL, 2:xiii).
40. Shakhmatov notedthatsomeonewriting inredinktriedtocollatethetextofthe
sixanda halffolios
first withtheso-called TverMiscellany (PSRL,2:x).BorisKloss
hasidentified thehandas thatofMohyla(PSRL,2:N).
41. Forthefacsimile reproduction ofthePaterikon, seeSeventeenth-Century Writings
ontheKievanCavesMonastery , Harvard Library ofEarlyUkrainian Literature,
Texts4 (Cambridge, Mass.,1987),3-116;listofsourcesonp. 115.
42. Ibid.,9.
43. Abramovych, Kyievo-Pechers'kyi Pateryk, 193,194.
44. Thesewere,forexample, theversion of1658,composedinthetownofHadiach
("cnMcaHT> npenoAo6HbiMT> HecTopoivn> AfcTomicijeM'b mHepHopHSiêM-b nenep-
ckmm"); theversioneditedbythefather superior of the Caves Monastery Iosyf
Tryznain the1650s("CnncaHT> TpyAOAio6ieM 6Aa>KeHHaro HecTopapyccKaro
AfcTonwcija"); andalltheprinted Church Slavonic versions (1661,1678,and1702),
whoseeditors weremoretothepoint("CocTaBAeHT> TpeMM nenepcKMMM cbhtwmm,
HeCTOpOMTj PoCCiMCKMMT>,
A'fcTOnMCljeM'b CiMOHOM enMCKOnOM BAaAMMepCKMJVTb
MCyaCAaACKMM'b MriOAMKapnOM-b, apxiMaHApHTOMT> rieHepCKHM-b").
45. Besiedy sv.IoannaZlatoustana 14poslaniisv.apostolaPavla(Kyiv, 1623).
46. TheUkrainian Chronograph hasnotbeenpublished yet.I referheretothemanu-
scriptofthe1680s,nowintheLibrary oftheUkrainian Academy ofSciencesin
Kyiv(Natsional'na BibliotekaUkrai'ny im. V. I. Vernads'koho, manuscript division,
fond1,no.171).
47. Forthetext, seeArkhiv lugo-Zapadnoi Rossii,pt.1,vol.8 (1914), 776.OnIndicium ,
seeS. Golubev, Kievskii Petr i
mitropolit Mogila egospodvizhniki (Kyiv, ,vol.2 1898),
310-20.
48. Onthesources oftheSynopsis,seeS.L. Peshtich, "Sinopsis kakistoricheskoe proiz-
vedenie," Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi literatury (Leningrad) 15 (1958): 41; Hans
Rothe, "Einleitung,"inSinopsis, Kiev 1681: Facsimile mit einer Einleitungvon Hans
Rothe (Cologne, 1983),72-85;OleksiiTolochko, "Ukrains'kyi pereklad 'Khroniky'
MatseiaStryikovs'koho z kolektsii O. Lazarevs'koho taistoriohrafichni pam'iatky
XVIIst.(Ukrains'kyi khronohraf i Synopsys)," Zapysky Naukovoho tovarystva im.
Shevchenka 231(1996):158-81.
49. Thetestament waspublished byVolodymyr Aleksandrovyc, "TheWillandthe
Testament ofAfanasijKalnofojs'kyj," HarvardUkrainian Studies15,no. 3-4
(1991):415-28;seep.423.
50. Whilecopying theHustynia Chronicle, onescribeofthelateseventeenth century
evenmadeNestorthethemeofhispoeticalexercise:
HecTop'b npenoAo6HbiM AfcTwnwceij'b 3vBacA,
e>KebvKbHHraxij cthx^BvcerAa n0Ab30BacA

58 TOLOCHKO
A'fcTonMceij'bKHMra HapeneHvHa,
CMKX HeCTOp'b MOHaXOMT) CCTTj COAO»€HVHa.
Ame6biBvcero TAamom rp-fciiivHbi#am
roTOBi) ecMijnwcaTbi npenoAo6Haro Tptfam>
ktooy6ow6paine(T)cA w Ha 3cmam ctfmnx'b,
KTW CMAGHTj nMCaHiA
BW3VB'feCTbI HTtfmMXl).
BArAaTiio tbocio,T(c)am, oyKpunAAeM-b,
rp-fe(iii)Hii
MOAK) 6MTbIT060K) BvAÂtHaCTa(B)AA€M'b,
COTBOpM MAAO(c)TOMHa IlMCaTM C€A'feAW,
OK6>K€AaiO a3T>MHOrorp^lUHblM S'fcAO.
IlOMOIUM MM nOTlIJMCA, nOMOIUHMHC CKOpbIM,
OyKpbinHT€AK) BO T^Â^XTj W HcGeCHbDCb TBOpM.
A'feAW cie,caobomtj kt>te6l3npocTMpaio,
HaneHiiiM wte6l>,ckohhmttj tfnoBaio.
Biblioteka Akademii naukRossii(BAN),callno.24.4.35(Srezn.no.72),fol.2-2v.
Theirony isthattheauthor ofthisenthusiastic eulogy neversawa linebyNestor.
He accepted theHustynia Chronicle as therealNestor's work.
51. O. L.,"Kievo-Vydubitskii perevoz na Dnepre i egonezhdannaia politicheskaia rol',"
Kievskaia starina, 1882,vol. 4 (November): 369.
52. Forthefacsimile reproduction ofthetext,see FeodosiiSofonovych, Khronika z
litopystsivstarodavnikh, ed.Iu.Mytsyk (Kyiv, 1992),278-80.
53. Ibid.,56.
54. OldRus'KievanandGalician-Volhynian Chronicles , 391.
55. Knigazhitii ..natrimesiatsy
sviatykh. pervaia:Septevrii, .. (Kyiv,
i novemvrii.
oktovrii
1689),fol.353-54.Thevitaelaborates thesametheme suggested byKal'nofois'kyi
in1635:theCavesLavraisthebirthplace andtheguardian ofRuthenian historical
tradition ("Bt>nocAeAHHfl tin AfcTa hbm IocnoAb bt? Poccmckom Hauiew3eMAM,
bt>nenepcKOM-b cbhtomt> MoHacTbipfc, npwcTHonaMHTHaro cnacMTeAH, ITpe-
noAo6Haro OTijaHaniero M>Ke
HecTopa, npocB'feTM HaniM oneca, bt>
noA3y Hacm
6AaroAapeHie BorynpMBOAH, erAa Hanwca HaM o HanaA'fem nepBOMi? CTpoeHiw
PocciwcKaro HarneroMipa, Hetokmo BHfciiiHHro, hoHawnane BHyTpHHro mAyxoB-
Haro").
56. As a result, a discrepancy aboutthetimewhenNestorwasadmitted intotne
monastery and
wasnotreconciled probably remained unacknowledged.
57. Manuscript heldat theRossiiskaia Natsional'naia Bibilioteka (RNB),call no.
F.IV.231.
58. Tatishchev, Sobranie sochinenii, 4:48;1:124.
59. OldRus'KievanandGalician-Volhynian Chronicles , 307. lhenotewasmadeby
thesamereaderwhonotedtheendingof"Nestor's chronicle"intheGalician-
Volhynianpart.
83;Biblioteka
60. PSRL,vol.2,appendix, naukRossii(BAN),callno.21.3.14,
Akademii
fol.174.

61. Theonlypuzzlingthinghereis insteadoftheexpected"Afci-b,"

butthis
Polonism itsexplanation
finds inthecorrupted waythetitleappearsintheErmo-
laev("IloHMHaiOT'bCAnoBfccTM BpeMeHHbix'b:HecTepanepHopM3ija 0eoAOcieBa
MOHacTbipa nenapcKoro wictf
a# ecrb noiiiAa
PycKaA 3eMAA")and cop-
Iarots'kyi
ies ("FIoHMHaioTCRvnoB-fecii
BpeMe(H)HbixT>: HecTopanepHopM3ija 0eu>AOcieBa
MOHacTMpa nenepcKaroWKÂotf ecrnoniAa 3eMAA
PtfcicaA mktobvHewnona(A)
nepBe(n) mwkVa#
khajkIjTm PtfcicaA3eMAA CTaAa theRaskol'nik
e(cr)."Apparently,
copy hada similar
gapafter
"BpeMeHHbix'b" andbefore"HecTepa," Tatishchev
which
filledathisowndiscretion.
62. Fora detaileddiscussion,see Oleksiy P.Tolochko,"LeoKishka'sAnnates sancti
Nestoris andTatishchev's
Chronicles,"Palaeoslavica10,no.2 (2002):257-70.


On Nestor The Chronicler en

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

On Nestor The Chronicler en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The President and Fellows of Harvard College

On "Nestor the Chronicler"

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

On "Nestor the Chronicler"

By the turn of the nineteenth century, the name of "Nestorthe

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

Mohyla'stimesas thepossibleage whenthenotionofNestoras theauthorof

Nestor,whois to be calledthefather of Russianhistory,livedin the

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

however,was a firmand persistent beliefthatNestordid indeedauthorthe

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

oftheeleventhand thetwelfth centuries,whereasthe"Nestorquestion"does

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

whatkindsoftextswereascribedto Nestor,and howtheidea of"thefirstRus'

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

writingin the GrandDuchyof LithuaniasharesthisfeaturewithMuscovite

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

Thesereferences, however,are confinedto a singletradition, namely,thatof

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

©eoAOciaripiaTb>Ke6mxbt>HbnpenoAo6HbiM wryMeHOM Cre(j)aHOM mHKO^ce

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

writingsome unspecifiedchronicle.It was onlylogical forhim to assume

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

Lavrais the"treasury ofRus' history,thenestoftheholyfathers, whereGod

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

Nestor.Yet thosecitationsof sourceare in the same categoryas the mythi-

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

and provedto be superiorto anylegal document.When in 1656the Lavra

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

was presentedas ifreadfrom"Nestor'schronicle." Beforethe1660stherewas

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

in theearlymodernperiodthatthetraditionregarding Nestorwas based on

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

causedTatishchev's mistake:he (orthescribehe hadhired)didnotrealizethat

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

1. "Zapiski vazhnye i melochnye K. F.Kalaidovicha," inLetopisi russkoi literatury i

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

stateofmindis responsible forthestatement that"themostsolidandauthentic

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

nameinthesecondversion ofthePVL.Butwhyisitabsentinthefirst version as

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

2,2nded.(St.Petersburg, 1908;repr. Moscow, 1998),viii.Inhispreface tothe1998

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

typetext.Gippiusdoesnothintat thetimewhensucha contamination could

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

61. Theonlypuzzlingthinghereis insteadoftheexpected"Afci-b,"

This content downloaded from 67.210.62.232 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:27:21 PM

You might also like