Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas
Im Auftrag des Osteuropa-Instituts Regensburg
herausgegeben von Martin Schulze Wessel und Dietmar Neutatz
Ausgabe: 60 (2012), 1, S. 107-111
Verfasst von: Pierre Gonneau
Licevoj letopisnyj svod XVI veka. Faksimil’noe izdanie v 40 tomach [Illustrierte Chronikhandschrift des 16. Jahrhunderts. Faksimile-Ausgabe in 40 Bänden]. Nad izd. rabotali Ch. Ch. Mustafin, V. V. Morozov, E. V. Uchanova, L. P. Mustafina i drugie. T. 1–24: Russkaja letopisnaja istorija (1114–1567) (Kn. 1–23 i kn. 24 [Soprovoditel’nyj tom]); T. 25–29: Biblejskaja istorija (Kn. 1–4 i kn. 5 [Soprovoditel’nyj tom]); T. 30–40: Vsemirnaja istorija (Kn. 1–10 i kn. 11 [Soprovoditel’nyj tom]). Moskva: Akteon, 2009–2011. ISBN: 5-91142-001-5.
The Akteon edition reproducing in 40 volumes the “Illuminated Chronicle” (Licevoj letopisnyj svod, LLSv) has for the first time made this greatest textological and visual monument of the epoch of Ivan the Terrible accessible to historians, linguists and iconographers. Within a few months a corpus of 10.000 manuscript folios containing 17.000 miniatures, which so far only a few specialists had been acquainted with, mostly through descriptions, has become available. The volume of the LLSv alone could easily account for the difficulties encountered in producing a detailed study of it, a task long rendered even more complicated by the eventful story of the manuscripts. After having been left a long time simply in piles the folios were gradually bound into ten separate huge volumes from the 17th century onwards. After some twists and turns the volumes found their way into three different libraries: the National Russian Library in St.-Petersburg (RNB, formerly known as Saltykov-Ščedrin Public Library), the Library of the Academy of Sciences in St.-Petersburg (BAN) and the Library of the National History Museum in Moscow (GIM).
Parts of the text of the LLSv, in particular the section covering the history of Rus’ and Muscovy, are well known thanks to prior scientific editions. The account it gives is very close to the version of the “Nikonian Chronicle” edited in the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles (Patriaršaja ili Nikonovskaja letopis’, SPb. [then] Pg., 1862–1918, 6 t. [Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisej, volumes 9–14], many reprints). What was not possible up to now, however, is to view the text and the images together and to try to understand their interplay. The qualitative breakthrough the Akteon edition has made possible is best brought to light through two comparisons. The first is a All-Russian one: the “Radziwiłł Chronicle” (copied c. 1490), a facsimile edition of which was published in 1994, illustrates Russian history from the beginning to 1205 and contains 251 folios and 613 miniatures, whereas in the LLSv the so-called Golicyn volume alone, covering the years 1114 to 1247, consists of 1038 folios and 1964 illuminations. In the West, the famous “Nuremberg Chronicles” (or “Liber Chronicorum”), printed by Hartmann Schedel in 1493, although older than the LLSv and no longer in manuscript form, pursue a very similar aim of recounting universal history from Creation to their time, but include ‘only’ (so to speak) 1809 woodcuts.
The LLSv facsimile edition is the result of years of research in Russia and also of an ability to strike partnerships with private sponsors recently acquired by Russian scholars. In his introduction to vol. 24, S. O. Šmidt, a longtime specialist of the LLSv, recalls prior projects. At the beginning of the 1960s D. S. Lichačev suggested a practical arrangement: printing 20 complete sets of photographs of the LLSv and depositing them in the 20 main Soviet research libraries. Shortly afterwards, Father Innokentij (A. I. Prosvirnin) had a set of microfiches made, in ten copies, for the benefit of the publishing house of the Moscow Patriarchate. In 1979, S. O. Šmidt was nevertheless dreaming of a very limited facsimile edition, matching the size of the original folios, in the form of files of printed pages deposited in the three libraries possessing the original volumes and a number of other big research institutions. (See also a reprint of Šmidt’s articles about the LLSv in: S. O. Šmidt: Pamjatniki pis’mennosti v kul’ture poznanija istorii Rossii. T. 1: Dopetrovskaja Rus’. Moskva 2007–2008.) Akteon’s recent release includes both a limited bibliophilic edition and a so-called “narodnoe izdanie” which affluent specialized libraries around the world could and should purchase.
The scope of the work of the editors is obvious as soon as one opens a volume. Each page reproduces a side of a manuscript folio, and in the margin there is a transcription of the Old-Russian text accompanied by a translation into modern Russian. The transcription is disappointing, as it uses a modernized alphabet, suppressing all ancient letters such as jat (ѣ), and omits the jer (ъ) in final position. Abbreviations are solved, but no change in the typography shows which letter has been added or restored on the line. There are errors, for example in vol. 11, p. 3 the transcription ends with “нe з”, where it should be “нe зeлo близ”. On p. 66, we find “O cocтaвлeнии мoнacтыря нa Keржaчe”, although нa does not figure in the manuscript, and on p. 76 “O cocтaвлeнии мoнacтыря нa Cимoнoвe” (for Cимaнoвѣ in the manuscript). The staging of all the folios in the right chronological sequence is, by contrast, a commendable feat, as quite a number of them had been misplaced in the ten original volumes. What is more, this has been achieved without any loss of codicological information, as the origin of each folio is marked on its reproduction. We are also provided with tables of correspondence between the original volumes and the printed books, and between the years of the chronicle and each volume (printed or manuscript).
The Akteon edition is divided into four unequal parts. “Biblical History” takes up five volumes, corresponding to the so-called Museum’s compendium, a. k. a. the Museum’s Chronograph (GIM. Muzejskij sbornik 358). It consists of 1031 folios and 1733 illustrations. The second part, called “Universal History” takes up eleven volumes. It includes a story of Oriental empires, Ancient Greece, Roman and Byzantine empires till the 10th century. These events were originally divided into two so-called Chronographs: the “Chronografičeskij sbornik” BAN 17.17.9 (1469 folios, 2549 ill.) and the “Licevoj Chronograf” RNB F.IV.151 (1217 folios, 2191 ill.). The biggest part is allotted to “Russian History”, from year 1114 to 1567 (according to our calendar) with 24 printed volumes corresponding to seven very thick manuscripts (adding up to 6010 folios and 11,357 illuminations). A widely shared opinion among scholars is that an eighth, now missing volume of about 700–750 folios was originally devoted to the earliest part of Russian history, a period which, according to the so-called “Tale of the bygone years” (Povest’ vremennych let), starts on year 852 (anno mundi 6360). The absence of this volume precludes iconographic comparison between LLSv and “Radziwiłł’s Chronicle”, albeit for a short period only (1114–1205). Much more disputed is the existence of a “final volume” completing the story of Ivan the Terrible’s reign from 1567 to his death in 1584. There is evidence that folios illustrating the imperial coronation of Fedor, Ivan’s heir, in 1584 existed in the 17th century, but their subsequent fate is unknown. These missing and isolated illuminations probably witness an unsuccessful attempt at resuming the work on the LLSv after a long break (vol. 24, p. 5). Dividing so rich a textological material into so many printed volumes probably was a very difficult task. Nevertheless some of the choices made can be regretted. Thus Alexander Nevskii’s story, which is placed in the manuscript “Laptev tom”, has been cut up between volumes 5 and 6 of the Russian History section in the Akteon edition. As a result the famous battles on the Neva and on the Peipus Lake are separated from one another. It must be said here, however, that a prior separated edition of this particular part of LLSv had been much criticized (Žitie Aleksandra Nevskogo. Tekst i miniatjury Licevogo letopisnogo svoda XVI veka, SPb., 1990, 2nd ed. 1992. Criticized by Ju. K. Begunov: Izdanie bez tekstologa i iskusstvoveda, in: Knjaz’ Aleksandr Nevskij i ego ėpocha: issledovanija i materialy. Ed. by Ju. K. Begunov and A.N. Kirpičnikov. SPb., 1995, pp. 187‒189).
The most interesting part of LLSv is the unfinished description of the reign of Ivan the Terrible. It is to be found in the “Synodal Volume” (GIM Sin. 962, 626 f°, 1125 min.) covering the years 1533‒1567, and in the “Imperial Book” (Carstvennaja kniga = GIM Sin. 149, 687 f°, 1291 min.) limited to the period 1533–1553. These volumes partially intersect with each other. The Synodal Volume bears numerous annotations in cursive script, ordering in-depth corrections in the already calligraphed semi-uncial text as well as sometimes in the illuminations. In the „Imperial Book“ most of these corrections have been integrated into the text, at least under the years 1533‒1542 and 1553. The illustrations have also been modified. In the “Synodal Volume” young Ivan the Terrible is wearing a traditional fur-trimmed cap before his coronation (1547) and a five-pointed crown afterwards, whereas in the “Imperial Book” he is crowned on all occasions. This (anachronistic) systematization is a way to show that he was born a sovereign. Nevertheless, “Carstvennaja kniga” is more than a faithful fair copy of the “Sinodal’nyj tom”. On the one hand, part of the two volumes are parallel and seem to have been copied at the same time, on the other, in the “Imperial Book” entries for the years 1546‒1547 have been corrected but the emendations have never found there way into a new fair copy of the manuscript.
The 24th volume of the Russian History section (p. 382–398) offers new insights into the dating of the whole LLSv. In her commentaries E. V. Uchanova not only retraces the complex historiography of the question, but also contributes decisively to solve it with her exhaustive study of the watermarks of the ten original manuscripts. On the whole she takes sides with B. M. Kloss while criticizing A. A. Amosov’s conclusions. Strangely though, the latter are notwithstanding taken for granted both by S. O. Šmidt and in the individual description of each volume (t. 24, p. 7, 29, 84, 132, 136, 196, 246, 294, 340). (B. M. Kloss: Nikonovskij svod i russkie letopisi XVI‒XVII vekov. Moskva 1980; A. A. Amosov: Licevoj letopisnyj svod Ivana Groznogo: kompleksnoe kodikologičeskoe issledovanie. Moskva 1998.) E. V. Uchanova takes Kloss’ conclusions much further, as she lists 104 different sorts of watermarks, carefully distinguishing between types, variants, and similar forms (see her index on pp. 399–402). (In her study [vol. 24, p. 390], E. V. Uchanova states that she registered only 94). By B. M. Kloss’ accounts, there were only 33 sorts of watermarks.
E. V. Uchanova’s conclusions are the following. The whole LLSv was compiled in one go, by the same team, between 1568 and 1576, at the scriptorium of the Intercession church in Aleksandrova sloboda (t. 24, p. 386 and 390). A set of volumes representing a “Menologion” (Minei) was copied at the same time as the “Chronographic Section” (3 volumes) of the LLSv, on the same paper by the same copyists ca. 1568–1569. Copyists and illuminators were working as teams on several volumes at the same time, using the same material. One can spot exactly the same layers of paper in the composition of the first three chronographical volumes, and probably the first (now missing) volume of Russian history had the same distribution of sheets. At first, copyists must have been working on six reams disposed on four tables, then on three reams on three tables (vol. 24, p. 395). Work on the LLSv began with paper already in stock at the scriptorium in Aleksandrova sloboda. Then, the teams received a huge brand new order which enabled them to finish the five following volumes (Golicyn, Laptev, Osterman I and II, Šumilov). There again we find a precise parallel sequence of watermarks. LLSv’s last volume, the “Imperial Book”, is copied on a paper different from every other used for the former volumes. Since this very paper was also used for the first part of a Psalter printed in Aleksandrova sloboda by one Andronik Neveža, between the 20th of June 1576 and the 31st of January 1577, it can be inferred that by then the LLSv team had exhausted its stocks of paper and was authorized to use part of the ream allotted to Neveža to draft a fair copy of the sections corrected in the pages of the “Synodal volume”. However this revised edition of “Carstvennaja kniga” was never finished.
E. V. Uchanova rightfully writes that LLSv’s facsimile publication will allow to rethink all previous studies on this corpus. Indeed, each domain must be reviewed carefully. Two of the most niggling questions are: what was the exact goal of this gigantic undertaking and why did it remain unfinished? It is not the only big literary project abandoned under Ivan the Terrible, but its chronology is unique. Most of the other great Muscovite historical enterprises were brutally interrupted between 1563 and 1567 (current annals, the “Book of Royal Degrees”). (See The Book of Royal Degrees and the Genesis of Russian Historical Consciousness = Stepennaja kniga carskogo rodoslovija i genezis russkogo istoričeskogo soznanija. Edited by G. Lenhoff and A. Kleimola. Bloomington, IN 2011. = UCLA Slavic Studies. N.S. 7, and Ch. Halperin: Stepennaia Kniga on the Reign of Ivan IV: Omissions from Degree 17, in: Slavonic and East-European Review 89 (2011) 1, pp. 56–75.) The LLSv seems to take over from them and could be considered as a substitute. During the opričnina terror, breaking with the great holistic projects promoted by Church authority (metropolitans Makarij and Afanasij), Ivan the Terrible supposedly wanted to order his own Menologion and his own Universal History for the use of his new capital, Aleksandrova Sloboda. But at some point between 1575 and 1576, three years at least after the end of the opričnina regime, he put an end to his new pet project. The explanation could lie in a combination of ideological reasons and material circumstances. As the compilers could not produce a fully satisfying narrative of the recent past, which was still very heavy with emotions, and as paper suddenly went out of stock, the whole undertaking came to a brutal stop. There is also a conundrum inside the enigma, about the dating of the interpolations inside the “Sinodal’nyj tom”, most of all those concerning the politically highly sensitive events of 1546, 1547 and 1553. R. G. Skrynnikov was persuaded that the rewriting was ordered by Ivan the Terrible between July 1563 and July 1564 (R. G. Skrynnikov: Ivan Groznyj. Moskva 2001, p. 140). S. O. Šmidt believes that the “Synodal volume” cannot have been copied before the 1570s (probably after 1575), but he admits that there could have been an earlier manuscript, dating from the 1550s–1560s (vol. 24, p. 7). B. M. Kloss and E. V. Uchanova think that the corrections of the “Synodal volume” were composed precisely when it was revised, ca. 1575, and that the fair copy was made in 1576. It remains to be explained why Ivan the Terrible wanted to rewrite this part of his story twenty to thirty years after the facts.
Pierre Gonneau, Paris-Sorbonne
Zitierweise: Pierre Gonneau über: Licevoj letopisnyj svod XVI veka. Faksimil’noe izdanie v 40 tomach [Illustrierte Chronikhandschrift des 16. Jahrhunderts. Faksimile-Ausgabe in 40 Bänden]. Nad izd. rabotali Ch. Ch. Mustafin, V. V. Morozov, E. V. Uchanova, L. P. Mustafina i drugie. T. 1–24: Russkaja letopisnaja istorija (1114–1567) (Kn. 1–23 i kn. 24 [Soprovoditel’nyj tom]); T. 25–29: Biblejskaja istorija (Kn. 1–4 i kn. 5 [Soprovoditel’nyj tom]); T. 30–40: Vsemirnaja istorija (Kn. 1–10 i kn. 11 [Soprovoditel’nyj tom]). Moskva: Akteon, 2009–2011. ISBN: 5-91142-001-5, http://www.dokumente.ios-regensburg.de/JGO/Rez/Gonneau_Licevoj_letopisnyj_svod_40_tomov.html (Datum des Seitenbesuchs)
© 2012 by Osteuropa-Institut Regensburg and Pierre Gonneau. All rights reserved. This work may be copied and redistributed for non-commercial educational purposes, if permission is granted by the author and usage right holders. For permission please contact redaktion@osteuropa-institut.de
Die digitalen Rezensionen von „Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas. jgo.e-reviews“ werden nach den gleichen strengen Regeln begutachtet und redigiert wie die Rezensionen, die in den Heften abgedruckt werden.
Digital book reviews published in Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas. jgo.e-reviews are submitted to the same quality control and copy-editing procedure as the reviews published in print.