ДРЕВНЕБОЛГАРСКИЙ ПЕРЕВОД ХРОНИКИ ГЕОРГИЯ АМАРТОЛА И АРХИВСКИЙ ХРОНОГРАФ
THE OLD BULGARIAN TRANSLATION OF GEORGE HAMARTOLOS’ CHRONICON AND THE ARCHIVSKIJ CHRONOGRAPH

Summary/Abstract: According to V. M. Istrin’s stemma extracts from the translation of George Hamartolos’ Chronichon in so called Archivskij Chronograph are related to some intermediate version of the translation named by Istrin first one (pervaja redakcija). The Tr manuscript (Troice-Sergieva Lavra No. 100) follows close behind the translation of the chronicle. The rest of manuscripts containig the early translation of George Hamartolos’ Chronicon (or group S) are related to some other version named second one (vtoraja redakcija). Here is the way Istrin spesifies the place of Archivskij Chronograph in his stemma. The author considers that three fragments (the story of second building of Jerusalem, the story of second conquest of Jerusalem during the reign of Antioch, and the story about Apostle Peter’s fight with Simon the magician) are of great importance because they can be found in both compilations Ellinskij Letopisec and Archivskij Chonograph. However, practically the text of Archivskij Chronograph is not in use in Istrin’s textological observations. The author compares definite fragments in both versions of Ellinskij Letopisec, Tr and group S, and then comes to conclusion that George Hamartolos’ Chronicon text in Ellinskij Letopisec and Archivskij Chronograph goes to the first version of the translation (pervaja redakcija). Istrin’s analysis based on single words is not convincing, while our analysis based on phrase (or sentence) reveals that Istrin’s method and conclusions cannot be considered reliable. Istrin’s stemma is artificial and does not contribute farther textology investigations of the early George Hamartolos’ Chronicon Slavonic translation. This translation cannot be done before 963, that is why the fragments from George Hamartolos’ Chronicon could not be included in hypothehtic Bulgarian Chronograph of 921.

• Details
• Contents