CC BY
42
Rus'—Rossiia, and russkie—rossiiane, and russkii—rossiiskii in the Catalogue of the Kievan Metropolitans by St. Demetrius of Rostov*
Alexander I. Grishchenko
Moscow State Pedagogical University
Русь — Россия, русские — россияне, русский — российский в "Каталоге митрополитов Киевских" свт. Димитрия Ростовского
Александр Игоревич Грищенко
Московский педагогический государственный университет
Резюме
В данной статье на материале малоизвестного сочинения по истории русской церкви "Каталог митрополитов Киевских" (нач. XVIII в.), написанного, скорее всего, свт. Димитрием Ростовским, рассмотрены особенности употребления и сочетаемость слов из синонимических рядов Русь / Россия / Руссия, русский / российский / росский, русские / россияне / россы. Всего в тексте памятника представлено 32 слова на рус- и 37 на рос-, причём топонимы и производные от них прилагательные равноупотребительны, однако наблюдается определённая привязка последних к тому или иному имени в составе пока ещё относительно устойчивых коллокаций. Отмечено преобладание этнонимов на рос-, а также общая тенденция к редакторской правке рус—> рос- в более поздних списках и единственном издании "Каталога" (1776).
* Работа выполнена на средства гранта Президента РФ по государственной поддержке молодых российских учёных — кандидатов наук МК-3307.2013.6, проект: “«Своя» и «чужая» этничность в русской лексике и фразеологии”.
Slovene 2014 №1
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Alexander I. Grishchenko
I 103
Ключевые слова
начало XVIII века, церковнославянский язык, "проста мова", этнонимы, историческая стилистика, орфография, Димитрий Ростовский
Abstract
This article deals with the usage and combinability of words from the synonymic rows Rus'/Rossiia/Russiia, russkii/rossiiskii/rosskii, and russkie/rossiiane/rossy, on the basis of the Catalogue of the Kievan Metropolitans, from the early 18th c. — a little-known work on the history of the Russian Church. In the Catalogue, there are about the same number of place names using either rus- or ros- and the adjectives derived from them (a total of 32 and 37, respectively); however, there is an identifiable relationship between each adjective and a specific noun, apparently reflecting fairly stable collocations. Also, the author notes the predominance of ethnonyms with ros- and a general trend towards editing rus- to ros- in the later copies of the Catalogue and in its sole publication in 1776.
Keywords
early 18th century, Church Slavonic language, Ruthenian language, ethnonyms, historical stylistics, orthography, Demetrius of Rostov
By the beginning of the 18th century when, as a result of Peter’s reforms, the Tsardom of Muscovy was transformed into the Russian Empire, there appeared a series of large-scale language changes revising the distribution of Church Slavonic and a number of Russian proper idioms (the Moscow koine, Ruthenian, and vernaculars).1 It is against this background that one finds the actualization of the old synonymic rows with the initials rus- and ros- (and, respectively, the roots rus-, rus(s)ii-, ros(s)-, ros(s)sii-), relating to the name of the Russian state, its territory, and inhabitants. As a consequence, the rows Rus'/Rossiia/Russiia (place names), russkii/rossiiskii/rosskii (attributes), and russkie/rossiiane/rossy (ethnic and inhabitants’ names) differ stylistically: the first terms were gradually moved to lower stylistic registers and the rest remained almost solely in solemn bookish discourse. However, this did not happen all at once, and in many texts of this epoch there is a significant variability in the usage of these words, including serious orthographic inconsistencies. Furthermore, it should be mentioned that the history of this process and of the appearance of these forms in various languages—Slavic and non-Slavic—is in general still not clear, although some of its episodes have been examined in a number of studies in considerable detail; cf. [Soloviev 1947;
1 Regarding multilingualism of authors originating from Ruthenian lands and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of that epoch, see, e.g., a special paper [Brogi Bercoff 2005] on the works by Metropolitan Stephen Yavorsky (1658-1722), a close friend and associate of St. Demetrius of Rostov.
2014 №1 Slovene
104 I
Rus'—Rossiia, and russkie—rossiiane, and russkii—rossiiskii
in the Catalogue of the Kievan Metropolitans by St. Demetrius of Rostov
Tikhomirov 1953; Soloviev 1957a; 1957b; Trubachev 2001; Ulukha-nov 2008; Kloss 2012], and the review [Grishchenko 2013b] of the latter, and also an essay on corpus study [idem 2013a] based on the analysis of the Middle Russian Corpus (a demo version) included in the Russian National Corpus (http://www.ruscorpora.ru/search-mid_rus.html).
The spellings with the root ros- (in Muscovite Russia since the end of the 17th century with the doubled s, i.e., ross-)2 supplanted the corresponding forms with rus- in Russian literature of the 18th century; this differentiation occurred both at that time as well as later on (up to the present), including semantic differentiation, due to which there have appeared pairs explicitly opposed in meaning in the modern Russian literary language. This opposition includes semantic differentiation, due to which there have appeared pairs explicitly opposed in meaning in the modern Russian literary language: adv. r'usskii ‘of or pertaining to the ethnic Russian’ vs. ross 'iiskii ‘of or pertaining to Russia in general,’ and n.pl. r 'usskie ‘ethnic Russians; East Slavic ethnic group native to Russia’ (sing. masc. r'usskii, fem. r'usskaia) vs. rossii'ane ‘citizens or inhabitants of Russia’ (sing. masc. rossii'anin, fem. rossii'anka). This duality is hardly translatable into most of the world’s languages.2 3 For example, when the traditional translation of Nikolai Karamzin’s historical survey is employed— History of the Russian State—it is thus quite difficult to understand the following passage from the Russian-language article by Alexandre Soloviev:
In the years after the end of the Napoleonic Wars Karamzin, who had become a conservative, published his History of the Russian ( Rossiiskogo) State (1816-1826), and returning to the tradition of the 18th century, he more often spoke there of Rossiiane than of Rus ski e. But young Nikolai Polevoy replied to him through the title of his History of the Russian (Russkogo) People. This antithesis: “Russian (Rossiiskoe) state” and “Russian (Russkii) people” became characteristic for the whole 19th century [Soloviev 1957a: 154].4
The first person seriously to draw attention to the change of the root rus-into ros- in the Slavic-Russian literature was Nikolai Karamzin himself:
2 This was first established by Kloss [2012: 115 ff.], who notes: “The spelling Rossiia with two «s» naturally appeared in the lands of Kievan Metropolia, which was an area of mixed Slavic and Latin influence” [ibid.: 123].
3 Except some Slavic languages, e.g., see [Buncic 2006: 40-41] on the difference between the Polish terms ruski ‘East Slavonic (= Ruthenian)’ and rosyjski ‘Russian (= Muscovite).’
4 Cf. the original: “В годы после окончания наполеоновских войн ставший консерватором Карамзин издает «Историю Государства Российского» (1816-1826)
и, возвращаясь к традиции XVIII в., чаще говорит в ней о «Россиянах», чем о «Русских». Но молодой Н. Полевой отвечает ему «Историей русского народа». Эта антитеза: «Российское государство» и «русский народ» станет характерной для всего XIX в.”
Slovene 2014 №1
Alexander I. Grishchenko
I 105
In ancient times we used to write Rus', after Rusia, but have finally turned the letter U into 0. Tatishchev thought that Metropolitan Macarius was the first to coin this novelty, but all the oldest copies of the Book of Degrees, the so-called Macarius’ Book, all the 16th-century manuscripts I happened to see use the names Rus' and Rusia [Karamzin 1998: 325].
However, there are some later copies of the same Book of Degrees in which Rus' was replaced by Rosia, e.g., in the Piskarev copy from the end of the 16th-the early 17th centuries; this was compared by Alexey Sirenov with the earlier Chudov copy:
Apparently, these changes should be attributed to the creation of the scribe of the Piskarev copy, who intended to modernize the text [Sirenov 2007: 248].
Such replacements in the copies of the same monuments were noted by other researchers. Thus, the Praise of St. Vladimir contains the word with the root rus- in the Troitsky copy of the 1520s, but in the later Academy copy of 1557/58 they were replaced by ros-:
This variant reading type could be explained by the tendency marked by M. N. Tikhomirov to the establishment of the term “Rossia” in monuments of Russian literature in the 16th century. It can be assumed that the replacement of the root “rus” with “ros” was made by the scribe of the Academy copy unknowingly, because the second vocalization was apparently familiar for him. This is supported by the fact that the Academy copy kept the most of the words with the root “rus”, which the scribe borrowed from his source. Perhaps active adoption of the root “ros” in the Russian literature fell in the thirty-year period separating the Troitsky [. . .] and the Academy copies . . . [Usachev 2006: 7-8].
Besides spelling modernization from one copy to another, in some works one can also come across variation in the roots rus- and ros- within the same copy, which cannot be attributed only to a scribe’s inattention or to orthographic inconsistency, but can also be interpreted as belonging to the original. Among such monuments there is the practically unknown Catalogue of Kievan Metropolitans with Short Chronicle by St. Demetrius of Rostov, which in 1776 was carelessly and without any attribution published in the Moscow Curious Almanac by Vasily Ruban, an omnivorous and indiscriminate publisher. This unique printed edition of the Catalogue, Ruban1776, had some corrections and inserts both in the main text and at its conclusion, that is, the publisher treated the original work the same way medieval scribes treated their manuscripts: the list of Kievan metropolitans was extended to include Gabriel Kremenecky, who held the chair of Kiev from 1770 to 1783, and this additional material amounts to approximately 19% of the final text. Despite the dubiousness of Ruban’s edition, this work of St. Demetrius was nevertheless identified in the early 19th century by Metropolitan Eugenius
2014 №1 Slovene
106 I
Rus'—Rossiia, and russkie—rossiiane, and russkii—rossiiskii
in the Catalogue of the Kievan Metropolitans by St. Demetrius of Rostov
Bolkhovitinov, who included it in the list of the Rostov bishop’s writings in the Historical Dictionary of Russian Writers of the Clerical Titles of the Graeco-Russian Church at no. 10; he noted that Ruban had amplified the work of St. Demetrius with “references to the Russian Hierarchy by Sellius and other books, and also added biographies of Kievan metropolitans of the 18th century” [Eugenius 1827: 129]. This refers to the Latin work by Adam Burchard Sellius (monastic name Nicodemus) —a teacher at the Alexander Nevsky Theological School in the 1730s and 1740s—titled De Russorum Hierarchia (in five books). Following metropolitan Eugenius, the authorship of St. Demetrius was mentioned by M. A. Fedotova [1992: 268; 2007: 15-16], although, in general, she acknowledges only the hypothetical character of many attributions to the unpublished works of St. Demetrius [idem 2014].
The Catalogue is known in several manuscripts, and one of them, Syn139, written in a clear cursive hand and originating from the personal library of St. Demetrius, contains his own handwritten corrections and marginalia. This manuscript has clearly legible Polish insertions using Latin letters, unlike Ruban1776, where the publisher did not cope with them; scribes of other manuscripts tried either to transliterate them into Cyrillic (as in SPb319, also written in a cursive hand) or to translate them (as in Syn123, written in Church Slavonic half-uncial), as shown in the following series of comparisions of a quotation from Marcin Cromer:
Table 1
Syn139 185r21-23 Syn123 19vi3_i6 SPb319 16v25-28 Ruban1776 84
по Шезд! йтгелла крола, Rus wolynska, | koscioly ktorekolwiek nabozenstwa Ruskie niebyly | naproch palila, y zgruntu wywracala.5 поШЕзде | Аггела кролл р8сь волыискал костелы | которые колвекъ набожества рЬского | небЫли напра палила. по ШЕзд!, | аггела кроля, р8сь волинска, костели, | которш колвекъ набожество р8ске небыли | напрахъ палилы, изгр8нту выворочала. ... Волышсшя церкви, каковыя только Грекороссшскаго исповЕдашя ни были, въ прахъ сожжены и до основашя превращены.
Furthermore, the copies of the Catalogue differ in the contents of the articles:
• Syn139 ends with the mention of the living Metropolitan Barlaam Yasin-sky, who died in 1707, and this may be the terminus ante quem both for the MS itself and for the author of the Catalogue.
• Syn123 ends with the mention of the ordination of Metropolitan Joa-saphus Krokovsky in August 1708 in Moscow, a ceremony in which St. Demetrius
5 “After the leaving of Jogaila the King, Volhynian Rus' burned all of the churches not of the Russian religion to ashes and razed them to the ground.”
Slovene 2014 №1
Alexander I. Grishchenko
I 107
participated. The convoy of the Catalogue placed in the codex at the beginning, but not attributed to anyone, is also interesting. The second text in Syn123 (28-52v) is “Выписка из подлинниковъ о бытности Црей греческихъ и Россшскихъ. и Патр'арховъ цреградскихъ и Россшскихъ. и К'евскихъ митрополитовъ” (= An Extract from the Originals About Activities of the Greek and Russian Tsars, Constantinople and Russian Patriarchs, and of Kievan Metropolitans) consisting of eight “edges” (grani; i.e., parts); the third one (55-77) is the so-called Moscow Catalogue (“Кштологъ Арх'юреевъ Россшскшхъ” = A Catalogue of Russian Bishops); the fourth one (78-190) is the Activities (“Бытности”) of the bishops of various Russian regions and cities, and of the priors of major Russian monasteries; the fifth one (192-203v) is “Степени россшски арх'юреевъ” (= The Degrees of the Russian Bishops); and, at the end (204-205v), the codex concludes with “Чинъ арх'юреевъ росиски им^е бЫ посемВ” (=The Order of the Russian Bishops Is as Follows). Thus, the entire codex is a collection of works of a similar type—that is, in the genre of catalogue-while the Catalogue by St. Demetrius, placed at the beginning, was probably recognized as the earliest and the most authoritative document.
• In the MS from the Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine (Kiev), no. 352/169—known to me but not researched de visu—the Catalogue ends with the report of the death of Joasaphus Krokovsky in 1718. Moreover, “the whole initial part of this Catalogue is full of Lomonosov’s marginalia. He marked all the events connected with Hilarion’s activities at the Kievan Metropolia. The signs and marginalia are near the reports on the first Kievan metropolitans, that is, the Greeks: on Michael being sent to Kiev by Constantinople Patriarch Leontius and on Neophytus and other church figures” [Moiseeva 1971: 76].
• SPb319 ends with Barlaam Vonatovich, the Kievan metropolitan who followed Joasaphus Krokovsky; he certainly would not have been mentioned by St. Demetrius in this bishopric, since he was ordained in 1722, i.e., 13 years after St. Demetrius’ decease. Therefore, Ruban (or his immediate source) was not the first to continue St. Demetrius’ Catalogue.
As for the language of the Catalogue, it can be characterized in general as Ruthenian Church Slavonic with minor vernacular and Polish inclusions, primarily in the quotations from the sources used by St. Demetrius. Thus, the peculiarities of the usage of the roots rus- and ros- both in the Ruthenian and in the Muscovite literature by the turn of the 18th century could no longer be opposed. There was, however, little difference even earlier, although there has recently been an attempt to separate them, or rather to silence the unity of the “ethnic”—more precisely, religious-terminology of Muscovy and Ruthenian lands in the 16th-17th centuries [Farion 2010]. Farion’s article does not contain any reference to [Soloviev 1957a: 149-152 = 1957b: 3743] where the author in some detail considered the usage of the Graecized
2014 №1 Slovene
108 I
Rus'—Rossiia, and russkie—rossiiane, and russkii—rossiiskii
in the Catalogue of the Kievan Metropolitans by St. Demetrius of Rostov
forms with ros- in the activity of the Ruthenian fraternity schools. It seems that Farion is also unaware that the first known use in the Slavic literature of the term rosiane (1524)—Greek not only by the root, but by the suffix as well-appeared in Moscow in the writings of the Orthodox monk from Mount Athos, Maxim the Greek [Kloss 2012: 56, 76]; furthermore, she apparently does not know that the term rossy/rossove most likely can be attributed to the archimandrite of the Kievan Caves Monastery, Zacharias Kopystensky. He was the author of a polemical treatise, the Palinode (1620s), with the subtitle “Книга Обороны каеолической святой апостольской Всходней Церкви и святыхъ патрiарховъ, и о Грекохъ, и о Россохъ хрис^анехъ” (= The Book of the Defense of the Holy Catholic Apostolic Eastern Church and Holy Patriarchs, and about the Greek and Russian Christians). This work was a reply to the Polish treatise Obrona jednos'ci cerkiewnej (Defense of the Church Unity, 1617) by Leon Krewza—the Uniate archimandrite who used only the forms Rus, narod Ruski, Rusin, etc. Since Zacharias Kopystensky’s main purpose was to prove the canonical unity of Russian Orthodoxy with Greek Orthodoxy, he used mainly the Graecisms Rossia, Rossiiskii, Rosskii, and Rossy (Rossove). The latter form originates not from the standard indeclinable 'Рй^, but from the less common 'P&aoi and 'Pwaot [Soloviev 1957a: 138].
The manuscript copy of the Palinode published in Palinode1878 came from the personal library of St. Demetrius, who frequently referred to the work of his predecessor, but very cautiously and selectively. Unlike the famous Palinode, the version in St. Demetrius’ Catalogue was first of all a historical work, although some of the themes expressed in the Palinode appeared in it as well, for example, the approval of the all-Russian canonical and perhaps—if one could use modern terminology-ethnic unity, which at that time was based of course primarily on confessional unity. St. Demetrius explicitly compared the Union of Brest (1596) with the great Arian controversy, i.e., the Union was conceived as an ecclesiastical catastrophe, as described in Syn139 188г16-25:
Михаилъ Рагоза свщенъ бЬ на митрополТю | КТевск8ю в Вилни СтЬйшимъ ПатрТах омъ 1еремТемъ, | втоже лЬто внеже Онисифо Шставленъ. Сей Митро|политъ 8нЬю воведе в Р8, Штогшисл Ш исконнаго | своего ПатрТах а Цариградскаго, природнаго Р8сЬ | пастыра, а ко Римском8 ПапЬ приставши, и см8тилъ | тЬмъ цековь й'Ьло, раздЬливъ РосТский народъ надвое, | аки риз8 раздравъ ткоже иногда АрТй, зачто Михаилъ | той и прокллтъ быст на соборЬ Берестес комъ в л'Ьто | /?рд. ,афч s.6
6 “Michael Rahoza was ordained to the Kievan Metropolia in Vilna by the Most Holy Patriarch Jeremias, in the same year when Onesiphorus was dismissed. This metropolitan established the Union in Rus', when he fell away from his primordial Patriarch of Constantinople, the natural shepherd for Rus', and joined the Pope of Rome, he thereby disturbed the Church greatly, and divided the Russian people into
Slovene 2014 №1
Alexander I. Grishchenko
I 109
It is noteworthy that the rare collocation Rosiiskii narod7 with the Polo-nism n 'arod ‘nation, race,’8 which later entered into standard Russian and, owing to its Common Slavic form, was merged with the Russian proper nar'od.7 8 9 10
In addition to the Catalogue of the Kievan Metropolitans, or the Kievan Catalogue, there were also two other works similar in their genre and content; one of them, attributed by Metropolitan Eugenius to St. Demetrius, is the Short Chronicle, or, more exactly, the Synchronistic Tables [Eugenius 1827: 132, no. 17], known only in MS SPb251; the second is the so-called Moscow Catalogue, known in many copies (e.g., Mos122). The attribution of authorship to St. Demetrius was questioned by Metropolitan Eugenius [1827: 133, no. 18]. Unlike the Kievan Catalogue, the origin and text history of the Moscow Catalogue are less clear. Indeed, the two works have some parallel readings, but begin very differently: the Kievan Catalogue begins with the so-called “Photius’ Christianization of Rus'” passage containing the episode of unburnt gospel; in the Moscow Catalogue this episode is presented as the third element and is described much more briefly. It is preceded by a text relating the baptism (sic!) of Rus' by St. Andrew the Apostle and the baptism of Pannonia by Andronicus, St. Paul’s disciple, with reference to the Kievan Synopsis by Innocent Gizel. The second text (also with a reference to the Synopsis) is an account of the Moravian mission of SS. Cyril and Methodius, which is again named “the baptism of Rus'”: in total there are as many as three baptisms! However, the Synopsis does not say anywhere that St. Andrew baptized Rus', and the episodes with Cyril and Methodius and with Photius are not mentioned there at all. In the Kievan Catalogue there are no such omissions. Nevertheless, one can find the report that St. Andrew not only visited but baptized Rus' in the Palinode by Zacharias Kopystensky: “Тогожъ часу св. Андрей, проходячи землю Росскую, многихъ крестилъ и до познаня Христа привелъ” [Palinode1878: 970].10 Furthermore, there is a Moscow Catalogue (either the same source mentioned above or another, unidentified, one) which is
two, just as Arius once had divided [Christ’s] garment, and therefore this Michael was anathematized at the Synod of Brest in 7104/1596.”
7 This refers first of all to the “people” (noble estate) of Ruthenia, but by the turn of the 18th century it could be also refer to Russians as a whole, i.e., including Muscovites.
8 Cf. Polish n 'arod (mainly resp. Latin gens, natio in the Vulgate) vs. Church Slavonic народъ nar 'od (mainly resp. Greek S^po^, о^Хо^), люд!е li udie (mainly resp. Xao^), and изыкъ iaz'yk (mainly resp. ihvo^).
9 Regarding this fact, see, e.g., [Plokhy 2006: 187 ff.], especially the following passage: “The term narod, which is occasionally encountered in Muscovite texts of the period, is not used in the sense of «nation» or «ethnocultural community», as in Ukraine and Belarus of the period, but simply means «a number of people»” [ibid.: 216-217].
Later the term narod was connected with Muscovites, too, in the Synopsis (1674) by archimandrite Innocent Gizel: “The concept of one nation (narod) uniting Ruthenians and Muscovites was a revolutionary element introduced by the author of the Synopsis to the field of early modern Slavic ethnology” [ibid.: 263].
10 “At the same time, St. Andrew going around the Russian land baptized many people and led them to the knowledge of Christ.”
2014 №1 Slovene
Slovene 2014 №i
Table 2 °
The Distribution of the Words with the Initials rus- and ros- in the Text of the Catalogue of the Kievan Metropolitans
stems with rus- stems with ros-
place names 61з м8дръ в писашахъ й р^зчистъ, шсожъ | неб!з прежде в Р8си 176r14.15 / Synl23 вр8с!и 6v9 в р8с!и 176vn / Synl23 вроссш 7r15 / SPb319 в росс'ш 8v /Rubanl776 въ Pyccin 64 митрополитъ всед Р8сс1и 182v13/ Synl23 митрополйтъ всеА poccin 15v12, and ditto in SPb319,Rubanl776 в Р8си 18325 / въ Pyccin 80 / SPb319 въ p8ccin 14v на Р8сь всю 183v9 Rus wolynska 185r23 блви Р8си [в мало Poccin] 185r9 /Rubanl776 благослови Pyccin (въ Малой Poccin) 85 / SPb319 р8ки [въ | малороссы] 17r7 в Р8си 185v15 /Rubanl776 въ Русси 85 на митрополш | всеА Р8си (18615.1б) / Synl23 намитропб|л1ю всеА poccin 21r6.7, and ditto in SPb319, Rubcml776 на митрополш всеА P8cin 186v17 / Synl23 намитропблш всеА р8сй 21v22!Rubanl776 всея Poccin 88, and ditto in SPb319 митро|политъ всеА P8cn 186v25.26 / Synl23 митрополйтъ | всеА poccin 22r9.10, and ditto in SPb319, Rubcml776 w крещеша P8cn 128vu /Rubanl776 отъ крещен!я Pyccin 92 / SPb319 p8ccn 20r7 в P? 188v19 природнаго P8cb | пастыра 188v20_21 / Synl23 природного р8сй пастырА 25r7!Rubanl776 Pyccin 93, and ditto in SPb319 пришедшш въ Pociro 173r10 в Pocciro прйде 174r8 велиюа й малыА Poccin митрополит8 183v10 блви Р8си [в мало Poccin] 185г9 !Rubanl776 благослови Pyccin (въ Малой Poccin) 85 / SPb319 р8ки [въ | малороссы] 17, посЬтилъ Pocciro 188v6 прйдеже въ Росс'ш 188v10 посЬгцаА Росс'ш 189г10 [.Rubanl776 неведомо гд^з, въ Poccin ли, или въ Грецш 73 / Synl39 домали, | йли вгрещи 180v9.10]
14 718)
Rus'—Rossiia, and russkie—rossiiane, and russkii—rossiiskii
in the Catalogue of the Kievan Metropolitans by St. Demetrius of Rostov
2014 №1 Slovene
stems with rus- stems with ros-
ethno- nyms Куриллъ, егоже каталогъ московски Гречиномъ | називаё, палинод1аже й л'Ьтописъ печёскй Р8синомъ 180v6.7 rossy( 4): крещеша ради Россовъ 172r16 / Synl23 крещёш'А ради pocc'iaHb (the latter was written boldly over illegible one) распространисА Bhpa стал въ РосЫзхъ 173r12 8в,Ьрен1а ради Россовъ 177г10/ Synl23 рбковъ 8г2/ SPb319 р8ссовъ 9г15 /Rubanl776 Р ссовъ 65 (a letter was not printed) й того час8 Россове в в'Ьр'Ь были 185r19 / SPb319 роскове 16v21 / Rubanl776 Рос!'яне 84 / Synl23 рбкове ROSSIIANE (4): ктоже бЬ родомъ, | Гречинъ ли йли Росманинъ, нЬсть йввЬспа 176г5.б /Rubanl776 Росс1янинъ 63 / SPb319 розманинъ 7v27/ Synl23 р8сс1а|нинъ 6г22 н'Ьщиже РоссАне 185v26 / Synl23 pocci'AHe 20v7 / SPb319 pocciaHe /Rubanl776 PycKie 85 Куриллъ Росс1анинъ 181 r23 / SPb319 Росмянинъ 75, and ditto in SPb319 / Synl23 р8сс1'анинъ 13v15 Але§ш сты, Росс1анинъ 182v12/ Synl23 росмАнинъ 15vu, and ditto inRubanl776 [Rubanl776 КИПРШНЪ Сербинъ а по другимъ Росйянинъ 79, in als. сербинъ only]
1 8(9)
de- topo- nymic adjec- tives ‘land’ (6): въ Р8ск8ю землю 172r7 /Rubanl776 Россшскую 54 в р8стё | земли 172v6.7/ Synl23 росшст'Ьй lv19 крестилъ всю | землю Р8ск8ю 173v5_6 землд | р8ск!а 173v18.19/ Synl23 росшска 3v4 всед земли р8ск!а 174г17 надъ всею Р8скою Московскою землею 181v7 ‘bishop’ (4): своимы Росйскими бппы 175v4 Росшстш бппы 177v18 / SPb319 розсшстш 9v24 w бпповъ Роскихъ 185r9 / Synl23 россшскихъ 19r21 w Росскихъ бпповъ 185rn /Rubanl776 Россшскихъ 84 / Synl23 р8скихъ 19vj ‘metropolitan’ (2): первы РосГскй митрополитъ 177r? наши Росйстш | митрополиты 180v13.14
Alexander I. Grishchenko
112 I
Rus'—Rossiia, and russkie—rossiiane, and russkii—rossiiskii
in the Catalogue of the Kievan Metropolitans by St. Demetrius of Rostov
Slovene 2014 №1
Alexander I. Grishchenko
I 113
mentioned by St. Demetrius as one of his sources, so the attribution of the Moscow Catalogue to him is highly unlikely. In fact, St. Demetrius reconciled the nformation about the two baptisms of Rus' in the following passage: “. . . обаче ни тогда | распространив вЬра стал въ РоссЬхъ ниже Втведи сд, | бываемы ради со различнимы народы +и межд8собны+ частыхъ бран!” [Syn139: 173п-13].п
Thus, the Catalogue of the Kievan Metropolitans by St. Demetrius of Rostov stands on the border between the old Ruthenian Church Slavonic and the new common Russian historical literature. In fact, this was the first proper scholarly essay on the history of the Russian Church, as it was first to use a critical method. That is why the usage of the terms with the roots ros- and rus- in this work is of particular interest. Table 2 compiles all usage and distribution patterns by types of nomination. The main source, which provides the most relevant statistics, is MS Syn139. The table also includes variant readings from other MSS and the edition by Ruban. The differences between these four versions at the selected places are numerous; they characterize the stylistic preferences of the copyists and perhaps the publisher.
Despite the limited sample size, even in the framework of the Catalogue one can trace the following statistical trends:
1. The number of place names with rus- and with ros- used in the Catalogue, as well as of the adjectives derived from them, is roughly even (in total, 32 vs. 37, respectively).
2. There is an observable link between specific adjectives and nouns, iapparently representing fairly stable collocations: for zemlia ‘land’—russkaia (the same applies to the words kniaz' ‘prince,’ and kniazhenie ‘principate’), but episkop ‘bishop’ and mitropolit ‘metropolitan’ are rossiiskie (as words denoting church realities, they combine better with the more bookish adjective originating ultimately from the Greek name of Rus'); cf. the statistically more reliable data on the combinability of the attributes russkii and rossiiskii in the preceding period [Grishchenko 2013a: 42] in Table 3.
Table 3
RUSSKII (the 14th-the early 18th centuries) ROSSIISKII (the 16th-the early 18th centuries)
zemlia ‘land’ 36.2% tsarstvie ‘kingdom’ 37.2%
kniaz' ‘prince’ 13.4% gosudarstvo ‘state’ 13.4%
liudi ‘people’ 8.2% zemlia ‘land’ 8.1%
polk ‘army’ 2.6% derzhava ‘state’ 5.8%
tsarstvo ‘kingdom’ 1.3% derzhava ‘state’ 0.9% gosudarstvo ‘state’ 0.2% kniazi ‘princes’ 1.7%, tsari i kniazi ‘tsars and princes’ 3.5% liudi ‘people’ 0.6%, polk ‘army’ 0.0%
11 “. . . but not then the holy faith was propagated neither established amongst the Russian because of frequent wars against different nations and internecine wars.”
2014 №1 Slovene
114 I
Rus'—Rossiia, and russkie—rossiiane, and russkii—rossiiskii
in the Catalogue of the Kievan Metropolitans by St. Demetrius of Rostov
In the full (unpublished) version of the ranked frequency list of these collocations, the word combinations with the superordinate mitropolit and subordinate russkii are in 17th place (ones with the superordinate episkop are in 20th place), but those with the subordinate rossiiskii are in 4th place. In addition, the stability of the collocation russkaia zemlia ‘Russian land’ is very notable, and, in the pre-Mongol chronicles, it was polysemantic, also having a “narrow meaning.”12
3. Among ethnonyms, the words with ros- predominate.
4. The only possible compound adjectives are veliko- and malorossiiskii ‘Great and Minor Russian’ (not -russkii) as derivatives of the calques from the Greek МеуаХ^ Тиа(а and Mixpa Тша(а; whereas belorusskii ‘White Russian’ was possibly a later derivative of more vernacular origin, cf. [Soloviev 1947; Buncic 2006: 48-51].
5. When referring to the text history of the Catalogue (from Syn139 to the other two MSS and the edition), it turns out that the forms in question were subjected to editing, and mostly in one direction—from rus- to ros-. Such corrections (all of them seen in variant readings in Table 2) are found in nine places in the Catalogue; the opposite change ros- to rus- is found in six places, and in fewer sources (in SPb319 and Ruban1776 only once). In three emendations of Ruban1776 in which there was a choice between the forms with rus- and with ros-, the publisher preferred the second one, which corresponds to the general tendency in the use of those forms in the 18th century.
6. Particular attention can be drawn to the spellings rozsianin and rozsiistii in the hand of the second scribe of MS SPb319. These hypercorrect interpretations of the initial ros- as the Polish or Ruthenian prefix roz- are likely to have originated from rather old folk-etymological versions of the place name Rossiia and the ethnonym rossiiane. This was fixed for the first time in the Notes on Muscovite Affairs (1549) by Baron Sigismund von Herberstein:
. . . [Mosci] asserentes Rosseiam antiquitus appellatam, quasi gentem dis-persam, seu disseminatam: id quod nomen ipsum indicat. Rosseia etenim, Rhutenorum lingua, disseminatio, seu dispersio interpretatur. quod verum esse, varii populi incolis etiamnum permixti, & diversae provinciae Russiae passim intermixtae ac interiacentes, aperte testantur [Herb1556].13
With regard to the Russian, not Russia proper, this etymological legend was repeated by Adam Bohoric in his Arcticae Horulae Succisivae (1584):
12 See numerous literature on this problem: [Kuchkin 1995; Danilevsky 1997;
Ryzhov 2001; Kotyshev 2006].
13 “. . . [the Muscovites] assert, that it was anciently called Rosseia, as nation dispersed and scattered, which indeed the name implies for Rosseia, in the language of the Russians, means a dissemination or dispersion; and the variety of races even now blended with the inhabitants and the various provinces of Russia lying promiscuously intermingled, manifestly prove that this is correct” [Herb1851: 3].
Slovene 2014 №1
Alexander I. Grishchenko
I 115
Ruteni seu potius Rufti, volunt, quasi Rossojeni, id est, disseminati, dici [Boh1584: 14].14
Finally, this etymological version could have been known to St. Demetrius directly from the Kievan Synopsis:14 15 16
...й бо ткш славлне w славныхъ дклесъ свойхъ Искони славес кое ймл себе прТшбрктшша, такш по времени w РОССЪАША помншгымъ страна племене свое, РОССЪАНЫ, а пото РШССЫ прозвашасл [. . .] паче всех тех подобТй достовернее, И прилйчнее w Россаша своегш Ршсси ймл то w древнй времен себе стлжаш: Ибш наширокой части света, по мншгимъ разлйчнымъ странамъ [. . .] широко й ралйчно селеми свой ми РшсшАшасл [Synopsis1674: 7-8].16
7. In the name of the country and its inhabitants in St. Demetrius’ Catalogue, one can find derivational and orthographical inconsistencies typical of the manuscript tradition, and associated with the following alternations: -0-/-j- (Rus'vs. Rusija), -ian- / -jan- (rossiane vs. rossjane), -s- / -ss- (Rosja vs. Rossja).
Studying the history of the words with rus- and ros-, these alternations, as well as the accentological features thereof, clearly require special analysis, which is possible only with a full textual study of the Catalogue of the Kievan Metropolitans and by comparing it to other works by St. Demetrius of Rostov and other writers of his era.
Bibliography
Sources Including MSS Boh1584
Adamus Bohorizh, Arcticae horulae succisivae de Latinocarniolana literatura. . . , Witebergae, MDLXXXIIII.
Herb1556
Sigismund von Herberstein, Rerum Moscoviticarum Commentarii, Edition Frank Kampfer, lateinische Fassung, 1556 [online version: Bibliotheca Augustana: http://www.hs-augsburg. de/~harsch/augustana.html].
14 “The Ruthenes, or better the Russes, want to be named quasi Rossojeni, i.e., dispersed.” The corrupted form Rossojeni was interpreted as a passive participle in the past tense.
15 Or from the Chronicle of Poland, Lithuania, Samogitia and all of Ruthenia (1582) by Maciej Stryjkowski. On the influence of Stryjkowski on the Kievan Synopsis, see [Rothe 1983: 72-83].
16 “. . . as the Slavs acquired the Slavic name from their glorious deeds long ago, so over time they were named rossEiany, then Rossy—from their ethnic dispersion (rossEianie) over many lands. [. . .] but it is more reliable and more proper that the Russes (rossi) gained this name by their dispersion (rossiianie) from ancient times, because in the wide area of the world and in many various lands they [. . .] were dispersed widely and variously with their settlements.”
2014 №1 Slovene
116 |
Rus'—Rossiia, and russkie—rossiiane, and russkii—rossiiskii
in the Catalogue of the Kievan Metropolitans by St. Demetrius of Rostov
Herb1851
Sigismund von Herberstein, Notes upon Russia..., translated and edited by R. H. Major, 1, London, 1851.
Mos122
Russian State Library (Moscow), MS МДА-I (f. 173.I = Fundamental Collection of the Moscow Theological Academy), no. 122, the Moscow Catalogue, the mid-18th century, 126 fols.
Palinode1878
Захаия (Копыстенскш), apx., “Шлинодiя (1621)”, Русская Историческая Библiотека, издаваемая Археографическою Коммиаею, 4, С.-Петербургъ, 1878, 313-1200.
Ruban1776
“Роспись Митрополитовъ Юевскихъ, съ краткимъ лЬтописашемъ”, въ: В. Г. Рубанъ, изд., Московскт любопытныймпсяцесловъ на 1776 годъ, и на всп высокосныя лпта . . . , Москва, 54-108.
SPb251
National Library of Russia (St. Petersburg), MS СПбДА (Collection of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy), no. 251, the Short Chronicle by St. Demetrius of Rostov (Л'ВТОПИСАШЕ | краткое кощстантшопЛлскихъ = | царей йпатртрхщвъ, право_|славныхъ, Йерет1кщвъ. | йЛкнлжеши к1евскихъ, | ивладймфскихъ: имосков |скихъ кнАзей. | и ЛблгочестИв4йшихъ, | црехъ: истейшихъ па_|тр!'арс4хъ всерадсшскихъ: | собрано ШмнОгихъ л4то|писцевъ скораго ради при|Лбретеш'А ив^|д4н1А), the 18th century, 17 fols.; for a description of the MS, see [Rodosskii 1893: 239-240].
SPb319
National Library of Russia (St. Petersburg), MS СПбДА (Collection of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy), no. 319, the Miscellanea of the first half of the 18th century, 811 fols.; for a description of the manuscript, see [Rodosskii 1893: 319-321].
Syn123
State Historical Museum (Moscow), MS Син (Collection of the Moscow Synodal Library), no. 123, the Catalogue of the Hierarchs of the Russian Church, the early 18th century, 206 fols.; for a description of the manuscript, see [Protas'eva 1970: 30-31, no. 610].
Syn139
State Historical Museum (Moscow), MS Син (Collection of the Moscow Synodal Library), no. 139, the Miscellanea of the small works and historical materials with the autograph notes and annotations by St. Demetrius of Rostov (from his personal library), the end of the 17th-the early 18th centuries, 211 fols.; for a description of the MS, see [Protas'eva 1970: 34-35, no. 617].
Synopsis1674
STNOnSIS или КРАТКОЕ СОБРАшЕ w Раныхъ Летописцев, w Начале СлавАно-Рщссшскагад народа, и ПервоначалнЫ Кнзей Бгоспасаемагщ ГРАДА KiE ВА . . . [Kiev, 7182/1674].
Literature
Brogi Bercoff 2005
Brogi BERCoff G., “Plurilinguism in Russia and in the Ruthenian Lands in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. The Case of Stefan Javors'kyj,” in: Vyach. Vs. Ivanov,
J. Verkholantsev, eds., Speculum Slaviae Orientalis: Muscovy, Ruthenia and Lithuania in the Late Middle Ages (= UCLA Slavic Studies. New Series, 4), Moscow, 2005, 9-20.
Slovene 2014 №1
Alexander I. Grishchenko
I 117
Buncic 2006
Buncic D., Die ruthenische Schriftsprache bei Ivan Uzevyc unter besonderer Berucksichtigung der Lexik seines Gesprachsbuchs Rozmova/Beseda: mit Worterverzeichnis und Indizes zu seinem ruthenischen undkirchenslavischen Gesamtwerk (= Slavistische Beitrage, 447), Munchen,
2006.
Danilevsky 1997
Данилевский И. Н., “Загадки «Русской земли»”, Знание — сила, 1997, 11, 99-109. Eugenius 1827
Евеенш (Болховитиновъ), митр., Словарь историческт о бывшихъ въ Росаи писателяхх духовнаго чина Греко-Россшской церкви, 1, 2-е изд., испр. и умнож., С.-Петербургъ, 1827.
Farion 2010
Фарюн I., “До кторй' термМвроский,россшский та словенороскийязик (на матерiялi украшських пам’яток XV-XVII ст.)”, Вкник Нащональногоутверситету “Львiвська полтехтка", 675 (= Л. Полюеа, ред., Проблемиукра'ЫськоЧтермтологн), 2010, 178-182. Fedotova 1992
Федотова М. А., “Димитрий”, в: Д. С. Лихачев, отв. ред., Словарь книжников и книжности Древней Руси, 3 (XVII век), 1 (А—З), С.-Петербург, 1992, 258-271.
------2007
Федотова М. А., “Димитрий: Биография. Творения”, в: Православная энциклопедия, 15 (Димитрий—Дополнения к Актам...), Москва, 2007, 8-17.
------2014
Федотова М. А., “О неизданных сочинениях святителя Димитрия Ростовского: к постановке проблемы”, Вестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского гуманитарного университета, Сер. III: Филология, 1(36), 2014, 47-64.
Grishchenko 2013a
Грищенко А. И., “Сочетаемость атрибутов русский и российский по данным Среднерусского корпуса (XV-XVII вв.)”, Древняя Русь. Вопросы медиевистики, 2013, 3(53), 41-42.
------2013в
Грищенко А. И., [рец.:] “Б. М. Клосс. О происхождении названия «Россия». М.: Рукописные памятники Древней Руси, 2012. — 152 с. — (Studia historica. Series minor)”, Русский язык в научном освещении, 2013, 2(26), 281-292.
Karamzin 1998
Карамзин Н. М., Полное собрание сочинений, 1: История государства Российского, Вступ. ст. и послесл. А. Ф. Смирнова, Коммент. А. М. Кузнецова, Москва, 1998.
Kloss 2012
Клосс Б. М., О происхождении названия “Россия", Москва, 2012.
Kotyshev 2006
Котышев Д. М., “«Русская земля» в первой половине XII в.: Из наблюдений над текстом Ипатьевской летописи за 1110-1150 гг.”, Вестник Удмуртского университета, 2006,
Вып. 7: История, 26-41.
Kuchkin 1995
Кучкин В. А., “Русская земля по летописным данным XI — первой трети XIII вв.”, в: Древнейшие государства Восточной Европы. Материалы и исследования. 1992-1993 гг., Москва, 1995, 74-100.
Moiseeva 1971
Моисеева Г. Н., Ломоносов и древнерусская литература, Ленинград, 1971.
2014 №1 Slovene
118 I
Rus'—Rossiia, and russkie—rossiiane, and russkii—rossiiskii
in the Catalogue of the Kievan Metropolitans by St. Demetrius of Rostov
Plokhy 2006
Plokhy S., The Origins of the Slavic Nations: Premodern Identities in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, Cambridge, 2006.
Protas'eva 1970
Протасьева Т. Н., Описание рукописей Синодального собрания (не вошедших в описание А. В. Горского и К. И. Невоструева), 1 (№ 577-819), Москва, 1970.
Rodosskii 1893
Родосскш А., Описате 432-хъ рукописей, принадлежащихъ С.-Петербургской Духовной Академш и составляющихъ ея первое по времени собрате, С.-Петербургъ, 1893.
Rothe 1983
Rothe H., Hrsg., [Sinopsis, Kiev sechzehnhunderteinundachtzig] Sinopsis, Kiev 1681: Facs.
(= Bausteine zur Geschichte der Literatur bei den Slaven, 17), Koln, Wien, 1983.
Ryzhov 2001
Рыжов К. В., “Еще раз о смысле и значении понятий «Русь» и «Русская земля» в летописях ХП-ХШ веков”, Вопросы истории, 2001, 7, 137-143.
Sirenov 2007
Сиренов А. В., Степенная книга: история текста, Отв. ред. Н. Н. Покровский, Москва, 2007.
Soloviev 1947
Соловьев А. В., “Великая, Малая и Белая Русь”, Вопросы истории, 1947, 7, 24-38.
------1957a
Соловьев А. В., “Византийское имя России”, Византийский временник, 1957, 12, 134-155. ------1957в
Soloviev A. V., Le nom byzantin de la Russie (= Musagetes: Contributions to the history of Slavic literature and culture, 3, ed. by D. Cizevskij), ’S-Gravenhage, 1957.
Tikhomirov 1953
Тихомиров М. Н., “О происхождении названия «Россия»”, Вопросы истории, 1953, 11, 93-96.
Trubachev 2001
Трубачев О. Н., “Русский — российский: История двух атрибутов нации”, в: Е. Р. Дашкова и российское общество XVIII столетия, Москва, 2001, 12-21 (reprinted with the extended subtitle “История, динамика, идеология двух атрибутов нации” in: Трубачев О. Н., В поисках единства: взгляд филолога на проблему истоков Руси, 3-е изд., доп., Москва,
2005, 225-236).
Ulukhanov 2008
Улуханов И. С., “К истории употребления слов «Русь» и «Россия» в письменности Древней Руси”, в: И. В. Ружицкий, Ю. Н. Караулов, О. В. Евтушенко, ред., Русское слово в русском мире — 2008: Россия и русские в восприятии инокультурной языковой личности, Москва, 2008, 158-175.
Usachev 2006
Усачев А. С., “Из истории русской средневековой агиографии: два произведения о равноапостольном князе Владимире Святославиче (исследование и тексты)”, Вестник церковной истории, 2006, 2, 5-44.
Slovene 2014 №1
Alexander I. Grishchenko
I 119
References
Brogi Bercoff G., “Plurilinguism in Russia and in the Ruthenian Lands in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. The Case of Stefan Javors'kyj,” in: Vyach. Vs. Ivanov, J. Verkholantsev, eds., Speculum Slaviae Orientalis: Muscovy, Ruthenia and Lithuania in the Late Middle Ages (= UCLA Slavic Studies. New Series, 4), Moscow, 2005, 9-20.
Buncic D., Die ruthenische Schriftsprache bei Ivan Uzevyc unter besonderer Berncksichtigung der Lexik seines Gesprachsbuchs Rozmova/Beseda: mit Worterverzeichnis und Indizes zu seinem ruthenischen und kirchenslavischen Gesamtwerk (= Slavistische Beitrage, 447), Munchen, 2006.
Danilevsky I. N., “Zagadki «Russkoi zemli»,” Znanie — sila, 1997, 11, 99-109.
Farion I., “Do istorii terminiv roskyi, rossiiskyi ta slovenoroskyi iazyk (na materiiali ukrains'kykh pa-m’iatok XV-XVII st.),” Visnyk Natsional'noho uni-versytetu “L'vivs'kapolitekhnika," 675 (= L. Poliuha, ed., Problemy ukrains'koi terminolohii), 2010, 178182.
Fedotova M. A., “Dimitrii,” in: D. S. Likhachev, ed., Slovar' knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnei Rusi, 3/1, St. Petersburg, 1992, 258-271.
Fedotova M. A., “Dimitrii: Biograflia. Tvoreniia,” in: Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, 15, Moscow, 2007, 8-17.
Fedotova M. A., “O neizdannykh sochineniiakh sviatitelia Dimitriia Rostovskogo: k postanovke pro-blemy”, Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovsko-go gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia 3: Filologiia, 1(36), 2014, 47-64.
Grishchenko A. I., “Sochetaemost' atributov rus-skii i rossiiskii po dannym Srednerusskogo korpusa (XV-XVII vv.),” Drevniaia Rus'. Voprosy medievistiki, 2013, 3(53), 41-42.
Grishchenko A. I., [rev.:] “B. M. Kloss. O prois-khozhdenii nazvaniia «Rossiia». M.: Rukopisnye pamiatniki Drevnei Rusi, 2012. — 152 s. — (Studia historica. Series minor),” Russkii iazyk v nauchnom osveshchenii, 2013, 2(26), 281-292.
Karamzin N. M. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 1: Istoriia gosudarstva Rossiiskogo, A. F. Smirnov, ed., A. M. Kuznetsov, comment., Moscow, 1998.
Kloss B. M., O proiskhozhdenii nazvaniia “Rossiia", Moscow, 2012.
Kotyshev D. M., “«Russkaia zemlia» v pervoi po-lovine XII v.: Iz nabliudenii nad tekstom Ipat'evskoi
letopisi za 1110-1150 gg.,” Vestnik Udmurtskogo uni-versiteta, 2006, 7, 26-41.
Kuchkin V. A., “Russkaia zemlia po letopisnym dannym XI — pervoi treti XIII vv.,” in: Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy. Materialy i issledova-niia. 1992-1993 gg., Moscow, 1995, 74-100.
Moiseeva G. N., Lomonosov i drevnerusskaia lite-ratura, Leningrad, 1971.
Plokhy S., The Origins of the Slavic Nations: Premodern Identities in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, Cambridge, 2006.
Protas'eva T. N., Opisanie rukopisei Sinodal'nogo sobraniia (ne voshedshikh v opisanie A. V. Gorskogo i K. I. Nevostrueva), 1 (№ 577-819), Moscow, 1970.
Rothe H., Hrsg., [Sinopsis, Kiev sechzehn-hunderteinundachtzig] Sinopsis, Kiev 1681: Facs. (= Bausteine zur Geschichte der Literatur bei den Slaven, 17), Koln, Wien, 1983.
Ryzhov K. V., “Eshche raz o smysle i znachenii poniatii «Rus'» i «Russkaia zemlia» v letopisiakh XII-XIII vekov,” Voprosy istorii, 2001, 7, 137-143.
Sirenov A. V., Stepennaia kniga: istoriia teksta, N. N. Pokrovskii, ed., Moscow, 2007.
Soloviev A. V., “Velikaia, Malaia i Belaia Rus',” Voprosy istorii, 1947, 7, 24-38.
Soloviev A. V., “Vizantiiskoe imia Rossii,” Vizan-tiiskii vremennik, 1957, 12, 134-155.
Soloviev A. V., Le nom byzantin de la Russie (= Musagetes: Contributions to the history of Slavic literature and culture, 3, ed. by D. Cizevskij),’S-Gra-venhage, 1957.
Tikhomirov M. N., “O proiskhozhdenii nazvaniia «Rossiia»,” Voprosy istorii, 1953, 11, 93-96.
Trubachev O. N., “Russkii — rossiiskii: Istoriia dvukh atributov natsii,” in: E. R. Dashkova i rossiiskoe obshchestvo XVIII stoletiia, Moscow, 2001, 12-21.
Trubachev O. N., V poiskakh edinstva: vzgliad filo-loga na problemu istokov Rusi, 3rd ed., Moscow, 2005.
Ulukhanov I. S., “K istorii upotrebleniia slov «Rus'» i «Rossiia» v pis'mennosti Drevnei Rusi,” in: I. V. Ruzhitskii, Iu. N. Karaulov, O. V. Evtushenko, eds., Russkoe slovo v russkom mire — 2008: Rossiia i russkie v vospriiatii inokul'turnoi iazykovoi lichnosti, Moscow, 2008, 158-175.
Usachev A. S., “Iz istorii russkoi srednevekovoi agiografii: dva proizvedeniia o ravnoapostol'nom kniaze Vladimire Sviatoslaviche (issledovanie i tek-sty),” Vestnik tserkovnoi istorii, 2006, 2, 5-44.
Александр Игоревич Грищенко, канд. филол. наук доцент кафедры руского языка
Московского педагогического государственного университета 119991 Москва, Малая Пироговская, д. 1, стр. 1 Россия / Russia alexander@grishchenko.ru
2014 №1 Slovene
