THE PROBLEM OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE NOVGOROD I CHRONICLE IN PRE-REVOLUTIONARY RUSSIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY

Abstract

The article discusses the process of finding a solution to the problem of the authorship of the Novgorod I Chronicle. V. N. Tatishchev laid the beginning of the scientific research in this area. Tatishchev attributed the authorship to priest John, mentioned in the younger version of the chronicle. Later, the scientific community became aware of the name of Timothy the Sexton, mentioned in the older version. This finding gave rise to reflections of historians and philologists on the ratio of the contributions of these two clerics to the creation of the Chronicle. Scholars have proposed various concepts. M. M. Shcherbatov, metropolitan Evgeny Bolkhovitinov, archbishop Filaret Gumilyov, E. E. Golubinsky, D. I. Prozorovsky, M. M. Pogodin, P. A. Lavrovsky, I. A. Tikhomirov and others tried to collect the references available in the annals into a unified system. Important observations were made in the course of the work. Another Novgorod cleric, priest German Voyata, was suggested as the author of the early parts of the Chronicle. Sometimes, considerations led researchers to curious mistakes: I. P. Senigov "invented" the "chronicler Porfiry". Work on the problem of the authorship of the Novgorod Chronicle contributed to the formation of a critical scientific method for studying the Old Russian book heritage. At present, the problem of authorship can be considered completely solved by A.A. Gippius.