"The experience of Narration about Russia" (originally called: "The Experience of a wise and political narration about the Russian state") - the work of Ivan Perfilevich Elagin (1725-1793/4), a poet and writer of the XVIII century, who at one time served as the manager of the imperial theaters, was not lucky either with the publication or with the later attention from historians. Only after the author's death, at the beginning of the 19th century, was the first part of his work published , 1 although his contemporaries were still aware that Elagin's work was continued .2 Later, traces of this continuation were lost, and Elagin remained in the literature as a historian who described events from biblical times to the death of the Kievan Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich.

In his" Forewarning to the Reader, " Elagin reported that he had begun his essay on the advice of friends. Here he also spoke about the general idea of his "Experience". The author's instructions and preserved lists of the continuation of Elagin's work allow us to present the structure of the "Experience". The first, published part (books 1 - 3) brought the narrative to 1015; the second (books 4-6) - contained a story about the events of 1015 - 1138; the third (books 7 - 9) and the fourth (Books 10 - 12), in the words of Elagin, - " from transfer of the strongest Grand ducal throne from Kiev to Vladimir ""before the invasion of the Tatars and the imposition of the yoke of the descendants of Genghis on the weakened members of Russia"; the fifth part (books 13-15) narrated the events of 1224 - 1425; the sixth (books 16-17) - 1425 - 1450; the seventh (books 18 - 20) described the reign of Ivan III; the eighth (at least two books) - Vasily III; the ninth told about the reign of Ivan the Terrible (from 1533 to 1564).

The chronology of the author's classes in Opyt, judging by the notes on the surviving manuscripts of his work, was as follows. Elagin planned to start his story with the reign of Ivan III and hoped to bring it to the middle of the XVIII century. By January 1788, he had finished his account of the time of Ivan III. These were the three books that made up the first part of The Experience (later turned into the seventh part). January 7, 1788 Elagin started working on the books of the second part (which later became part of the eighth). They were roughly completed on March 24, 1789. The next day, he moved on to the years of Ivan the Terrible's reign and then brought the story up to 1564. However, according to the author himself, his friends soon convinced him to start a story about Russia from ancient times. "To the reader," he wrote

1 Elagin I. Experience of narration about Russia. Book 1-3. Moscow, 1803.

2 Nevakhovich L. Notes on the review concerning the "Experience of Russian History" by G. Elagin, St. Petersburg, 1806, pp. 14-16. There is also an obscure evidence that the first part of Opyt was published in St. Petersburg as early as 1795, but "I don't think it was published in public."

page 23

on one of the manuscripts-it is fitting to know that I began my experience of narration two years before I set out to chronicle the original history of the Russian people, from the reign of John I, the autocrat of Moscow, and already to his grandson, John II, called the Terrible, who completely seized the kingdom of Kazan and Astrakhan, I wrote. But that beginning, according to the conviction of my friends, who demanded from me a complete narrative of Russia, I have left, and lo, to join the whole, to that beginning I begin... My intention to work until the time of the reign of the Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, that is, until the middle of the eighteenth century, was announced in my letter. " 3
Putting aside the description of the reign of Ivan the Terrible, at the beginning of May 1790, Elagin began the chapters that eventually formed the first part of his"Experience". On October 10 of the same year, he began the second part, in February 1791 - the third, completing it in late June - early July and proceeding to the next. On January 1, 1792, the fourth part of the Experiment was completed. The next day, Elagin was already working on the fifth part. The sixth was started by him in October of the same year and brought, as already noted, to 1450. An unknown author's postscript on the Pisarsky list of this part, edited by Elagin, tells about what happened next: "Here the writer's illness and death stopped the story. For 12 years he did not connect with the first part of his work, that is, with the description of the reign of Grand Duke John Vasilyevich III, called the Great, which begins in 1462. " 4
It is impossible not to pay tribute to the breadth of the idea and intensity of Elagin's work. In the last 6 - 10 years of his life, he created a grandiose volume of work. The work done by Elagin on polishing and editing Opyt is also extensive. This is evidenced by the preserved versions of different parts of the composition. As a rule, the author's draft text, which was repeatedly edited, was rewritten by the scribe, then Elagin again edited the text, which was re-read and edited more than once. The last edit, in pencil, was mostly about spelling. It represented the final stage of work, although, judging by a number of litters, it did not exclude subsequent, sometimes very significant, editing. Lists of the "Experience" have been preserved, reflecting various stages of Elagin's work on it, as well as lists of individual parts and books of the work made after the author's death5 .

For us, of course, authorized lists are of the greatest interest. Currently, all of them are bound in 11 large sheet-size manuscripts and are kept in the State Public Library named after M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin6 . Their fate is connected with the library of the publisher "Words about Igor's Regiment" A. I. Musin-Pushkin. Collected at the beginning of the XIX century. In the materials for the dictionary of Russian secular writers by Evgeny Bolkhovitinov, there is information that the Musin-Pushkin manuscript collection, along with the manuscripts of the historian I. N. Boltin, contains " The Experience of his (Elagin. - V. K. ) of Russian history, on which he worked daily for about 10 years, in 15 books. The list of it, edited by his hand, is presented as a gift

3 Saltykov-Shchedrin State Public Library. Department of Manuscripts (hereinafter referred to as GPB OR). F. IV. 34/4, p. 2.

4 Ibid., last sheet (without pagination).

5 OP GPB, F. IV. l; F. IV. 9 (clerical lists from the library of Count F. A. Tolstoy); F. IV. 767 (clerical list from the collection of V. N. Karazin, with the entry: "Elagina, actually the author owned the manuscript. Probably was in the hands of Catherine"); Q. IV. 478 (clerical list with ex-libris of the library of A. I. Neustroev); Q. IV. 515 (clerical list with author's edits). A. A. Amosov kindly informed us about the lists of the "Experience" of the late XVIII-early XIX centuries (hh. 3-5) stored in the RO BAN.

6 Ibid., F. IV. 34/1-6; F. IV. 651 (1-5).

page 24

Count Alexey Ivanovich Musin-Pushkin, as a friend of his and a lover of Russian history with this own hand inscription "7. K. F. Kalaydovich, the author of another biography of Musin-Pushkin, also noted that Elagin" gave the count the "Experience of narration about Russia" composed by him, consisting of the XV books edited by his hand" 8 .

Musin-Pushkin's biographers only made a mistake about the number of Opyt books, naming the number 15, when in fact there are at least 25 of them preserved. Elagin's inscription on one of them leaves no doubt that the GPB manuscripts are from the Musin-Pushkin library: "This list, although imperfect, but somewhat corrected by me, I entrust to my friend Alexey Ivanovich Musin-Pushkin, who is a hunter and a sufficient connoisseur in Russian narratives, wishing that my work will serve as a valuable source of information. to him forever is a pledge of friendship and reverence, with which I have been and will continue to be for the rest of my life, and in exchange for this, I ask you to keep this work of mine, not only imperfect, but also faulty, in the sacrament of curiosity, as prescribed in the forewarning. Iv. Elagin " 9 .

In view of the death of the Musin - Pushkin collection during the fire of 1812, the question naturally arises as to how these lists of "Experience"were preserved. It is known that these are not the only surviving manuscripts of the collection. Even before 1812, the Musin-Pushkin library was widely used by N. M. Karamzin. He did not return at least 12 manuscripts, and after the historiographer's death, they were transferred by his widow and sons to various repositories, including GPB 10 . It is possible that among the manuscripts borrowed by Karamzin from the Musin-Pushkin collection, there were also lists of Elagin's work.

One important feature of the "Experience" lists is that they contain numerous pencil marks that have an independent meaning. Some of them clearly belong to Elagin, some to unknown readers of his Opyt. Elaginsky litters reflected the process of the author's work. Pencil marginals like " N. Remember", "Inquire", "Here is a note from me to ask", " N 3. Here you need to notice a bad act in [elikogo] to [nyazya]", "Write unfinished chapters of the book", "N 3. Demolish with a note in 1 book written" , etc. many pages of lists are dotted "Experience". Readers ' notes reflected the perception of Elagin's narrative by his contemporaries, and some of them can be considered as friendly advice to the author. Against the characterization of Grand Duke Mstislav Izyaslavich is put: "This is my hero" 11; in the margin next to Elagin's lengthy argument about Ivan III, who "justly named a hero, unfortunately for the human race was an imitator of all the Khans of the Tatar severity", it is written: "Got it" 12; against Elagin's commentary on the story he retold chronicles of Igor Svyatoslavich's speech before the battle with the Polovtsians ("What will be, will not be avoided") marked: "Fatalismo" 13 . The assessment of Alexander Nevsky, who, according to Elagin, "will remain alive as long as the universe exists!", raised the objection: "A lot!" 14 . Regarding Elagin's reasoning

7 Ibid., Para. 2009/2, l. 374.

8 Kalaydovich K. F. Biographical information about the life, scientific works and collection of Russian antiquities of Count Alexey Ivanovich Musin-Pushkin. In: Zapiski i trudy OIDR. Ch. II. M. 1824, p. 18.

9 OR GPB. F. IV. 651/1, first sheet (without number).

10 Kozlov V. P. New materials on manuscripts sent to the Synod at the end of the 18th century. In: Archeographic Yearbook for 1979, Moscow, 1981, pp. 86-101.

11 OP GPB, F. IV. 34/3, p. 137 (here and further references are given on the author's pagination).

12 Ibid., F. IV. 34/5, p. 15.

13 Ibid., F. IV. 34/3, p. 320.

14 Ibid., F. IV. 34/4, p. 180.

page 25

A warning is made about the church, which does not miss "both to assert its power and to enrich itself with its possessions everywhere.": "The writer of Church history will not like this" 15 . A characteristic reference to the text on the quenching of copper in ancient times: "All this, as it cannot be in the text, should be put, in my opinion, in the callout under the line", which was later taken into account by Elagin16 .

The above donation inscription of Elagin to Musin-Pushkin is remarkable. Calling the owner of "Words about Igor's Regiment" a friend, the author of "Opyt" was not lying. Along with I. N. Boltin, N. N. Bantysh-Kamensky, A. F. Malinovsky, P. A. Alekseev and other "lovers of Russian antiquities", Elagin was a member of the Musin-Pushkin association, which did so much in the late XVIII - early XIX centuries in the field of collecting, publishing and studying monuments of Russian history. The members of this unofficial association, which became the forerunner of the famous Rumyantsev circle, were connected not only by common hobbies, in the words of the author of Opyt, "in his spare time," but also by socio-political and historical views. Elagin's work is a unique source for their study.

"Experience" was conceived as an acute publicistic work. Elagin wrote it almost simultaneously with the creation of Catherine II's "Notes on Russian History", M. M. Shcherbatov's" Russian History", as well as with the unfolding polemic between I. N. Boltin and Shcherbatov. At the same time, the main, sharpest characteristics of Shcherbatov as a historian were introduced by the author of Opyt after Shcherbatov's death in December 1790. The antipathy of Elagin and Shcherbatov was mutual: the latter in his essay "On the damage to morals in Russia", describing Catherine's environment, wrote:: "No less than Ivan Perfilevich Elagin used his efforts privately and publicly to her (Catherine II. - V. K.) flatter. When she was director of the theater, various compositions were composed in honor of her, ballets announced her deeds with dances. " 17 Elagin's socio - political views and ideals were based entirely on Catherine II's Order to the Appointed Commission, which was widely quoted in Opyt. His work condemns noble cosmopolitanism, contains militant monarchical tirades against the French Revolution and "harmful encyclopedic love of wisdom", there are also attacks against the church hierarchy; the nobility is depicted as the main instrument of Russia's historical progress. One gets the impression that the social and historical views of the author of Opyt and Karamzin are extremely close.

In many places, Opyt reflected the historical investigations of the Musin-Pushkin circle. The published part of the work contains a direct reference to the meetings of the members of this association and even the peculiar collective nature of their work. Speaking about the preparation of the publication of Russkaya Pravda (1792) by the circle, Elagin writes:: "I myself had the good fortune to be one of these lovers of Russian history, and although I did not participate in the publication, the first remarks and communications of the chroniclers and their explanations took place in my presence among others. At the same time, I also reminded Vladimir I of the spiritual law, and the above-mentioned assembly proposed a charter, but after that it was either rejected or forgotten, because the illness happened to our employee Mr. Boltin, who is united in his excellent knowledge of Russian history, was asked to publish and was united

15 Ibid., p. 133.

16 Ibid., F. IV. 651/1. p. 86.

17" On the damage to morals in Russia "by Prince M. Shcherbatov to A. Radishchev's" Journey", Moscow, 1983, p. 122.

page 26

he labored, prevented us from gathering, and if any of us wanted to argue with him about this honor, he would have sinned against his honor. " 18
The Experience was conceived as a fundamentally documented historical work with extensive notes (the author managed to prepare notes only for the first part) and pedigree tables. Among its sources, materials published at the beginning of work on it predominate, but Elagin also referred to unpublished sources. Among them are "cursive chronicle under the name of Mamaev's battle", "handwritten list of Prince Kurbsky" and others. His work is imbued with concern for the preservation of historical sources. Elagin, for example, breaks out in philippics against some Russian "Parisian lover" who "exchanged our priceless treasures in manuscripts, saved by his father and ancestors from antiquity, for a certain Aglinsky traveler for the Voltaire and other new sages poisonous writings, debauchery, rebellion, lack of beginning and the very destruction in France caused" 19, giving, Thus, concern for the preservation of historical sources has a political connotation with a reactionary connotation.

The richest collection of Musin-Pushkin was not closed to the circle of people close to its owner. In addition to Karamzin, Boltin used these manuscripts for his writings. Elagin also paid attention to the meeting. In Opyt, he refers, for example, to the Nikon Chronicle that belonged to the Count and was edited by the Patriarch. G. N. Moiseeva tried to substantiate the hypothesis that the "Word about Igor's Regiment" in the Musin-Pushkin collection was already in the late 80's-early 90's of the XVIII century. 20 not for the first time in the literature, even the possibility of Elagin's participation in the compilation of the first comments of monument 21 was suggested . But neither in the description of the campaign and battle of Igor Svyatoslavich, nor in other" suitable", it would seem, places of the "Experience" there is no indication of the poem. It is contained in a place that may be unexpected, but fits into the general anti-cosmopolitan concept of Elagin's work. In the seventh part of the "Experience", Elagin described the events of 1472 in Novgorod and gave a lengthy account of his general assessment of the influence of the Horde yoke on the Russian state. Part of this discussion is directly related to the topic of this article. It is contained in three lists: A 22, B 23 and B 24 . Due to the importance of the text, it is published here in all lists with maximum preservation of spelling features in the quote from the "Lay of Igor's Regiment". It is based on the most complete author's text (list B).

"Here I decently consider touching on the true testimony of external writers, who themselves believe and give out in the light, as if Russia at all times, like a wild people, was in the darkness of ignorance. They only received an unrighteous notion from our communication with Europe interrupted by the Tartars, for we can show much evidence that for several centuries before the invasion of Batu, under the very first princes of Kiev and Novogorod, the arts and sciences themselves did not lag behind the enlightenment of the archers. The remaining dilapidated buildings of edkiy

18 Elagin I. P. Uk. soch., pp. 446-447.

19 Ibid., pp. 130-131.

20 Moiseeva G. N. Spaso-Yaroslavsky Chronograph and "The Word about Igor's Regiment", L. 1976, p. 61.

21 Moiseeva G. N. Drevnerusskaya literatura v khudozhestvennom soznanii i istoricheskoi mysli Rossii XVIII veka [Ancient Russian literature in the artistic consciousness and historical thought of Russia in the 18th century].

22 OR GPB " F. IV. 651/3, pp. 206-207 (rough autograph with red ink editing).

23 Ibid., 651/4, p. 151 (clerk's copy, edited by Elagin).

24 Ibid., 34/5, pp. 435-437 (secondary clerk's copy, authorized).

25 Text A began in a different way: "We have not the slightest reason to think, but to believe the reproach that has been noticed by external writers." In the future, only significant discrepancies in meaning and analysis are noted.

page 27

in our ancient cities, velelepia is found in the buildings of temples, in which there are remnants of Greek architecture and painting and mosaic ornaments, which must be deduced from any confusion in the reasoning of the arts, and the beautiful translations of church books and all the divine scriptures into the Slovene language in the first centuries after the adoption of Christianity are sufficient, and the knowledge of verbal sciences confirms 26 . Moreover, we can show the Praiseworthy Word preserved from antiquity [27] to Igor [29] Olgovich [30], written in his time, that is, at the beginning of the twelfth century, [31] and not made up because it says: "Let us honor [32], brother [33], the story [34] from the star [35] Vladimir [36] to the present [37] Igor, you who will stretch out your mind and sharpen your hearts with your courage!" This word is full of all-godly rhetorical beauty 39 . With such testimonies, Nestor himself proves with his decent narrative about the Russian people that he was neither the first nor the worst Greek writer in our country."

As you can see, there was no mention of "Slovo" in the author's draft list (A). Then Elagin included the text about the poem in red ink. The copyist took this insertion into account (list B). The text about the "Word" on list B was again corrected by the author, which is taken into account in list B. While reading the list In Elagin made a new minor edit. Therefore, to date the insert about the "Word", the key question is when the text was entered in" Experience " in red ink. Red ink edits are made throughout the seventh part of list A. This means that it was made after the completion of work on this part, i.e. after January 1788, when Elagin began to describe the reign of Vasily III. This is the first insertion deadline.

The second one is limited to the date of Elagin's death. There were various versions of this. The published correspondence of Catherine II with the French writer F. M. Grimm allows us to clarify it: between June 28, 1793 and January 12, 1794. In the first letter, the author of the "Experience" is mentioned as alive, in the second - as already dead. In her last letter, the Empress wrote:: "As for Elagin, he died, and his story will probably remain incomplete; he left behind an unheard-of mass of writings concerning Freemasonry, which proves that he went mad." 40
The time of appearance of the Elaginsky insert can be further specified. We have already noted that there is no mention of the "Word" in the description

26 In A, the entire following sentence is written in red ink in the lower and right margins.

27 In And then: "beautiful."

28 In the right margin: "(c) See note [s] N. An ancient manuscript of Mr. Pushkin's Book Depository". In B: "( + ) See note [ - ] N. An ancient (further crossed out: sko) (? - V. K.) manuscript of Mr. Pushkin's book depository". In A: "( + ) See note [ ─ ] N. From the book[igo]hr[anitelnitsy] Messrs. [ina] Pushkin. N. Drevny (in red ink on the margins)".

29 Crossed out and restored from the top again.

30 In B: "Olgovich", written above the crossed-out: "Svyatoslavich, Olgov's grandson". In A: "Svyatoslavich, Olgov's grandson."

31 In B, five words are written above the crossed-out one: "leta from erysipelas Hr [istova]", then the omission is left and the word "written"is crossed out. In A it reads crossed out in B.

32 In A: "Pochne".

33 In A: "Brethren."

34 V A:

35 In A: "old".

36 In A: "Vladimir".

37 V A:

38 In A: "Sertsa".

39 The entire sentence is missing in A and inserted in B between the lines and in the margins.

40 Works of the Empress Catherine II on the basis of original manuscripts, vol. 11, St. Petersburg, 1906, p. XXIV.

page 28

Igor Svyatoslavich's campaign against the Polovtsians in the part of the "Experience" that was completed by Elagin on January 1, 1792 41 . In the same list of "Experience" in the margins against the story of Igor Svyatoslavich's campaign, someone wrote in pencil: "Igor's campaign, sung by an imitator of Boyan. See this poem " 42 . From this it is clear that by the beginning of 1792 Elagin still did not know about the "Word", the insertion in red ink in list A was made by him no earlier than 1792. In the Opyt manuscript, various inserts are made in red ink, including references to the Musin-Pushkin-Boltin edition of Russkaya Pravda, which was published in April 1792.43 Therefore, we can assume that the red ink correction was made in Opyt after April 1792.

Below we will try to link Elagin's correction of the reading of "Svyatoslavich" to "Olgovich" with the publication of the fifth part of Catherine II's "Notes on Russian History", which contained a well-known"Genealogy". State Secretary of the Empress A. V. Khrapovitsky wrote in his diary on May 4, 1793: "I came in with the post after Pushkin Alyosha. It was said that Elagin wondered where the Genealogy of the ancient princes of Russia was collected from, and corrected many things in his own History. " 44 Catherine II herself, in a letter to Grimm dated June 28-August 5, 1793, describing the "Genealogy", reported: "Oh, how beautiful this nomenclature is! This is truly the work of a lazy mind that has no idea. Mr. Elagin, who presented Russian history in a declamatory style because it is eloquent and boring, is now forwarding his story through our genealogy. " 45
If we assume that the correction of "Svyatoslavich" to "Olgovich" in Opyt was made under the influence of the "Genealogist", published in 1793 before May, then, accordingly, the correct reading of " Svyatoslavich "(inserts of list A, and with this the insert itself) existed before May 1793 year. Thus, it turns out that the Elagin insert about the "Word" was made between April 1792 and May 1793.

What is the significance of the above mention of the "Word" in Elagin's Opyt? First, it introduces a new face to the history of the discovery and early research of the poem - Elagin, a contemporary of the discovery of the "Word", a person close to Musin - Pushkin. For the historiography of the Word, Elagin's attempt to define the genre of the poem as a laudatory word with its inherent "rhetorical beauties" (a definition undoubtedly inspired by the rhetorical exercises of the Russian Academy, of which Elagin was a member), as well as to put it in the general context of the development of ancient Russian culture, has a certain significance.

Secondly, even if we admit that P. A. Plavilshchikov's article in the February 1793 issue of the Spectator magazine contained the first deaf mention of the" Word "46 (which is doubtful), then the mention of the poem in Elagin is the second - and first definite - evidence of the" uncomplicated " antiquity of the monument, already stored in the Musin-Pushkin Library. Elagin quote from the "Word" can be considered as an indirect confirmation of the receipt of the monument in the library of the count at the end of 1792. In August-November 1792, the Czech Slavist I. Dobrovsky, while in St. Petersburg, Ozna-

41 OR GPB, F. IV. 34/3, p. 593. The manuscript says: 1791, but this is an obvious typo, because above there are records for July 4, August 30, September 1, 1791.

42 Ibid., p. 319.

43 Moiseeva G. N. Drevnerusskaya literatura [Ancient Russian Literature], p. 111.

44 Diary of A.V. Khrapovitsky, Moscow, 1901, p. 250.

45 Works of the Empress Catherine II based on original manuscripts, vol. 11, p. XXIV.

46 Berkov P. N. Notes on the history of studying the "Words about Igor's Regiment". - TODRL. T. 5. M.-L. 1947, p. 135.

page 29

I checked out the Graf library. In his correspondence, when talking about her "rarities", he does not say a word about the poem, since Musin-Pushkin did not have it yet .47 In August 1792, the count was in Yaroslavl Province, where, apparently, he was still negotiating the acquisition of Slovo .48
Third, the Elaginsky quotation from the poem is of independent interest for studying the poem. We do not know whether the author of Opyt has seen the original manuscript of The Word. It is not known, therefore, from the original or from the list, from the words of Musin-Pushkin, other persons, or from memory, a quote from the "Word"is given. In any case, it quite accurately coincides with the corresponding place of the first publication of the poem and its Catherine list. The differences are as follows: there is no particle "same" after "pochnem", instead of" own " put "own" 49 . There are also differences in spelling.

These discrepancies also exist in Elagin's quotations from Slovo in all three lists, being not the result of conscious editing by the author of Opyt, but the result of deviations of the scribe of manuscript B from his original A and the scribe of manuscript B from his original B. Therefore, text A can be considered the closest to the original poem or its list, if Elagin had it. Elagin's pencil correction of the quotation from the " Word "in list B (in the words" Vladimir "and" fortress "he corrects the" e "to" i") can hardly be considered as an attempt to accurately convey the spelling of the"Word". It is most likely connected with Elagin's intention to bring the spelling of scribes closer to what seemed correct to him. This edit is visible throughout the entire manuscript. In the passage published above, such corrections are found in the words "testimonies" and "writer", where the" e "is replaced by"". Accordingly, it is possible to explain the differences between the Elaginsky quotation from the "Word" in list A from the first edition and Catherine's copy of the poem. In the quotation, we read "Pochne" instead of "Pochnem", "Bratye" instead of "bratiye", "Novella" instead of "povst", "stary" instead of "starago", "nyn shnego" instead of "nyn shnyago", etc. Thus, D. Elagin provides new material for thinking about the transfer of the spelling of the manuscript "Words" in its first edition and Catherine's copy. In particular, it clarifies the role of scribes and, in general, persons who were involved in the transmission of the "Word" text.

Fourth, it is noteworthy that the author of Opyt is indecisive in determining which " Igor "the"word of praise" he mentions is dedicated to. In the draft list, he defines it correctly - "Svyatoslavich, grandson of Olgov" (in the first edition of "Slovo" and Catherine's copy - "Olgov"; for the entire "Experience" it is characteristic of "Olgov"), then in the intermediate list B corrects this to" Olgovich", and this reading is fixed in list B. Accordingly The Experience reflects the uncertainty of the poem's dating: lists A and B do not indicate the date, and list C has an incorrect date - the beginning of the XII century.

One can only speculate on the reason for Elagin's uncertainty. It could, for example, be related to some defect in the list of poems that the author of Opyt had. The following explanation is probably more likely. After reading the "Word", Elagin put correctly: "Svyatoslavich". However, then he was misled by the "Genealogy" of Catherine II, which contained many ambiguities and contradictions.-

47 Moiseeva G. N. Spaso-Yaroslavsky chronograph, p. 60.

Moiseeva G. N. Drevnerusskaya literatura [Ancient Russian literature], p. 117.

49. Dmitriev L. A. Istoriya pervogo izdaniya "Slova o polku Igorev" [History of the first edition of the "Words about Igor's Regiment"], Moscow, 1960, p.5 (photo of the text of the first edition) and p. 27 (photo of the text of the Catherine list).

page 30

vorechii. Igor Svyatoslavich showed in it how he reigned since 1147 in Ryazan and Tmutarakan, and at the same time the year of his birth is indicated - 1151 50 . With the sons of Svyatoslav in the "Genealogy" there were many ambiguities. For example, in one place it is said that he had three sons, and in another it is said that there were five of them, etc . We see the same picture in the case of Igor Olgovich. He is shown as having reigned in Kiev from "1146 to 1146" (so - V. K.), as having taken the veil in a monastery in 1147, as having been killed in Kiev in 1149, and at the same time reigning in Novgorod Seversky "from 1152 to" (so - V. K. ) 52. Now it is difficult to establish the logic of Elagin's genealogical calculations based on the" Pedigree", but it is possible that it was precisely the contradictions of Catherine II's work in the dates of the reign of Igor Svyatoslavich - before his birth in 1151 and the reign of Igor Olgovich in 1152 - after his death in 1149 that prompted him to correct" Svyatoslavich "to"Olgovich".

It is possible that the above-mentioned mention of "The Lay of Igor's Regiment" is not the only one in Elagin's "Experience". Further study of the lengthy Elaginsky work - one of the original historical and journalistic works of the late XVIII century-may provide new facts related to the discovery and first research of the poem.

50 Works of the Empress Catherine II on the basis of original manuscripts, vol. 10, St. Petersburg, 1901, pp. 31, 47, 60, 88.

51 Ibid., c, 31, 47.

52 Ibid., p. 31, 45, 47, 107, 135.

page 31

Permanent link to this publication: