РАСХОЖДЕНИЯ НОВГОРОДСКОЙ 1 ЛЕТОПИСИ И НОВГОРОДСКО-СОФИЙСКИХ СВОДОВ НА МАТЕРИАЛЕ ПОВЕСТИ ВРЕМЕННЫХ ЛЕТ

The relations between the Novgorod First Chronicle of the Younger Redaction and the so-called Novgorodian-Sophian group (Novgorod Karamzin, Sophian First and Novgorod Forth chronicles), all of which form the collection of Novgorodian annalistic texts, are complex. While usually considered to be mere reflections of the Initial Compilation, this collection also include a text, identical or very similar to the Primary Chronicle, which allows for a rigorous textological comparison of all extant manuscripts. Clarifying the history of Novgorod annalistic writing supposes to seek evidence of its possible affiliations with the various manuscripts composing the Primary Chronicle (both Hypatian and Laurentian). In this field, the most popular and discussed hypothesis concerns the contamination between the Novgorod 1 Younger and Hypatian branches. Scholars have also suggested that the Novgorodian-Sophian group was influenced either by the Laurentian and Troitsky branch, or by the Hypatian branch. This article offers a systematic study of variants from the excerpts where the Novgorod 1 Younger and Novgorodian Sophian group differ the most. This attempt shows that, in such occurences, the Novgorod 1 Younger follows the Hypatian version, whereas the Novgorodian Sophian group follow the Laurentian one. Examining about 40 fragments of main extant manuscripts where secondary variant readings can be identified by means of interlinear collation, we tried to clarify why the two main representatives of Novgorod annalistic writing stand in disagreement. We established that the Hypatian version and Novgorod First Younger Chronicle reflect the primary readings and therefore that their similarities go back to the original version of the Primary Chronicle. As a result, the closeness of the Novgorod First Younger Chronicle to the Hypatian manuscripts does not imply common innovations (and thus a close relationship), and the hypothesis about the contamination of the two branches should also be recognized as erroneous. On the other hand, the coincidences between the Novgorodian-Sophian and Laurentian versions from the beginning up to the 1070s can easily be identified as secondary variants. This either means that the two groups are closely related, or that their proximity has arisen as a result of a repeated contamination between an “independent (?) branch” and the Laurentian one. It is important that only part of the variants common to the Novgorodian-Sophian group and the Laurentian