Denitsa Petrova

Denitsa Petrova has an M.A. in history and a Ph.D. in Old Bulgarian literature. She is an Assistant Professor at the Institute for Historical Studies at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Her research is focused on the historical works in the medieval Balkan literary tradition and the Slavic sources for the history of Bulgaria.

Musieum of History, Orjahovo
On the Copies of the Russian Chronograph in Bulgaria Scripta & e-Scripta vol. 21, 2021 floyd Fri, 11/19/2021 - 13:59
За преписите на Руския хронограф в България

The only copy of the Russian Chronograph kept in Bulgaria – NBKM 774 – is of Russian origin and has a special composition. The text bears the date 1627, but the miscellany is composed later, end of 17th – the beginning of 18th c. The only marginal note indicates that in 1787 MS was kept in Vidin. There is information, although rather scarce, that there might have been another copy of the Chronograph in possession of Dimitǎr Jocov from Vratsa which had been lost and with assumed characteristics indicating that it had been a copy of NBKM 774. The assumed characteristics of the two copies may be interpreted as evidence of the existence of a weak tradition related to this manuscript in the Bulgarian historical literature as opposed to the Serbian one.

Subject: History History of books Philology Linguistics palaeoslavic studies Keywords: Russian chronograph chronicle Bulgarian-Russian literary relations

Pagan Bulgaria as Featured in the Russian Chronograph

Езическа България, отразена в Руския хронограф

  • Summary/Abstract

    The information about Bulgarians in the Russian Chronograph cover the period from their settlement in the Balkans to their fall under Ottoman domination, with the sources of information traceable to translations of Byzantine chronicles in a Bulgarian environment. The information about pagan Bulgaria is presented on different ways – it is an independent “kingdom” only after Christianisation, while earlier reports of Bulgarians are part of the history of Byzantium. There are no essential differences in the ways Bulgarian history has been described in the individual redaction of the Chronograph, but the way in which it has been interpreted by the Russian scribes is interesting.

    Деница Петрова
    (Институт за исторически изследвания при БАН, София, България)

    В Руския хронограф сведенията за българите обхващат периода от заселването им на Балканите до падането им под османска власт, като известията възхождат към преводи на византийски хроники, направени в българска среда. Сведенията за езическа България са представени по различен начин – тя е самостоятелно „царство“ едва след Покръстването, по-ранните известия за българите са част от историята на Византия. Няма съществени разлики в начина, по който е описана българската история в отделните редакции на Хронографа (версията от 1512 г.), но е интересен начинът, по който тя е интерпретирана от руските книжовници, което заслужава внимание.

Laudator temporis acti. Studia in memoriam Ioannis A. Božilov. Vol.1. Religio, istoria. 510 с. Vol. 2. Ius, imperium, potestas, litterae, ars et archaeologia. 636 с. Curavit Ivan Biliarsky. Sofia: IK Gutenberg, 2018.

  • Summary/Abstract
    Laudator temporis acti. Studia in memoriam Ioannis A. Božilov. Vol.1. Religio, istoria. 510 с. Vol. 2. Ius, imperium, potestas, litterae, ars et archaeologia. 636 с. Curavit Ivan Biliarsky. Sofia: IK Gutenberg, 2018.

Stories from the Conversion of the Bulgarians and the Russians in the Annals of Sarandapor

  • Summary/Abstract

    In the National Museum in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, a Liturgikon (Book of Divine Services) is preserved under No. E 543. It was written in the monastery of St. Joachim of Osogovo (Sarandapor) near Kriva Palanka, Republic of Macedonia. On ff. 319r-325v a chronicle was written that is known as Sarandaporski letopis (Annals of Sarandapor). These annals tell the world history from the creation of the world to 1512. The events are presented in a concise manner, with the exception of two short stories of the conversion of the Bulgarians and Russians. This is the only conscious change of the text in the first part of the chronicle. Links with Paralipomen of John Zonaras are identified in this paper. Comparisons with the Useful Tale about the Latins are made. The conclusion of the author is that as juxtaposed with other sources on the conversions of the Bulgarians and Russians, the stories in the Annals of Sarandapor contain new information.

Subscribe to Denitsa Petrova