Orality in the Povest′ vremennykh let

Alan Timberlake, Columbia University

At least two scholars argue that oral tales were an important source of the Povest′ vremennykh let (Stender-Petersen, Likhachev), but there is more to be said.

First two quick summary comments:

• The first period of recording oral tales can be localized to a narrow interval from 1039 to 1044, and at least one of the narrators can be identified.
• Once the mechanism of composition—recording oral tales—is taken seriously, it affects how we view the original form of certain prominent tales in the chronicle, notably the Boris and Gleb cycle and the siege of Chersonesus in Vladimir’s conversion narrative.

The focus of the presentation will be the process of converting oral tales to written form. While the oral originals are not available to us, it may still be possible to speculate about how the grammar of oral tales was modified as they were recorded. Dative absolutes (certainly) and other participles (probably) are the editor’s handiwork. The status of aorist and imperfect are, alas, difficult to determine, but at least the aorist was probably in the oral source.

More broadly, the concern here is pay attention to the etiology of the Povest´ vremennykh let—to the question of how it came into being.