The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

"Chronicle by the priest Duklyanin": structure of the Old Slavic genealogical legend



pod the name "Chronicle by the Priest of Duklyani-na" into historical science entered the composition which remained in the only Vatican manuscript of the 17th century on Latin yazyke1. According to the text, the Latin version — transfer or processing with Slavic. Statement of history of yugoslavyansky and Dalmatian lands in a monument is finished till 1149. The text finished only till 1089 and differing in details in Croatian ("The Croatian chronicle") which relations with "Chronicle" remain a discussion subject is known also smaller for volume. The name "Chronicle" is not too successful as, according to a fair remark of F. Shishich, in a monument is practically absent distinct hronologiya2. From this point of view other offered name — "Lordly Rodosl" is more adequate. However in science it was more approved, at all the convention, the name "Chronicle by the Priest Duklyanin", and we will use it.

The "Croatian chronicle" occurring among local intellectuals already in XVI veke3 became known to the first of Chronicles options. In the 17th century the Latin text became available to the famous researchers of Slavic antiquities M. Orbini and I. Lu-chichu. The first translated the composition into Italian and for the first time published it in it perevode4. The hand of the second possesses only the remained Vatican list. I. Lu-chich carried out the first critical edition of the text. The edition included also the translation into Latin of "The Croatian chronicle" executed in 1510 by M. Marulichem5.

I. Luchich the first doubted reliability of data of the "Chronicle" which was unambiguously taken on trust by M. Orbini. Thereby

it laid the foundation of the critical approach to it prevailing and in modern science. Nevertheless Luchich (and behind him and other researchers) did not doubt dating of "Chronicle" the middle of XII stoletiya6. Also the latest publishers and commentators of "Chronicle" 7 adhered to similar positions. Their editions were guided entirely by I. Luchich's work. From it the first Serbo-Croatian translation Y was executed. Suboticha8. In 1851 actually "The Croatian chronicle" which original published for the first time was introduced for scientific use And. Kukulevich9. In all cases "Chronicle" traditionally was considered as the most ancient monument of yugoslavyansky historical literature relating to the 12th century.

L. Yovanovich doubted date of creation of "Chronicle" the first. He concluded that neither Latin "Chronicle", nor its Slavic original (more true, Slavic sources) can be carried to the 12th century. L. Yovanovich referred drawing up "the Pseudo-Duklyaninovy chronicle" in its present look to the 16th century, having allocated two of its sources — the "Zetsky chronicle" created between the middle of XIII both the beginning of the 16th century and the unknown Croatian letopis10.

In 1928 the edition by all known options (the Vatican text in the printing version of I. Luchich, M. Orbini's translation, the Croatian and Latin texts of "The Croatian chronicle") and the research "Chronicles" was undertaken by F. Shishich11. Its edition, at all shortcomings exposed later by criticism, remains the most authoritative work on the research "Chronicles" and "The Croatian chronicle".

F. Shishich firmly dated back creation of "Chronicle" to the 12th century. At the same time it banished -

S.V. Alekseev "Chronicle by the priest Duklyanin": structure of the Old Slavic genealogical legend

sya on its use in various Dalmatian compositions of the 13-14th centuries. If some of similar instructions (for example, on "Chronicle" of the archdeacon Foma Splitsky) look disputable, then others — quite thoroughly. Traces of use of "Chronicle" (already in Latin option) in false diplomas of the duklyansky princes created by Latin clergy of Dalmatia since the beginning are especially accurately tracked

XIII veka12.

As already the earliest sources using "Chronicle" dealt with the Latin text, F. Shishich came to a conclusion that Slavic and Latin options are created approximately in at one time and, most likely, by the same author. He considered this author the Slavic (Serbian) priest from Dukley, though Latin ispovedaniya13. F. Shishich formulated the idea of secondariness of "The Croatian chronicle" prevailing since then in relation to "Chronicle". According to F. Shishich, "The Croatian chronicle" was created approximately in the 14th century by the Croatian author from the area of Split, the patriot of Croatia who replaced, in particular, annalistic definitions "Slavs", "Slavic" on "Croats", "Croatian". The Latin text which was added with material from Croatian predaniy14 was a source of "Chronicle", according to F. Shishi-cha.

F. Shishich estimated historical value of "Chronicle" doubly. On the one hand, he recognized the legendary nature of many certificates of "Chronicle" and confirmed a conclusion of Slavists XIX more centuries that narrations are the cornerstone national legends. F. Shishich's conclusions about carelessness of "chronicler" to categories of time, about convention and artificiality of all scraps of chronology and synchronization which are found here are especially important. F. Shishich, however, pointed to importance for the researcher (first of all historical geography) even especially legendary first part of "Chronicle". The second part (legend of Saint Vladimir Zetskom) and the third (history of duklyansky princes of the 11-12th centuries)

is richer with historical specifics, though it is based also mainly on oral stories. In general F. Shishich highly appreciated Duklyanin not so much as historian how many as pisatelya15.

The question of sources of "Chronicle" was investigated by the Croatian philologist M. of Medini16. It allocated three parts of Latin "Chronicle" which are going back to three prototypes originals of the 11-12th centuries. It "Trebinsky chronicle" (source of the first, legendary, parts), "Legend of the Saint prince Vladimir" and actually "Duklyansky chronicle". Only the last contained fully concrete historical information. "The Tre-binsky chronicle", according to M. Medini, is independently used in "The Croatian chronicle".

On edition F. Shishich the new Serbo-Croatian translation of "Chronicle" of the Croatian researcher V. Moshin (with "The Croatian chronicle" in the application) which became a new noticeable milestone in study pamyatni-ka17 was based. In the comments V. Moshin generally followed F. Shishich's concept, however brought a number of important corrections. The last, in turn, also generated further discussions with which monument history is rich. V. Moshin doubted a possibility of identity of the author and Latin translator of "Chronicle", but also, pointed to the probability of considerable differences of the translation from estimated Slavic origi-nala18. It after M. Medini assumed also that "The Croatian chronicle" irrespective of "Chronicle" goes back to its original. At the same time V. Moshin, as well as F. Shishich, dated back "Chronicle" to the 14th century and pointed to an event then entering into its structure of the final chapters about the end Croatian nezavisi-mosti19. Thereby the concrete value of these heads emphasized with M. Medini naturally decreased. In general V. Moshin adhered to the point of view about a possibility of use of "Chronicle" and "Chronicle" as historical and geographical source and as historical source in the relation of events of the 11-12th centuries.

In Yugoslavia the new stage in studying "Chronicle" was opened by the edition of a monument the Montenegro philologist S. of Miyushkovichem20. S. Mi-yushkovich, without wishing to be limited to work with I. Luchich's edition, for the first time addressed the Latin original from the Vatican archive and presented it in the edition directly — in the form of the facsimile. Work with the original manuscript allowed S. Mi-yushkovichu to correct a number of the settled errors and any environments (as well as. Luchich, and the latest publishers) and to offer own, more verified, the translation of a monument into Serbo-Croatian language.

S. Miyushkovich got back to L. Yova-novich's idea about late origin of "Chronicle". Having analyzed the sources connected with stay and existing of "The Croatian chronicle" at the beginning of the 16th century, S. Miyushkovich came to an unambiguous conclusion about emergence of this monument only at the end of the 15th century and its origin from the Latin text of "Chronicle". Having established, thus, the upper bound of creation of a monument, he consistently disproved a number of conclusions of F. Shishich about early use of the Latin text. Taking into account besides irreality of many data of "Chronicle" S. Miyushkovich referred its creation to XIV — the beginning of XV veka21. At the same time S. Miyushkovich rejected the idea about other and earlier authorship of the original as, in fact, and the version about a certain Slavic original actually reached pamyatnika22. Latin "Chronicle", according to S. Miyushkovi-cha — the complete literary monument created in the 14th century by the Romance author on the basis of various sources, including Slavic, oral and pismennykh23.

S. Miyushkovich's conclusions caused a new brisk discussion which result was summed up in many respects by the monograph by N. Banashevi-cha24. In work for the first time the question of a ratio of written and oral historical tradition on the example of "Chronicle" underwent a detailed research, existence in it of fantastic elements and confused chronology is explained by use by her author of folklore. N. Banashevich claimed,

that the denial of F. Shishich's arguments about early origin of the chronicle not in all cases can be considered S. Miyushkovich thorough. He insisted on existence of the Slavic original or originals of a monument again and dated creation of "Chronicle" as it stands in the 12th century. At the same time neither N. Banashevich, nor his supporters underestimated value of textual work of S. Miyushkovich at all.

Views modern yugoslavyansky (both Serbian and Montenegro, and Croatian) sciences on origin of "Chronicle" D. summarized Bogdanovich25. "Chronicle" is dated back to it the second half of the 12th century. At the same time existence in it of separate fragments of XI or even is not excluded the 10th century. The scientist carries "The gothic book" to the 10th century in Slavic language — the narration about settling of Dalmatia by Slavs used at the beginning of "Chronicle" and which generated, according to D. Bogdanovich, wrong opinion on the complete Slavic original. Time after 1162 should be dated the Latin translation executed in Dukla from several Slavic written sources. This point of view in general is close to the concept of three-part division of "Chronicle".

In general it is necessary to recognize that the questions connected with origin and dating of the chronicle are far from the final decision. For granted, probably, can be taken secondariness of "The Croatian chronicle" and (after textual studies of S. Miyushkovi-cha) absence at M. Orbini's translation of independent value at reconstruction of the text of rather Vatican manuscript. The "Croatian chronicle" created no later than the 15th century defines the upper bound of the Latin original. Date of end of the historical narration (middle of the 12th century) — the lower bound of its emergence. The detail and relative reliability (first of all crossings with the Byzantine historians of a komninovsky era and attributability of "annalistic" genealogy with real chronology) the last part of "Chronicle", probably, indicate proximity

its prototype to the described events. At the same time the first part of "Chronicle" giving for centuries many dozens princely

generations, mixing the Croatian, Serbian and duklyansky history, it is represented far from reality. However, nothing in itself says it about its dating.

Our reasons about origin of "Chronicle" opublikovany26. They are based only on our only source — certificates of the creator of the Latin text. At the heart of this text, judging by it — a monument to a duklyansky historiography the "Book the Gothic" relating probably to the second half of the 12th century. In it there was a contamination of oral legends of Dukley, to Rashki and Croatia. Also influence of the Romance Dalmatian legend affected a stage of the composition or the translation. At last, the most ancient legends were rethought by the author of "Book the Gothic" in line with the scientific "slavyano-gothic" legend directed to glorification of the ruling dynasty built to ancient gothic kings. Nevertheless "chronicler" managed to create complete, almost deprived of internal contradictions and the narration, quite rational from positions of Christian consciousness. Despite obvious distortions of initial tradition in "Chronicles", its study leads to productive conclusions about the nature of existing of the Old Slavic historical legend.

In messages Duklyanin about the first princes the structure connected with use of the oral sources of different type only partly enriched from written tradition is traced. So, the narration basis about the first five princes was formed by three separate legends of epic character — about the fight which brought to Slavs the power over Dalmatia at Templana, about death of the duklyansky hero ancestor Ostroil, about arrival of Bulgarians on Balkany27. Connected their simple princely list designed build origin of a certain dynasty by times of initial settling by Slavs of the Balkans. Governments of the princes only mentioned in the list, but

not being the central heroes of legends, Duklyanin fills with conjectures and the generalized characteristics on the basis of the same legends and sources, external in relation to oral history (Dalmatian tradition, "the Book by Mefodiy"). Besides, the "gothic legend" fundamental to the historical concept of "Book the Gothic" is organically interwoven into fabric of work.

Judging by localization of death of the founder of a dynasty Ostroil in Skodr, a source of the princely list and at least this legend — duklyanskiya. Serbian (perhaps, duklyansky) the origin has also the legend on arrival of Bulgarians and their conciliation attached to Vladin with Serbians. As the beginning, introduction to the list explaining origin of a dynasty, obviously the Serbian legend about two brothers princes who divided the people served known still to Konstantin. The legend on fight at Templana almost undoubtedly Croatian is also attached to Ostroil and his "brother" — to the gothic king Totile is artificial. Most likely, it occurred not in oral tradition of the duklyansky yard, and already at creation of "Book the Gothic".

Princely lists are well-known as a special genre of historical digression in Russia. On record time to lists (out of the annalistic text) lists of princes from additions and annexes to the Novgorod first chronicle younger izvoda28 concern the oldest. At the heart of the some of them can ascend at least by the XII century. The independent work initially was also the list included the copyist of the beginning of the 15th century in the Stories of Temporary Years version according to the Ipatyevsky list. It is constructed on local, but not on genealogical sign (as well as separate Novgorod lists) and includes the Kiev princes from Deere and Askold before capture of Kiev to Bat khan in 1240 godu29. The most ancient of the remained lists belongs to the author or someone from editors of "The story of temporary years", is brought to Sacred regiment II death in 1113 and integrally enters the text of the chronicle under the 6360th year.

But princely lists in the initial editions can be and are more senior than chronicles. In any case, with the advent of writing the lists such served in many countries as the tool for storing of the genealogical and especially chronological data reported by the dinastiyny legend. Not an exception — and the Slavic world. Such is "Imennik of the Bulgarian princes", easily taken root in a slavyanoyazychny knizhnost. If to clean the part of work of the first Polish chronicler Anonim Gall narrating about a pagan era from platitudes and rhetoric, then we will see after the legend about the hero ancestor Pyasta besides princely spisok30. Still relyefny the same structure appears at the first Czech chronicler — Kozma as Prazhskogo31. After the legend about Kroke and his son-in-law, the ancestor of Przhemys-le, Kozma gives short transfer of pagan princes — and only after that transfers in Latin the extensive epic legend on war of Czechs connected with one of them (not last) with the neighboring tribe luchan.

So, both at Kozma, and at Gall with the princely list forms a whole only the story

about the dynasty basis, proving its right for the power. In the same way and the Russian princely catalogs, even attached to the chronicle, sometimes begin with a short reminder on Rurik's calling. Obviously, it corresponds to structure of the archaic Slavic princely list and in its oral existing — it was attached, being constantly supplemented, to the legend about origin of a ruling sort.

From the ethnogenetic point of view the closest analog of Slavic historical tradition, obviously, the tradition German-Scandinavian has to be

>. In it the genre of the "dinastiyny saga" describing the most ancient era is rather developed. At the same time the most archaic, in traditional (not Latin) language registration, option is represented by the Icelandic "royal sagas". Here at the description of events of the ancient history we see (for example, in "The saga about Inglingakh") the same core structure.

As a core the skaldichesky poem — expanded and poetically the issued list of governors of one dynasty acts. On it separate legends, like comments and expansions on elaborate skaldichesky formulas are strung. The core poem which is transferred by learning by heart serves also for storing of the legend, and for binding of separate legends among themselves. Let's note at the same time an important circumstance — and legends could be made out in a poetic form. And if the elaborate and lapidary style of skaldichesky poetry, especially during the early period of its formation, for this purpose was good a little, then to services of keepers of tradition there were epic "eddichesky" samples which were also used for addition of genealogies and narrations about historical events.

At Slavs nevertheless, it is how possible to judge, the situation was a little differently. As "core" everywhere where it is fixed, the dry princely list attached to the patrimonial legend about origin of a dynasty acted (as at Kozma Prazhsky). Unlike the Scandinavian example the list did not take the independent literary form, was not developed, remaining simply "catalog" of princes (however, also such genre is known to Scandinavians). Occurring separately, in more or less developed folklore form of the legend were strung on it. These legends had epic character and narrated, as a rule, about separate wars of the tribe (for example, Czechs from luchana) or other significant events. Studying the Russian annalistic and extra annalistic tradition suggests an idea that the prevailing form of existing of such druzhinny legend at Slavs was poetic. Traces of poetic execution of the legend are noted in the Initial arch in relation to patrimonial legend Ryuriko-vichey32 and in "The story of temporary years" in relation to the legend about Kiye33.

This genre team of "bylina", most likely, already in a relic form represents the most ancient sokhra-

nivshiysya a monument of the secular epos in Slavic language — "Tale of Igor's Campaign". In case of need to tell history of the whole sort in the compressed volume such extensive poems were truncated, quoted (as in the Russian chronicle for the 10th century). Quotes from them were strung on "rodosl".

It is hard to say, the oral texts of the duk-lyansky yard which formed the basis of "Book the Gothic" had poetic or prosaic character. This party of a monument was covered for us with loss of the Slavic original at all. But on Latin transposition it is possible to see result of work of the unknown Slavic author. The developed cliches of Latin chronography complicated to Kozma and Gall adequate reproduction of the Slavic dynastic epos. Therefore Kozma reproduced a situation of existing of the epos Przhemyslovichey, but not its live form which (also with additions) Dalimil writing in Czech and in verses tried to reconstruct only two centuries later. The Gaul in general refused the description of acts Pyastov of a pre-Christian era — if had any material about volume.

Similar obstacles did not get in the way of the Serbian author. It was probably the live carrier of tradition and fixed it in the native language. Therefore the core at it is freely dissolved (as it, of course, as a result also turned out at the developed oral narration) in sample of epic legends on certain princes. At the same time all building received creative processing — first of all from positions of the won Christianity within which views the ruin of the Dalmatian coast does not appear as a worthy military feat of praise any more. Besides, still probably at a late stage of oral existing the "gothic legend" which came from book polemic was interwoven into fabric of the ancient epos. Having given to an oral rodoslov literary registration, the author of "Book the Gothic" was the successful intermediary between live Slavic tradition and the Latin "chronicler" who kept to us his work.

At the same time it was not also without defects. Any given degree of the conflict between the ancient epos and new literary and historical tradition was inevitable. How often happens, it was shown most brightly in chronological aspect. For the author of "Book the Gothic" the chronological coordinations with "external" history were shy and not too significant, we will add, for the main genealogical legend attempt to put it in the world context. The "gothic" legend brought it during creation of a starting point, udrevniv arrival of Slavs to Dalmatia a little till the 5th century. Then the narration gains character, quite logical from the chronological point of view, and convincingly is placed in the 7-9th centuries. However after the description of creation of the Slavic diploma by Konstantin-Kirill the situation sharply changes.

Since the 9th century before the author there was a disordered mix from scraps of various dynastic legends and these written sources. They concerned the history Dukley, Croatia, Rashki, perhaps, also other South Slavic public entities. From the point of view of set the istorikopolitichesky concept all famous ancient "kings" had to get up in a row ancestors of a duklyansky dynasty. And the author copes with this task by methods of a ro-doslov, but not chronicles in any way. Completely ignoring chronology, it simply places all famous princes in a genealogical row one after another. Together with fantastic elements, natural to folklore, in the description of events it did irreparable harm to reputation of the chronicle at historians of Modern times starting with I. Luchich.

At the same time the popularity of "Book the Gothic" and its transposition (perhaps, added) on Latin indicate that for the time and the people the author coped with a task rather well. Both Slavs, and begun already arranged to mix up with them dalmatians form and content of a rodoslov quite, regardless of its consistency with chronologically built "big history". Besides absence

accurate chronological instructions and an udrev-neniye of Slavic invasion into Dalmatia till the 5th century were of use already now and good service, partly acquitting fantastic number of the generations which passed since then till times of creators of "Book" and "Chronicle".

The known periferiynost of duklyansky tradition in relation to the new center of statehood and a new dynasty brought in Rashka, however, to the fact that given duklyan-sky "chronicle" and the duklyansky legend remained are unclaimed by the latest Serbian authors. In the new Serbian kingdom, and especially on its ruins since the end

XIV centuries, we also observe preservation of a form of a rodoslov. It interferes even in zhitiyny literature, having united a number of royal lives Nemanichey in the complete arch. (Nemanichey) known in several editorial offices "Serbian Rodosl" became then a basis for the Serbian annals of the 15-18th centuries. However chroniclers Nemanichey had neither written, nor oral data on origin of the first generations of a sort. In the history of the people they proceeded from strengthened in the Dalmatian historiography and at the Serbian yard of flatter idea of autochthony of Serbians in the Balkans. As result — the ancient history of the Serbian settling in Illirika was completely changed for quite strange genealogical legend of the Serbian origin of the ancient Roman emperor Litsiniya and of as if the ruling Rashkoy in the 11th century (!) Béla Urosh was his grandson or even the son from Konstantin's sister of Svyatogo34. The absurdity of this legend was obvious already in the Middle Ages to a number of copyists and editors both in Russia, and in Serbia.

The mechanism of creation and sources of a genealogical legend Nemanichey are quite curious, but go beyond consideration in the real work. It is clear, that it in any measure does not go back to the Serbian oral tradition, being entirely generation of book fiction. However one related circumstance should be emphasized. Preservation of an archaic form of a rodoslov involuntarily

led to transfer in written literature of characteristic features of the oral patrimonial legend.

And such legend was under construction not on model of linear chronology at all, and on the basis of the generation account, and mythological stretchings of time are not unusual to the legend at all. Let's remember "The chronicle by the priest Duk-lyanin". For the chronicle in the true sense Urosh and Litsiniya's direct coordination would represent a serious problem. But rodosl, under construction according to other scheme, does not notice a problem. Admissions, substitutions and inserts, association of generations — not a rarity in the genealogical legend, and in relation to the most genealogical Nemanichey it show numerous editions of the Serbian rodoslov. For such legend it is unimportant — whether Urosh a son, the grandson or the distant descendant Litsiniya was. The fact of a binding of the ancestor of a noble family to the sign character is important (not so much to the persecutor of Christians Litsiny how many to his brother-in-law and the enemy Konstantin).

At the same time the author of a Christian rodoslo-v looks for and finds such character in the history of Church, without thinking, of course, of the fact that his pagan ancestor would carry out just the same (and no more reasonable) operation with a pantheon of gods and heroes. So, the archaic scheme unexpectedly works in the conditions of new culture. But here also the miscalculation of the creator of a legend lay. Konstantin and Litsiny belonged not to folklore and mythology, but real and hand-written story, besides in reality not Serbian. Rodoslov could not become the only or main written source of information on them. Scientifically (at the medieval level) the cognizable history of the Christian world naturally resists invasion of mythological antiquity and convicts a mythologism.

The Serbian tradition gives us option of existing and reflection of oral tradition about the "preliterate" and pre-Christian period of history, essentially other than next and, apparently, the related Bulgarian. In Bulgaria temporary loss gosudar-

stvenny independence in the 11th century led to dying of the druzhinno-aristocratic patrimonial legend (besides here — non Slavic origin). The subsequent authors dealt with national toponymic legends and were forced "to string" them on the scheme alien to them — whether it be apocryphal "legend" ("The legend to Isaia of the prophet") or the Byzantine chronography (a note at Manasseh's Chronicle). In Serbia, on the contrary, direct transfer of a genre of the patrimonial legend ("rodoslov") in written literature took place. At this transfer before the author there were only problems of demythologization and cyclization of legends with which he in a case with "The chronicle by the priest Duklya-nin" in own way coped. At the same time cyclization happened without the aid of tools of scientific literature alien to tradition (we will tell, a chronological scale "from creation") and was based on the potential and standard practices of the legend. But, having been torn off from live national tradition, being forced to compensate gaps of a rodoslov at the expense of data from scientific literature, the Serbian medieval historiography reached a deadlock an absurd mifologizirovaniye — apparently on the example of a legend of origin Nemanichey.

The richest, including historical compositions, from medieval Slavic literatures — Old Russian — is intermediate in this sense. On the one hand, the Russian chroniclers gave coherent and is inevitable (at scarcity of external sources) an original picture of the past of the country. On the other hand, they strung elements of this picture on a grid of the Byzantine chronography, turning even legends full of folklore elements

about early Ryurik dynasty in "chronicle".

Further, the patrimonial bringing (Ryurik dynasty) in Russia, naturally, remained and could be used in the 11-12th centuries by historians. However it was, undoubtedly, the patrimonial legend of a bit different type developing in the 9-10th centuries in the conditions of Christianization and besides origin written

cultures. With it it is connected natural though sometimes and more than paradoxical, an interlacing in it Christian and pagan elements. As an example — derogation characteristic of the most ancient sections of a duklyansky rodoslov or, say, for the Russian national bylina about Volkh Vseslavyevich of druzhinno-military aggressive pathos.

Earlier and "cleaner" samples of the patrimonial epos could be perceived during an era of Ryurik dynasty only as introduction, "dodina-stichesky". Therefore before the Russian chronicler there was in the most ancient part of the narration a problem first of all of cyclization of the extensive scattered material "to - dynastic" traditions. He was not able to afford to be limited as Duklyanin or Kozma Prazhsky, a framework of the court legend — though the author of the Initial arch in the 11th century, perhaps, tried to go on this way. As a result in the Russian annals already all variety of legends about a preliterate era was reflected in an early stage of its development — from "introduction" to dynastic the legends having in general quite "aristocratic" shape to national toponymic plots. In this wealth — its exclusive value for the modern researcher. But the appeal to material of South Slavic historical tradition of the Middle Ages allows us to see more clearly those archaic structures which were the cornerstone including of the Russian annals.

1 The facsimile see: Letopis priest Duklanin. Titograd, 1967. Page 124 and trace.
2 Shishih F. Letopis of the priest Duklanin. Beo-grad; Zagreb, 1928. Page 179-180.
3 Letopis. Page 8-10.
4 Il regno degli Slavi oggi corrotamente detti Sclavoni. Pesaro, 1601. P. 205-239.
5 Lucius J. De regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae. Amsterdam, 1668.
6 Letopis. Page 15.
7 Schwandtner J. G. Scriptores rerum Hunga-ricarum. Vienn, 1749. L. III. P. 486-524; Crncic I. Popa Dukljanina ljetopis po latinsku i toga neko-liko i jos nesto po hrvatsku. Kraljevica, 1874.
8

Subotić J. Duklyanskog presbyter Slaven's kral-evstvo//Letopis Matitse Srpsk. Prince 88. We awake, 1853. Page 1-86.

Arkiv za povjesnicu Jugoslavensku. Zagreb, 18510 S. 1-57.

Godishnik XV Srpsk Krolevsk Akade-mshche. Beograd, 1902. Page 220-226.

Shiship F. Letopis priest Duklanin. Beograd; Zagreb, 1928.

Tttitttiu_ F. Letopis. Page 185 and trace.

13

Tttitttiu_ F. Letopis. Page 107.

14

Шиш^ F. Letopis. Page 136, 161-162, 421.

15 Шиш^ F. Letopis. Page 33-45, 164-184. Medini M. Kako of je postao Ljetopis popa

>Ducljanina//Rad JAZU. Zagreb. Kn. 273. S. 113156.

17

Ljetopis popa Dukljanina. Zagreb, 1950.

18 Ljetopis. S. 25.
19 Ljetopis. S. 17, 33-34.

Etopis of the priest Duklanin. Titograd,

1967,
21 Etopis. Page 104-108.
23

Etopis. Page 108-109.

23

Etopis. Page 112-114.

Банашев^ N. Letopis of the priest Duklanin it is also national a predaaa. Beograd, 1971.

25

D. Bogdanovich. The srpska kaizhevnost is old. Page 127.

S.V. Alekseev. A preliterate era on Wednesdays

not century Slavic literature: genesis and

transformations. M, 2005. Page 58 and trace.;

S.V. Alekseev. "Chronicle by the priest Duklyanin" and

other sources about Slavic gain

Dalmatia//Historical review. Issue 7. M,

2006. Page 4.
27

S.V. Alekseev. "Chronicle by the priest Duklyani

on"... Page 4-28.

Complete collection of the Russian chronicles. M,

2000. T. 3. Page 162-163, 465-466.
29

Complete collection of the Russian chronicles. M, 1997. T. 2. Stb. 1-2.

Anonim is scarlet. Chronicle or acts knya zy or governors Polish//Slavic chronicles. M, 1996. Page 332-333.

Kozma Prazhsky. Czech chronicle. M,

1962. Page 36 and trace.
32

Initial chronicle. M, 1999. Page 127 - 128.

33

S.V. Alekseev. A preliterate era on Wednesdays to not century Slavic literature: genesis and transformations. Page 170.

L. Stoyanovich. Srpsk a genealogy and the chronicle are old. Beograd, 1927. Page 7-16, 44-46, 53, 57-58, 177, 184-185, 197.

Holm Otto
Other scientific works: