The True and Fake Names of Boris Godunov

This paper takes a new look at the “anthroponymical dossier” of Boris Godunov and his family. Insufficient familiarity with the structure of the Medieval Russian polyonymy (that is, the practice of using many names for the same person) has been known to lead not only to the introduction of redundant and never-existing people to research papers, but also to real people taking redundant, imaginary names, which they did not and often could not have taken in reality. This paper takes a look at both the names the tsar had, without a doubt, and the names under which he existed in previous research (Boris, Bogolep, Iakov, Bogdan, Theodot). Special attention is given to the personal patron saints’ cult in Godunov’s family, mostly to St. Theodotus. Some problems of attribution and dating of several artifacts are raised

Мужское vs женское в контексте светской христианской двуименности на Руси XVI–XVII вв.

The paper deals with the special features of Russian dual Christian naming—that is, the practice of giving a lay person an additional Christian name, other than his/her baptismal name. In the Middle Ages in Russia, a man could not under any circumstances get a female anthroponym as a second Christian name, and a woman, respectively, could not get a male anthroponym. In particular, no variations with respect to the calendar tradition, which transform male names into female names and vice versa, were allowed. This markedly contraposes the choice of the second Christian name for a lay woman to the choice of the monastic name for a nun. The work examines a number of incidents that would seem to violate this rigor of the gender distribution of anthroponyms, and discusses a number of related problems associated with the multiplicity of personal names in pre-Petrine Rus’. DOI: 10.31168/2305-6754.2019.8.1.5Данная работа посвящена особым чертам русской христианской двуименности, выделяющей ее на фоне других традиций полиномии. В эпоху Средневековья на Руси мужчина не мог ни при каких условиях получить в качестве второго христианского имени женский антропоним, а женщина, соответственно, мужской. Не допускались, в частности, никакие новые по отношению к месяцесловной традиции вариации, трансформирующие мужские имена в женские и наоборот. Это заметным образом противопоставляет выбор второго христианского имени для мирянки выбору монашеского имени для инокини. В работе рассматривается ряд казусов, казалось бы, нарушающих эту строгость гендерного распределения антропонимов и обсуждается ряд смежных проблем, связанных с многоименностью в допетровской Руси. DOI: 10.31168/2305-6754.2019.8.1.

Именины в пространстве летописного нарратива

The article investigates the ways in which the celebration of the name day (imeniny) of Russian princes or their entourages was presented in the Russian chronicles. The custom of celebrating the name day was firmly rooted in the Russian princely environment. For a chronicle narrative, the very rootedness of this custom and the number of its associated actions plays an important role—it is this rootedness that makes stories told in the chronicles quite opaque to the modern reader. A prince’s Christian name and the day of his patron saint were considered to be important background knowledge for the audience of the medieval compiler. There were, apparently, clear ideas about appropriate behavior for prince or a person from his environment on his name day or on the eve of this day but, on the other hand, such assumptions explain why this kind of “normal” behavior rarely forms the subject of special reflection in the chronicles. It is not only a description of the celebration itself that might be very informative, whether it be a church service, a ceremonial feast with various relatives, or an exchange of gifts, but also the description of acts and deeds that were undertaken specifically on a prince’s name day. Therefore, particular attention is given here to stories about undue or inappropriate behavior on this special day. The paper deals with the function and nature of such episodes in the broader context of historiographical narrative.Статья посвящена тому, как в летописном нарративе могут изображаться именины русских князей или их приближенных. Особое внимание уделяется рассказам о недолжном, неподобающем поведении на именинах, своих и чужих. В работе рассматривается функция и характер такого рода эпизодов в более широком контексте историографического повествования

Подлинные и мнимые имена Бориса Годунова

This paper takes a new look at the “anthroponymical dossier” of Boris Godunov and his family. Insufficient familiarity with the structure of the Medieval Russian polyonymy (that is, the practice of using many names for the same person) has been known to lead not only to the introduction of redundant and never-existing people to research papers, but also to real people taking redundant, imaginary names, which they did not and often could not have taken in reality. This paper takes a look at both the names the tsar had, without a doubt, and the names under which he existed in previous research (Boris, Bogolep, Iakov, Bogdan, Theodot). Special attention is given to the personal patron saints’ cult in Godunov’s family, mostly to St. Theodotus. Some problems of attribution and dating of several artifacts are raised. DOI: 10.31168/2305-6754.2020.9.1.7В первой части работы предложен общий обзор моделей одноименности и многоименности в средневековой Руси, причем авторы стремились сосредоточиться в первую очередь на антропонимических практиках XVI — начала XVII столетия. Далее была предпринята попытка показать, каковы были системные возможности для наречения царя Бориса Годунова и как они были реализованы на деле. В частности, были рассмотрены все имена, которыми царь обладал бесспорно, и те, что ему приписывались (Борис, Боголеп, Иаков, Богдан, Феодот). Особое внимание уделено истории культа личных патрональных святых членов царской семьи, прежде всего св. Феодоту. DOI: 10.31168/2305-6754.2020.9.1.

The Veneration of the Mother of God and Some Aspects of Naming Tradition in pre-Petrine Russia

The paper explores a specific name-giving pattern that came from the ban on appellation after Virgin Mary. In Russia, the name of the Mother of God could neither be given at christening nor, apparently, could it be acquired with the monastic tonsure, with this prohibition being strictly and rigorously observed from pre-Mongolian times to our days. Yet it is also well known that the name Mary could be given in honor of the multitude of saints sharing the same name as the Mother of God. The study illustrates that in the 16th–17th centuries the name Mary could be given on the day one of the numerous icons of the Mother of God was celebrated. Thus, the designated person became the namesake of one of the venerated images of the Mother of God while avoiding a direct violation of the prohibition on the name’s use. The cult surrounding the icons of the Mother of God was part of a complex system of significant dates which determined the choice of personal names for a single person, not only regulating their life from birth to death but also predisposing practices of their posthumous commemoration. It is worth noting that such pattern of naming by the icon did not in any way extend to the name of Christ; however, it may have played a particular role in the cult of St Nikolaos of Myra, whose name in Russia at that time was also included in nomina sacra

Из наблюдений над ковчегом князя Ивана Хворостинина (1605–1621 гг.)

The present paper offers a rethinking of inscriptions and images on the famous artifact known as “Prince Ivan Khvorostinin’s reliquary”. We are interested both in the texts inscribed directly on various parts of this objects and those potentially linked with some of its elements. Contrary to the widely accepted opinion, the article suggests seeing this reliquary not as an attribute of state power, but as a family relic of the Khvorostinins. From this perspective, the important tools of research are the history of the cult of personal saint patrons and the history of secular Christian binominality. DOI: 10.31168/2305-6754.2021.10.1.6Настоящая работа посвящена анализу надписей и изображений, присутствующих на знаменитом артефакте, за которым закрепилось название «Ковчег князя Ивана Хворостинина». Нас будут интересовать как те тексты, которые непосредственно помещены на различных частях этого объекта, так и те, что могут быть потенциально связаны с различными его элементами. Вопреки сложившейся традиции, в статье предлагается взглянуть на ковчег не как на атрибут государственной власти, но как на семейную реликвию. В такой перспективе важными инструментами исследования оказываются история культа личных патрональных святых и светской христианской двуименности.DOI: 10.31168/2305-6754.2021.10.1.

The Deposition of Czar Vasili Shuisky in the Light of New Data

The article demonstrates how onomastic studies can help with interpretation of the key events of Russian history. The central figure of the paper is Czar Vasili IV of Russia (Vasili Ivanovich Shuisky): the first part of the paper focuses on the attribution of a valuable altar cross from the early 17th c., which has to do with the Christian binominality of this monarch, while the second part deals with the semiotics of the Czar’s deposition from the anthroponymic perspective. The votive inscription on the eight-pointed reliquary cross made of gilded silver gilded and decorated with stamped and carved sacred images on its front side says that the cross was donated to the Suzdal Monastery of the Intercession of Our Lady in 1603/04, with the style of figurative images, foliage pattern and the high quality of work clearly indicate the Moscow origin of this liturgical object. Until now, the identity of the donator was believed to be unclear, although the inscription is readable and contains both the names and all information necessary for identification. Many people of Medieval Rus’ had two lay Christian names — today this idea comes as less of surprise to researchers as it used to a decade earlier, yet the tradition of lay Christian binominality is still to be described and analyzed. Studying specific cases sometimes requires almost detective investigation, and challenges faced by a researcher are not incidental: they are rooted in the very ways how this system of lay Christian binominality functioned in the pre-Petrine Rus’: the same person could appear under one name in one case and under the other name in another, and sometimes it is really challenging to find the crossover points allowing to identify, say, Cosmas, servant of God with Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich Pozharsky. The historical and onomastic analysis of the inscription on the cross not only allows to reliably identify the owner of this precious specimen of early 17th-century jewellery but also to make some guesses about the circumstances of donation and to clarify our evidence of naming practices characteristic of the 16th-century Russia