plik

ers

148

Scando-Slavica · Tomus X

G U N N A R J A C O B S S O N :

A R are Variant of the Name of Smolensk in O ld Russian

A m ong the relatively numerous Old Russian treaties regulating trade

relations between Smolensk, Riga and the “Shore of G o tlan d ” (i.e. G o t
land) in the 13th century, one gramota stands by itself, its au th o r having so

far defied identification. F or this reason too it goes by various names in the

literature relating to it although its Old R ussian authenticity is beyond

do u b t.1 This “Д оговор неизвестного смоленского князя с Ригою и
Готским берегом” exhibits a num ber of linguistic peculiarities, some not

found anywhere else, some shared by other Sm olensk gramoty. To this last

group of linguistic peculiarities belongs the rare variant of the name of the

well known Russian city of Smolensk as С м о л ь с к і; this occurs only once

in the whole gramota, viz.

въ м оем ь см ольск і (4).2

In the remaining 18 cases where this place nam e is m entioned in the gramota,
the norm al spelling with

occurs, although the spellings of the name

vary in other respects in accordance with the orthographical peculiarities
for which the gramota is known:

смольньскЪ (4-5), (40), (49), (63)
см о л ін ь с к і, -а, -ому [adject.] (20), (50), (59)

см оленьскі  (36),  (55),  (59),  (65),  (74),  (76)
см оли н ьскі  (42),  (46-47),  (71)
смолньскъ  (78),  (80)

The ratio 1:18 for spellings of this place nam e w ithout

as against

spellings with

-H -

would on the face of it seem to support the inference that

the form er is an understandable slip of the pen, on the supposition th a t the

1 F or practical reasons we use the name Договор неизвестного смоленского князя

с Ригою и Готским берегом according to the latest edition of this gramota in: Смо

ленские Грамоты XIII-XIV веков подготовили к печати Т. А. Сумникова и В. В.

Лопатин под редакцией чпена-корреспондента АН СССР Р. И. Аванесова. Москва

1963, р. 10 sqq.

1 The figures in brackets refer to the lines.

ersi

]

G unnar Jacobsson: A Rare Variant of the Name of Smolensk in Old Russian

149

spelling С м ольньскі (25 % of the cases) is the norm and th at the name is

of so relatively frequent occurrence in the text th at a lapse in attention on

the part of the scribe is quite feasible. In actual fact a slip involving just such

an omission does occur in another place: б і р і (18) instead of 6 t p t 3 i , an espe

cially common word in this

gramota,

occurring as it does in the place name

на гътьскомь б і р і з і . The spelling б і р і is w ithout any doubt to be regarded

as an omission on the part of the scribe and in no way on a par with the

accepted abbreviations of certain words in Old R ussian manuscripts, e.g.

члвкь, грив, вл дц і. On the whole, however, errors in writing are very
unusual in this

gramota.

The following is a complete list: one case of diplo-

graphy дьдълженъ (18), two cases of the w rong letter 6 t p t p t (53), instead

of б і р і з і and въсхочети (22), instead of въсхочеть (presuming, that is,
th at the former really is an error), and the word послоумьство (27-28),

with a dash over

and

- ь - ,

instead of послоушьство.

If we keep to the rule th at a historical docum ent is to be rectified only

in cases of absolute necessity, and presume from the outset th at supposed
errors are only apparent ones from o ur point of view, we can as regards

С м о л ьск і find support for the spelling w ithout

elsewhere in Old Rus

sian.

In a

gram ota

which has much in com m on with the treaty m entioned above

as regards subject matter, viz. the Trade agreem ent between Smolensk,
Riga and the Shore of G otland of 1229,3 we find:

въ см олесці, список В, готландская редакция (40)
въ см ольсці,

”

” ,

”

(118)

въ с м о л іс к і,

”

F, рижская

”

(54).

Adjectivally the form without

occurs twice:

по н о г а т і смолескои, список В (133)
прЪдъ смолеского

K H A 3 A ,

список В (103).

In one case the scribe has added -нь- w ithout an arc above the line:

oy см олесці, список В (45).

It is hard to resist the impression th at the scribe really wrote СмолесцЪ

and revising later touched it up by adding -нь-. It is however impossible
to assert with certainty that the first spelling was the correct one. There are

in fact cases where

appears above the line with

titlo:

in У ставная

грам ота князя Ростислава4

5 Op.

cit.,

p. 18 sqq.

’

4 Op.

cit.,

p. 75 sqq.

ers

]

150

Scando-Slavica ■ Tomus X

приведи) епкпа смолескЗ (2)

ш всЪ дане смолески (9)

шбласти смолеское

(53)

по все волости смолескои (76)

сию епкпью смолеск8ю

(85),

and in Подтвердительная грамога епископа М ануила5

епкпью смолеск8ю (97).

Both these gramoty are, as we know, assumed to date from с. 1150 although

they are to be found in a transcript from the 16th century. It is difficult to

decide w hether

as надстрочная буква and titla are due to later addition

by a copyist. The supralineal letters only occur in connection with the
adjective, while the place name as noun, which is found only once, is written

out in full: Смоленесюь (72).

The spelling of Smolensk without

occurs several times in the Russian

chronicles too. In the N ovgorod Chronicle, синодальный список, sub

anno 6666 ( = 1158),® for example, we can re a d :

И де Ростислав Смольску.

In the same chronicle, but in коммиссионный список, sub anno 6911

( = 1403)7 there is another instance of the spelling w ithout

- :

Взя князь Семеонъ Олгердович город Смолескь,

although admittedly академический список and толстовский список

have  смоленьскии.  Since  both  of  these  are  secondary  to  коммиссионный
список  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  th a t  Смолескь  is  the  older,  especially
as  the  long  form   of  the  adjective  determ ining  город  would  appear  to  be  a
later phenom enon.

In the N estor Chronicle sub anno 6565 ( = 1057), in лаврентьевский

список,8 we find:

ПрестависА Вдчеславъ снъ Ьарославль СмолиньскЬ. И

посадиша ИгорА СмолиньскЬ из ВолодимирА введше.

5 Op. cit., р. 79.
• Новгородская первая летопись старшего и младшего изводов. Под редакцией и

с предисловием А. Н. Насонова. Москва - Ленинград 1950, р. 30. Коммиссионный

список has к смоленьску which obviously is a later variant.

7 Op. cit., p. 398.
* Полное Собрание Русских Летописей. 1* (reprint). Москва 1962, p. 162.

ers

Gunnar Jacobsson: A Rare Variant of the Name of Smolensk in Old Russian

151

In all the other m anuscripts the place name is spelt with

а п -

except for

и п а т ь е в с к и й с п и с о к ,

the text of which is somewhat divergent here:9

Престависл ВАчеславъ снъ ЬЗрославль Смоленским,

и посадиша И горд вь СмольсцЪ изъ В олодимерл выведше.

Now the interesting fact is th at an

with an arc has been added above

смольсц'Ъ in different ink. One is really justified in wondering whether

the spelling without

is not the original one, which has later been revised

supralineally by a later copyist. Supralineal

occurs also in the spelling

смолескоу  which  appears  in  хлебниковский  список  and  погодинский
список10,  both  considered  as  later  than  ипатьевский  список:  W hat  is  so
confusing  is  that  the  adjective  смоленьскии  is  to  be  found  in  the  same
passage,  for in this case there is no  doubt as to the existence of an

By and large, however, the spellings of Smolensk and the adjective derived

from it which have

are numerically in such an overwhelming m ajority

that the cases without

m ust be regarded as unique in Old Russian.

However, there turn out to be instances of the spelling w ithout

from

quite different sources, viz. Old Norse. The instances are not perhaps
striking at first glance, for b oth spellings occur. In a geographical account

of ancient Rus' by the abb o t Nicolas from Thingeyrar in Iceland, we read:

i austanverôri Eyropa er G arôariki; Jjar er Kæ nugarôr

ok Holm garôr, Pallteskja ok Smalenskja.

The extract originates from Antiquités Russes.11 It is of interest, however,

that  there  exist  two  editions  of  the  chapter  in  which  the  city  of  Smolensk
is  mentioned, one older and one newer. The older edition can be said to date
from the middle of the  12th century,12 while the newer one presum ably dates
from the end  of the  13th century or the  beginning of the  14th.13 N ow  in the
older  edition  the  spelling  is  Smaleskja,  and  it  is  solely  the  fact  of  its  being
the  more  usual  one  th at  accounts  for  thé  editor  of  Antiquités  Russes  in

serting the spelling of the newer edition with -n-. It could perhaps be ob

* Op. cit., 2, p. 151.

10 Ibidem.
11 Antiquités Russes d'après les monuments historiques islandais et des anciens Scandi

naves, éditées par la Société Royale des Antiquitaires du Nord. 1-2. Copenhague 1850

1852, 2, p. 403.

12 “Plusieurs indices nous en conduisent à en rapporter l’auteur au milieu du 12e

siècle”, op. cit., 2, p. 395.

13 Ibidem.

152

Scando-SIavica · Tomus X

jected th a t Smaleskja in the older edition is an erro r caused by the near

adjacency of Pallteskja. Any doubts on the m atter should be dispersed,
however, if another source is cited, a N orse version of the Tale of Theoderic

of Berne, where we find the following passage :

Трат vinnr hann ok gessar borgir: Smälizku, K iu ok Palteskju.14

T he m anuscript on which this version is based is to be assigned to c. 1200,15

bu t another m anuscript exists with the following reading:16

Smaléncium ok Pallteskiu.

F rom w hat has been said it is clear th a t there is some justification.for

believing in the existence of a spelling of Sm olensk w ithout

- h - .

One has

the impression th at this spelling is an old one, perhaps the oldest of all, and

th a t later copyists have revised it by the addition of an

- ,

influenced by

the fact th a t by their time such a spelling was the m ore common.

The question arises naturally enough as to the origin of the variants

w ithout

-H -.

They can hardly be regarded as a norm al phonetic development

b rought about by the disappearance of

if we take the norm al form s to be

смольньскъ, смольньсцЪ, смольньскЪ, although it is true th at in Byelo

russian and U krainian [n] can disappear in certain positions, bu t is then

replaced by [j].17

One feasible explanation of course is th a t the variant w ithout

is an

allegro  form   of  an  extremely  com m on  w ord,  a  form   first  an d  forem ost
reflecting  the  regional  pronunciation.  Such  an  explanation  involving  a
regional  pronunciation  divergent  from   the  m ore  abstract  norm   of  the
language as a whole is after all supported by m any parallels in other languages

ap a rt from Russian.

W hen we come to the question of the etymology of the nam e Smolensk,

the striking fact is th a t the variant without

has never come under dis

cussion.

V asm er18 derived Smolensk from the Old R ussian topographical designa

tion ( “F lurnam e”) Sm ohnja. This nam e is taken to be derived from см ола
‘resin, pitch, ta r’ and Vasmer adds “nach Pogodin Mèi. Belie 83 vom Teeren

14 Op. cit., 2, p. 455.

15 Op. cit., 2, p. 454.

Ie Op. cit., 2, p. 455.

17 E. Ф. Карский, Белорусы. Язык белорусского народа. Выпуск первый.

Москва 1955, р. 324; J. Zilynski, Opis fonetyczny fezyka ukrainskiego. Kraków 1932,

p. 96.

18 Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, s. v. смола.

rsi

]

2013

Gunnar Jacobsson: A Rare Variant of the Name of Smolensk in Old Russian

153

der Schiffe”.19 Curiously enough Pogodin is not the first to have put for
ward this view; he in his tu rn quotes V. S. Ikonnikov.20 But not even Ikon

nikov is the original source, for he cites E. Golubinskij.21

This explanation does not sound im probable but it does not take the

variant w ithout

into consideration which in the light of w hat has already

been said we regard as just as worthy of recognition as the one with

Old Russian.

There m ust in fact have been one base sm ohn- and one smol-. С м о л ьскі

presupposes the latter. It is from this th at Smolěne in Old Bulgarian is

derived, which is found as early as in the the eighth century in the form ІцоХ-
eávoi.22 We find the same derivative in West Slavonic in the form Smeldingi.23

It is also of interest th at the inhabitants of Smolensk are called in Old
Russian literature both Смольняне (the commonest word) and Смоляне.24

We draw the conclusion therefore th at the Old Russian form СмольсісЬ

has every appearance of being authentic. And everything points to the fact

that it is actually of greater antiquity than the form Смольньскъ.

“ А. Погодин in: Mélanges linguistiques et philologiques offerts à M. Aleksandar

Belie... Beograd 1937, pp. 77-85.

20 В. С. Иконниковъ, Опытъ русской исторіографіи, T. II, Кн. І, Кіевь 1908, р.500.

51 Е. Голубинскій, Исторія русской церкви. 1:1s. Москва 1901, р. 19, note 1 : “...с ъ

Смоленска (гдЪ смолились, - древнее названіе Смоленска Смолинескъ, и окон
чательно приготовлялись л о д к и ...)”.

“

22 L. Niederle, Slovanské starožitnosti. 11:1-2. V Praze 1906, p. 428.
23 R. Trautmann, Die slavischen Ortsnamen Mecklenburgs und Holsteins. Zweite, ver

besserte Auflage. Berlin 1950 ( = Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissen
schaften zu Leipzig. Philologisch-historische Klasse. Band 45. Heft 3), p. 141 s.v. Smel

dingi; cf. also M.  Vasmer,  Die Slaven in Griechenland ( =   Abhandlungen der Preussischen
Akademie  der Wissenschaften.  Jahrgang  1941.  Philosophisch-historische Klasse.  Nr.  12.
Berlin  1941), pp.  75,  97.

21 E. g. in the Novgorod Chronicle, академический список and толстовский список,

sub anno 1169, although коммиссионный список has the spelling with -н-; in the
Vologda-Perm Chronicle (=ITCPJI. 26. Москва 1959), чертковский список, sub anno

И З 7; Дополненія къ Актамъ историческимъ. .. I. С.-Петербургь 1901, р. 164.