Fragments of the book of Esther in Khlebnikov's codex of the southern Russian chronicle compilation of the end of XIII century

The article examines the fragments of Old Russian translation of the Book of Esther preserved on the last pages of Khlebnikov's codex - one of the two senior copies of the Southern Russian chronicle compilation of the end of XIII century. In the studies dealing Old Russian manuscript tradition of the Esther as in paleographical descriptions of the codex these fragments were considered in much smaller degree. Purpose: To define the origin and the dating of Khlebnikov's fragments by means of methods of codicology and to determine its place in textual tradition of the Old Russian translation of the Esther in comparison with variants presented in earlier copies, in that of XV century and in cognate Tikhonravov's chronograph of XVI century. Results: Our observations on disposition of these fragments on the pages of the manuscript show that text of the Esther was directly included in the South Russian chronicle compilation's protograph, despite of later origin of Khlebnikov's codex itself (written in the XVI century). Interruptions between the boundaries of the fragments of the Esther can be explained by defectiveness of common protograph of both major copies of the chronicle compilation (Hypatian of XV century, which lacks these fragments, and Khlebnikov's). Our conclusions are confirmed also by analysis of linguistic and stylistic features of the fragments in Khlebnikovs codex. We also clarify their relationship with the Tikhonravov's chronograph which contains same type of Esther's text. Compiler of the chronograph sought, not always successfully, to simplify and to russify style of the translation eliminating some morphological Hebraisms, whereas in Khlebnikov's fragments is reflected the early shape of this version of the Esther. Version conserved in both codices represents special modification that differs either from redactions carried out in XV century and conserved in the copies of so called Academy's chronograph or that of Gennady's Bible. Lack of any traces of XV century editorial changes (such as replacement of pleophonic forms by nonpleophonic and reconciliation with the Masoretic text) and presence of linguistic parallels between the Book of Esther and last part of the Southern Russian compilation (Volhynian Monomakhovich's Chronicle of XIII century) evidence archaic character of given text. The presence of the Esther in the Southern Russian chronicle compilation can dispute the dating of Old Russian translation of this biblical book (the middle or the end of XIV century) proposed in its newest publications and confirm conclusions of scholars (such as Sobolevsky, Meshchersky, Alekseev) that argued its early origins. Conclusion: Inclusion of the Book of Esther in fragments or entirely in protograph of Hypatian and Khlebnikov's codices should probably be associated with activity of the Volhynian Monomakhovich's Chronicle's author which showed great interest in translated chronographic literature.