L. N. Gumilev is one of the most cited Russian historians of the second half of the 20th century. However, few researchers have thought that when referring to L. N. Gumilev, he sometimes refers not to him, but to the editors of modern editions of his books. Comparison of the lifetime editions of L. N. Gumilyov's works with the reprints (all of them posthumous) showed that the latter contain not only typos, but also unexplained changes in the author's text. The article examines all identified cases of discrepancies between the original editions of L. N. Gumilyov's works and their reprints, and offers an explanation of their origin: editorial arbitrariness, the author's own instructions; in some cases, an adequate explanation could not be found. We also investigated the most significant typos in reprints, which, once made, are then replicated over many years and in tens of thousands of copies of books. Thus, at present, there is no more reliable way to use the works of L. N. Gumilyov than using their first editions. Keywords: L. N. Gumilev, original edition, reprint, misreading, manuscript, "Xiongnu", "Ancient Turks", "From Russia to Russia", "The End and the beginning again". WHOSE WORKS WE READ UNDER THE NAME OF LEV N. GUMILEV? ANDREY SARAEV The paper considers the question of Lev N. Gumilev's written heritage. L.N. Gumilev is one of the more famous and at the same time controversial Russian historians of the second part of the twentieth century. But a few of scholars have paid attention to the quality of the reprints of his works. Nevertheless there are inexplicable variant readings between the reprints and the first editions of Gumilev's works. While all of the reprints are posthumous, we should know what changes in them belong to the author. In some cases such changes were made by the author himself. In other cases these textual changes were made by the editors. In few examples I was not able to find the reasons of variant readings. In addition, there are many er ... Читать далее