Кн. 57-58 (2018)
|75 ГОДИНИ ОТ РОЖДЕНИЕТО НА ПРОФ. ГЕОРГИ ПОПОВ|
|Татяна Илиева||(София) – Старобългарското химнографско наследство в изследванията на проф. Георги Попов или Словеса хвална краегранесьна Георгиоу пѣснословьцоу богодхновеньноумоу||11–24||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=718603|
|КИРИЛ И МЕТОДИЙ И РИМ. 1150 Г. ОТ ОСВЕЩАВАНЕТО НА СЛАВЯНСКИТЕ КНИГИ|
|Красимир Станчев||(Рим) – Папското освещаване на славянските книги през 868 г.: факти и хипотези||26–39||PAPAL CONSECRATION OF SLAVIC BOOKS IN 868: FACTS AND HYPOTHESES.|
This article analyzes the available evidence about Pope Adrian II’s consecration of Slavic books in 868, which in effect consecrated the Glagolitic alphabet created by Constantine-Cyril. The evidence, found in the Slavonic Lives of St. Cyril (VC) and St. Methodius (VM), is absent from both the Latin Italian legend and the few other extant documentary sources from that period. The author argues that the description of the event in VC, with its rich topographic and prosopographical details, must have been written by a well-informed eyewitness, and should therefore be considered more credible. By contrast, the narrative in VM features prosopographical inaccuracies, abbreviations, contaminations, and creative additions, whose role most probably was to protect Methodius from possible charges. Specifically, the author supports the view that the Epistle of Adrian II in VM is not a paraphrase of an actual document, but a compositional element devised by the hagiographer. In the final analysis, while the exact nature of the papal blessing remains unclear, it is beyond doubt that, without this event—and the better documented papal elevation of Methodius to the rank of Moravian (arch)bishop—the further history of the Slavonic alphabet would have followed a very different trajectory.
|Александър Наумов||(Венеция) – Папският благослов на славянските книги като полемичен аргумент||40–60||THE PAPAL BLESSING OF THE SLAVONIC BOOKS AS A POLEMICAL ARGUMENT.|
Based on extant texts, this article analyzes the attitudes of the pontiffs of Rome toward the introduction of the Slavonic language into Christian worship, beginning with the blessing of the liturgical books that SS Cyril and Methodius brought to Rome. The decision of Adrian II and John VIII to allow the use of the new barbarian language was gradually cancelled out or reduced to a marginal phenomenon (Dalmacia, Prague, Olesnitsa, Cracow). After the Union of Brest (1596), however, it became a tool of Catholic proselytism with respect to the Orthodox Slavs. According to the ideology of Paposlavism, this blessing sanctified Slavonic writing and culture and introduced Bulgaria and Kievan Rus’ into the sphere of Western Christianity, a gesture not unlike the anointing of the newly baptized in the Eastern rite. Significantly, in this view, submission to the Pope was the only criterion for belonging to the Church and the right faith.
In the East, by contrast, the Slavonic alphabet and writing were considered a gift from God that, by the will of the Emperor and the Synod, found its application in missionary work. The Papal blessing did not concern the essence of the gift of the Word, but was only an administrative decision of the ruling hierarch, which affected only local practice.
The discussion about the place and role of SS Cyril and Methodius in the history of cultural, ecclesiastic and political relations between Slavs and Greeks, Slavs and “Romans,” as well as among the different Slavic peoples, has not lost its relevance
today, as it provides scholars with a wide range of more or less familiar arguments and facts.
|Кристиано Дидди||(Салерно) – „Славянские книги“ и папское благословение: о чем рассказывают (и о чем умалчивают) Пространные Жития Константина-Кирилла и Мефодия||61–84||THE “SLAVIC BOOKS” AND THEIR PAPAL BLESSING, |
OR WHAT VITA CONSTANTINI AND VITA METHODII REALLY SAY
(AND WHAT THEY LEAVE UNSAID)
The article takes as a starting point the account about the “Slavic books” (книгы словеньскыѥ – Vita Constantini 17:5) brought to Rome by the Slavic apostles Cyrill and Methodius, and their blessing by Pope Adrian II. By “Slavic books,” scholars usually mean loosely defined “liturgical books” that could reasonably be identified with the Slavonic Gospel (словѣньское евангелиѥ) mentioned in Vita Methodii 6:1. The liturgical books referred to in VC, however, still remain undefined, as it remains unclear who completed their translations, when and where. In an attempt to answer these questions, the author considers some passages from the Lives of the Slavic apostles with explicit references to “books,” and “letters.”
Careful reexamination of the vitas’ entire manuscript tradition cannot support the assumption that, after his arrival in Moravia, Constantine continued to engage in translation activities. Taking up a proposal advanced in the past by other scholars, the article assumes that, instead of translating some undefined “liturgical texts” (VC 15:2 вьсь црк҃овныи чинь прѣложь/прїимь), Constantine “transferred”, “transcribed”, and “fixed” in Slavic letters texts that had already been translated (by the way, different passages of VC mention Constantine’s dispute with the Latin and Franco-Germanic clergy that related not so much to the translation of books as to the Slavic letters – see VC 15 and 16). For a more precise identification of these translations, the article briefly reexamines the literature produced by Irish and Frankish missionaries in the dioceses of Salzburg, Regensburg, Freising, Passau during the 7th and 8th centuries, as well as translations made by the Frankish clergy in the 9th century. The interpretation proposed in this article fits well with the Pope’s willingness to bless books written in Slavonic, since the practice of translating [essential Christian] texts into local languages served a well-established and long-standing missionary program, one that aimed far beyond the Slavs of Moravia. Through this politics, the papacy could regain control of territories that had previously been under the jurisdiction of Rome, yet had meanwhile fallen under the control of the Franks.
In conclusion, the author challenges us to reread the Cyrillo-Methodian sources afresh, without any theoretical nor ideological bias, keeping in mind that these texts are primarily literary and ideologically inflected works, not historical sources.
|Slavia Barlieva||(Sofia) – Saints Cyril and Methodius in the Papal Letters of the Modern Age: From Grande Munus to Orientale Lumen||85–95||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=718608|
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Татяна Славова||(София) – Южнославянската ръкописна традиция на книга Битие (археография, структура и сегментация на текста)||96–127||THE SOUTH SLAVONIC MANUSCRIPT TRADITION OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS: ARCHEOGRAPHY, TEXTUAL STRUCTURE AND SEGMENTATION|
The article studies the South Slavonic tradition of the biblical Book of Genesis, preserved in eight copies from the 15th–16th century. The orthographic and phonetical features, text structure, and the segmentation of the text by headings in all known South Slavonic copies point to a common Middle Bulgarian hyparchetype (х1) of Turnovo provenance, dating from the fourteenth century. This hyparchetype apparently had mechanical defects – missing or misplaced book chapters from the Оctateuch, and included as interpolations at least two excerpts from Palaea Historica and three unidentified non-Biblical fragments. Significantly, it segmented the text of the Book of Genesis (Оctateuch) by means of interpretative titles that, in addition to their exegetic function, most probably had a liturgical role. These headings were secondary to the translation and could be attributed to scolarly activity in Turnovo. The Middle Bulgarian hyparchetype (х1) generated at least two copies that turned into protographs (P1 and P2). P1 served as the foundation of Wallachian-Moldavian manuscripts (such as GIM–Moscow, Barsov collection, No. 3; Collection of the Romanian Academy of Sciences No. 85; RGB–Moscow, Rumyantsev collection, No. 29), whereas P2 gave rise to the five manuscripts originating from Western Bulgarian lands and Serbia (RGB–Moscow, Grigorovich collection, f. 87, No. 1/М 1684; Library of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Zagreb, No. ІІІ.с.17; RGB–Moscow, Sevastiyanov collection, f.270, No. 1/M. 1431; Church-Historical and Archival Institute, Sofia, No. 351; Krushedol Monastery, No. 81). While P1 restricts the additional headings only to the main text, P2 expands their use to the manuscript’s margins as well. P2 includes also a short description and interpretation of the first five Old Testament books.
|Анна-Мария Тотоманова||(София) – Какъв е бил оригиналът на Станиславовия чети-миней?||128–142||IDENTIFYING THE ANTIGRAPH OF STANISLAV’S MENOLOGION|
The paper describes briefly the most important orthographic and morphologic features of MS 1039 from the National Library in Sofia, known as Stanislav’s Menologion. The manuscript contains an old hagiographic collection for September, October and the first eleven days of November that could be traced back to the First Bulgarian Kingdom and the rule of Tsar Petar. The codex appeared in a difficult political and cultural situation after the defeat of the Bulgarian Tsar Michael Shishman in 1330, when a part of the Western Bulgarian lands were subjugated to Serbian rule. The author aims to identify the Bulgarian and Serbian features on orthographic, phonetic and morphological levels in order to establish the hypothetical antigraph of the codex, and concludes, on the base of the analysis, that the compilation was copied from a sophisticated Middle Bulgarian manuscript that shared the linguistic and orthographic characteristics of the Tǎrnovo written tradition before Patriarch Euthymius’ reform.
|Елка Мирчева||(София) – Новгородски ли са Новгородските чети-минеи?||143–162||ARE THE NOVGOROD READING MENAIA NOVGORODIAN?|
The article examines the Slavonic translation of the complete Reading Menaia, containing readings for the entire liturgical year, and its genesis. The author contests the position of the Russian scholar D. Afinogenov on this subject, and offers the alternative hypothesis that the translation was completed during the First Bulgarian Kingdom and is associated with the Preslav cultural center.
|Марияна Цибранска - Костова||(София) – Градският закон и градското благоустройство в южнославянски контекст||163–193||URBAN LAW AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTH-SLAVIC CONTEXT|
The Byzantine Procheiros nomos, an official monument of secular law from 870‒879, has an unclear and convoluted history in the Slavic context. There is no extant complete translation of this text from the time of Tsar Simeon (893‒927); in the Nomocanon of 14 titles, translated in Preslav, there are only some excerpts from three of its titles. The first material witness to a complete Slavonic translation of the Procheiros is the Serbian Kormchaia of 1262 from Ilovitsa, which introduces also the Slavonic title of this legal corpus (“Закон градски,” or Urban Law), under which it later circulates in the Slavic milieu. Significantly, this title is not a calque of Πρόχειρος νόμος, but highlights the official character of the codex with its particular emphasis on the typical medieval urbanocentric notion of power.This article presents for discussion several terms referring to medieval architecture and urban development which are derived from the 38th title of the Procheiros. The author attempts to demonstrate how treating the medieval town as a complex symbol stimulated the terminological use of specific Slavonic words. At the same time, the urban perspective of the present study allows her lexical analysis to utilize the universality of Byzantine heritage in place of the traditional focus on ethnicity, linguistic domination, and opposition. The ultimate goal of this study is to reveal how this important monument of Byzantine secular power was adopted among the Slavs, enriching in the process the terminology of civic law. The article uses the following sources for comparison: MS HM. SMS 466 from the Hilandar Monastery on Mt. Athos; the Russian miscellany for judges Just Measure, and the official printed version of the Kormchaia (1650‒1653) from the time of Patriarchs Joasaph and Nikon. The complete Slavonic text of the title, according to the Ilovitskaia Kormchaia from 1262 is made available here for the first time in a typeset edition, for the benefit of future studies and/or contemporary translations into modern Bulgarian.
|Евелина Минева||(Атина) – Как Патриарх Евтимий преосмисля и преработва византийски жития?||194–205||HOW DOES PATRIARCH EYTHYMIUS REVISE AND REWORK BYZANTINE LIVES OF SAINTS?|
This publication stems from observations on two texts: the Encomion of St. Philothea of Temnitsa (Polivot), especially its inserted tale about the pious Amun, and the extended version of the Life of St. Paraskeva (Petka) of Tanovo. The author of the article claims that Patriarch Euthimius drew from a great number of Byzantine texts for each of his works, creating complex mosaics of different motifs and themes, never blindly following his sources. These findings make visible both the creative method of the Bulgarian writer and his excellent education, including his familiarity with Greek and Byzantine literature and his skills as a sophisticated reader. They also highlight the way the Patriarch left his personal imprint on his works, for example the hint, in the Life of Paraskeva, that he personally visited the holy spring at the tomb of St. Euthymius in Madytos.
|Станое Боянин||(Белград) – Константин Философ Костенечки и „ересите“ в Сърбия по времето на деспот Стефан Лазаревич||206–239||CONSTANTINE OF KOSTENEC THE PHILOSOPHER AND DESPOT STEPHEN LAZAREVIĆ’S LISTS OF THE “HERESIES” IN SERBIA|
This study deals with Chapter 29 of Constantine Kostenečki’s Treaties on the Letters, which contains a list of “heresies” – several customs and beliefs from the daily life of clergy and laymen – in Serbia around 1400. This chapter still remains fairly cryptic and unexplained, having received little reflection from scholars who have been focused primarily on Constantine’s concepts of orthography and grammar. In this treatise, characterized as “theoretical peroration” (Goldblatt), detailed and explanatory descriptions give way to moralistic lectures and criticism, replete with scriptural citations and commonplace remarks. The contents of the 29th chapter can be understood in terms of social life’s conceptual diversity, which includes dietary habits, segmentation of time, veneration of particular customs and individuals, kinship ties, and aspects of church rituals. These concepts could be mapped onto dichotomies of high/low, official/unofficial, central/local, clerical/lay culture (J. Le Goff, J.-C. Schmitt, Peter Burke), but in many cases they do not overlap with the social strata and classes in the feudal society. Constantine criticizes customs and beliefs that are, more or less, shared by many in the parish and the diocese, from priests and lower clerics to laymen. These cultural models replace the official church practice in the social and religious lives of Belgrade clergy and their flocks—a tendency that Constantine ardently opposes.
|Андрей Бояджиев||(София) – Първо Похвално слово за св. Георги от Григорий Цамблак||240–298||FIRST ENCOMIUM ON ST. GEORGE BY GREGORY TSAMBLAK|
The article offers an edition of the First Encomium on St. George by Gregory Tsamblak. It introduces 18 hitherto unpublished witnesses of the text from the 15th through 18th century and incorporates the previous edition from the Great Menologion of Metropolitan Makarius. The Encomium is examined together with texts that are linked to it in the manuscript tradition. Among them, special attention is paid to the Lives and Miracles of St. George, and to sermons and hagiographic texts of Slavonic origin. The author offers a classification of the witnesses according to their textological characteristics. A separate part of the publication deals specifically with some of the rhetorical figures typical for Tsamblak’s style and his preferred strategies for textual organization. The remarks on language shed light on some grammatical and lexicological features of the text. The author concludes that this exemplary work epitomizes the tradition of the Turnovo school from the 14th century.
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Кристина Япова||(София) – Svetlana Kujumdzieva. The Hymnographic Book Of Tropologion. Sources, Liturgy And Chant Repertory. London and New York: Routledge, 2018, 184 pp. ISBN 9781138297814||299–304||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=718651|
|Диана Атанасова||(София) – Елка Мирчева. Староизводните и новоизводните сборници – преводи, редакции, преработки, книжовноезикови особености. София: Издателство „Валентин Траянов“, 2018. 398 с. ISBN 978-954-9928-73-0||304–310||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=718652|
|Мария Йовчева||(София) – Венета Савова. ПЕСНИ ОТ КЛИМЕНТ. Химничната прослава на св. Алексий, човек Божи, сред православните славяни. София: Парадигма, 2017, 392 с. ISBN 978-954-326-311-0||310–323||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=718653|
|Анна-Мария Тотоманова||(София) – Гергана Ганева. История на граматическите основи. София: ПАНЕВ Пъблишинг, 2018. 152 с. ISBN 978-619-90789-1-4||324–328||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=718654|
|Маргарет Димитрова, Аделина Ангушева||(София – Манчестър) – Професор Матея Матеич (1924–2018)||329–332||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=718655|
|Елена Узунова, Елисавета Мусакова||(София) – Доц. д-р Елена Коцева-Арнаудова (16.08.1936 – 04.04.2018)||333–336||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=718656|
|Аделина Германова||(София) – Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 2017 г.||337–379||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=718657|
Кн. 55-56 (2017)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Регина Койчева||(София) – Старобългарският канон за опело в ръкопис от Библиотеката на князете Чарториски.||11–30||THE OLD BULGARIAN FUNERAL CANON IN A MANUSCRIPT FROM THE PRINCES CZARTORYSKI LIBRARY|
REGINA KOYCHEVA (SOFIA)
The main objective of this article is to announce a newly discovered copy of the Old Bulgarian funeral canon in the sixth tone, which was known to scholars previously from one Middle Bulgarian and two Serbian service books (trebnici). The newly found manuscript copy was discovered in a service book from the first half of the 16th century, currently held in The Princes Czartoryski Library in Cracow (Poland) as Czart. 11788, and differs substantially from the previously known copies, since it contains a considerably larger number of troparia. The article provides the incipits of all stanzas of the canon according to the available manuscript witnesses. Based on new information from Czart. 11788, the author offers some reflections on previous attempts to reconstruct the canon’s acrostic, and on possible reasons behind the significant differences among the four copies. Much attention is devoted to searching for a putative Byzantine source of the Old Bulgarian canon, which, despite all the effort invested, has yet to be identified. The article contains a checklist of Greek funeral canons in the sixth tone, derived from printed and handwritten sources.
|Сергей Темчин||(Вильнюс) – Охридский архиепископ Иоанн Каматир как вероятный автор славянской службы Михаилу Воину из Потуки.||31–39||THE ARCHBISHOP OF OHRID JOHN KAMATEROS AS A POSSIBLE AUTHOR OF THE SLAVONIC LITURGICAL OFFICE FOR ST MICHAEL, THE SOLDIER OF POTUKA|
SERGEY TEMCHIN (VILNIUS)
In a previous publication, the author demonstrated that the Slavonic liturgical Office for St. Michael of Potuka is a translation from а lost Greek original: reverse translation of the canon’s incipits into Greek allowed him to reconstruct, with a relative certainty, a fragment from the original Greek acrostic which contained the saint’s name ΜΙΧΑΗΛ. Using the same method in this publication, he reconstructs another fragment of the Greek acrostic, which, in the last two odes of the Canon, features the Greek name IΩΑΝΝΗΣ—apparently, the author’s name. This person may tentatively be identified as the archbishop of Ohrid John Kamateros (after 1183–1215).
|Искра Христова - Шомова||(София) – Словото за Въведение Богородично от Теофилакт Български и неговият славянски превод.||40–73||SERMON ON THE ENTRY OF THE THEOTHOKOS INTO THE TEMPLE|
BY THEOPHYLAKTOS OF BULGARIA AND ITS SLAVONIC TRANSLATION
ISKRA HRISTOVA-SHOMOVA (SOFIA)
The first part of the article discusses the content and stylistic features of the Sermon. It is strictly catechetic and contains no epideictic rhetorical turns. Its central theme is the journey of humankind toward the temple and the role of the Christian temple in a human life. The article’s second part focuses on the Slavonic translation of the Sermon. Its earliest extant copy is found in MS no. 107 from the Zograph monastery on Mount Athos and dates from the last quarter of the 14th century. The Slavic translator demonstrates excellent linguistic competence and a good stylistic sense. He uses some rare lexemes registrated also in liturgical books that had been revised in the 14th century in accord with the Jerusalem Typicon. The vocabulary of the Sermon’s Slavonic translation is thus representative of texts written in the 14th century in Bulgaria and the Balkans. The article includes a publication of the Slavonic text according to Zograph 107, with a parallel edition of its Greek original.
|Иван И. Илиев||(София) – Фрагментът О ВИДѣНИИ ѤЖЕ ВИДѣ ПРОРОКЪ ДАНИИЛЪ в славянската ръкописна традиция.||74–95||THE FRAGMENT О ВИДѢНИИ ѤЖЕ ВИДѢ ПРОРОКЪ ДАНИИЛЪ|
IN THE SLAVIC MANUCRIPT TRADITION
IVAN I. ILIEV (SOFIA)
The subject of this article is the origin and dissemination of a short fragment containing the name of the Prophet Daniel. The author examines the fragment’s relation to the complete translation of St. Jerome’s Commentary on the Book of Daniel and reviews the reception of this Old Testament book in Eastern Europe together with its use in Slavonic miscellanies as a new source for literary interpretations. The fragment appears in Slavonic manuscripts of Russian, Western Russian, and Moldovian origin from the 13th through the beginning of the 17th century. It even appears in a document from the collection of the Greek-Catholic Chapter in Przemyśl (Poland), which further testifies to its wide dissemination. Comparisons of this fragment with other works reveal not only discrepancies in the Greek sources’ rendering of Biblical verses, but also variations in the language preferences of the different translators. The text illustrates a variety of compilation techniques for creating medieval miscellanies and points to preferred sources for creating new works. It is a compilation of heterogeneous works aimed to satisfy readers’ curiosity and prepare its audience for the arrival of the Antichrist
|Камелия Христова||(София) – За някои имена на Богородица в Словото за Рождество Богородично от Андрей Критски.||96–121||NAMES OF THE THEOTOKOS IN THE EULOGY OF THE BIRTH OF MARY, MOTHER OF GOD, BY ANDREW OF CRETE|
KAMELIYA HRISTOVA (SOFIA)
The article presents the names of the Theotokos in the Eulogy of the Birth of Mary, Mother of God, by Andrew of Crete according to the copy by Mardarius of Rila (RM 4/5) dating from 1483. The names are presented in the order they appear in the Eulogy. The author analyzes the names from a linguistic point of view and points out their usage in other Slavonic texts and their particular interpretation in the context of the Eulogy. The Greek equivalents to the Slavonic names are provided together with their biblical proof texts. Andrew of Crete used biblical symbols of the Theotokos. He combined symbols from the Old Testament and the New Testament, thus demonstrating their continuity. The Slavonic editor translated the names, but also showed his own preferences. He rarely used Greek terms without translation and prefers to find Slavonic equivalents. The Slavonic Eulogy includes some of the most frequently used Theotokian titles as well as some specific designations which rarely appear as symbolic names for the Mother of God.
|Анета Димитрова||(София) – Как да се издават византийски текстове – един дебат от края на XIX и началото на XX век.||122–139||HOW TO EDIT BYZANTINE TEXTS – A SCHOLARLY DEBATE FROM THE END OF THE 19TH AND THE BEGINNING OF THE 20TH CENTURY|
ANETA DIMITROVA (SOFIA)
This article goes back to the dawn of Byzantine Studies and takes a look at several periodicals and prefaces to editions from the years 1892–1904. One of the main objectives of the article is to follow the scholarly debate between Karl Krumbacher (1856–1909) and Ludwig Radermacher (1867–1952) on the methodology of editing Byzantine texts. From Krumbacher’s criticism and Radermacher’s response one can single out the main issues in dealing with Byzantine manuscripts. And since Krumbacher – the founder of modern Byzantine studies – was a prolific and diligent reviewer, his critical reviews and other writings reveal his stand on this topic. This is the other, more general purpose of the paper – to collect and summarize Krumbacher’s editorial principles. They set a standard that is still in use in medieval studies today. At the same time, even 120 years later, new manuals on editing medieval texts keep emerging, addressing practical as well as theoretical problems.
|Елисавета Мусакова||(София) – Дяк Владко и другите (Ръкописи от Софийския книжовен кръг, XVI в.).||140–155||DJAK VLADKO AND OTHERS|
(MANUSCRIPTS FROM THE SOFIA LITERARY CIRCLE, 16TH CENTURY)
ELISSAVETA MOUSSAKOVA (SOFIA)
This paper, initially read as a public lecture required by the procedure for academic promotion, brings into focus the manuscripts of the sixteenth-century scribe djak Vladko. They have been the subject of a long-term study, whose conclusive results have not yet been published, and which raises methodological questions about combining paleographical, codicological, and art historical approaches.
The scribe’s name is registered in a Psalter and two Gospels, written with the same cryptograph in the latter manuscripts. As none of the three sources has a precise or fully reliable date of origin, the established chronological range for them is unrealistically wide: between the first quarter of the 16th century and 1598. Hence, it is of vital importance to investigate the watermarks of the key witness, the Psalter, which contains the name of the scribe, the place of origin (Sofia), and even the date, albeit written by a later hand and hardly readable. Unfortunately, the manuscript is inaccessible to the author, since it is kept in the Monastery Iveron on Mt. Athos. In the course of paleographical, art historical and, to a lesser degree, codicological analyses, it became evident that the signed Pljevlja Gospels cannot be attributed to djak Vladko – the signature is most probably a copy, although the reason for such “mystification” is unclear. The Serbian scholars who have studied the manuscript have somehow overlooked the name of the real scribe, djak Dimitar, and his relation to djak Vladko remains obscure. To make the story even more complicated, a later note in a sixteenth-century Triodion identifies a priest Vladko as one of its scribes, while the handwriting reveals similarities with the Psalter and with four more manuscripts that belong to the same group. A crucial problem arises: the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of deciding at which point a changeable handwriting, as observed even in the copies signed by Vladko, ceases to be an identifying feature. In the final analysis, all new valuable knowledge about the Sofia literary center notwithstanding, djak Vladko’s work, rather than being confirmed, turns into a provocation: how to define who is ‘the one’ and who are ‘the others’.
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Симонета Пелузи||(Венеция) – Един неизвестен фрагмент от „РАЗЛИЧНЇЕ ПОТРҌБЇИ“ на Яков Крайков във венецианската Biblioteca Marciana и някои проблеми около това издание.||156–166||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=588457|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Марияна Цибранска - Костова||(София) – Vis et Sapientia: Studia in honorem Anisavae Miltenova. Нови извори, интерпретации и подходи в медиевистиката. София: Издателски център „Боян Пенев“, Институт за литература – БАН, 2016. 800 с. ISBN 978-619-7372-00-7.||167–173||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=588463|
|Бойка Мирчева||(София) – San Clemente di Ocrida: Allievo e maestro. Nell’undicesimo centenario del beato transito (916–2016). A cura di Krassimir Stantchev e Maurizia Calusio. Milano–Roma: Biblioteca Ambrosiana – Bulzoni Editore, 2017. 268 pр. (Slavica Ambrosiana VII), ISBN 978-88-6897-078-9.||173–181||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=589994|
|Ана Стойкова||(София) – Агиославика. Проблеми и подходи в изследването на Станиславовия чети-миней (Доклади от едноименната конференция – 21 май 2013 г.). Съставител Диана Атанасова. София: Университетско издателство „Св. Климент Охридски“, 2016. 239 с. ISBN 978-954-07-3920-5.||181–191||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=590001|
|Петко Петков||(София) – Искра Христова-Шомова. Бог бе слово. София: Университетско издателство „Св. Климент Охридски”, 2016. 334 с. ISBN 978-954-07-3901-4.||192–198||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=590002|
|Явор Милтенов||(София) – Анета Димитрова. Златоструят в преводаческата дейност на старобългарските книжовници. София: Авалон, 2016. 456 с. ISBN 978-954-9704-36-5.||198–201||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=590411|
|Ваня Мичева||(София) – Ивона Карачорова. Боянски псалтир. Среднобългарски ръкопис от ХІІІ в. София: Издателство „Чудомира ЕООД“, 2017. 352 с. ISBN 978-619-90778-5-6||202–205||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=590413|
|Климентина Иванова||(София) – Ана Стойкова. Свети Георги Победоносец. Агиографски произведения в южнославянската средновековна традиция. София: Изток‒Запад, 2016. 724 с. ISBN 978-619-152-903-2||205–210||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=590428|
|Димо Чешмеджиев||(Пловдив–София) – Проф. Иван Божилов (1940–2016).||211–220||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=590430|
|Аделина Германова||(София) – Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 2016 г.||221–258||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=590437|
Кн. 53-54 (2016)
|ПРОФ. АНАТОЛИЙ А. ТУРИЛОВ НА 65 ГОДИНИ|
|Красимир Станчев||(Рим) – От археографията до културната история||11–19||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=476753|
|***||Публикации на проф. Анатолий А. Турилов за 1979–2016 г.||20–61||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=476755|
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Климентина Иванова||(София) – Ръкопис Sl. 156 от Библиотеката на Румънската академия и мястото му в текстовата традиция на триодните панигирици||62–81||MS. SL. 156 FROM THE LIBRARY OF THE ROMANIAN ACADEMY AND ITS PLACE |
IN THE TEXTUAL TRADITION OF PENTECOSTAL PANEGYRICS
KLIMENTINA IVANOVA (SOFIA)
Ms. Sl. 156 (RA156) is an extensive Pentecostal Panegyric which includes texts from Holy Week through the Sunday of All Saints. The manuscript is incomplete, but its largest lacuna has been filled up from a miscellany of fragments in the collection of P. A. Shchukin, the State Historical Museum in Moscow. The fifth fragment of Shchuk 369 (Shchuk 369/V), located on Fol. 56r-68v according to the general foliation of the textual body, comprises folia that have been extracted from two different parts of a single jer manuscript. The first group of texts is related to Thomas Sunday (10 fol.), the second to Ascension (3 fol.). The manuscript dates from the 1320s-1330s. It has no jers and was written on Mt. Athos, then evidently transported to Romania by Paisii Velichkovski. This codex reveals a notable correlation between the orthography and the arrangement of the texts within each cycle of feasts, which sets it apart from other known South Slavic panegyrica and suggests that there could have been more than one protograph of the Pentecostal Panegyric.
|Ян Страдомски||(Краков) – Произведния триодного цикла Климента Охридского в славянских рукописях, хранящихся в Польше||82–100||WORKS BY CLEMENT OF OHRID FROM SLAVIC MANUSCRIPTS IN POLAND|
JAN STRADOMSKI (KRAKÓW)
Church Slavonic manuscript collections in Poland hold over forty copies of homilies and encomia traditionally attributed to Clement of Ohrid. Although scholars have known about these copies for years, they have not been subjected yet to detailed linguistic and textual studies. The analysis of the works from the Lenten and Paschal cycles reveals that part of the copies retain old linguistic features – spelling and lexical units – from South Slavonic manuscripts which, no doubt, were still in use in areas of Western Russia during the 14th–16th centuries. As a rule, Clement’s works were faithfully copied, but there are occasionally examples of textual interventions that evince editorial activity by local scribes and compilers. The source material confirms the opinion that, within the Polish-Lithuanian state, Russian Orthodoxy was actively drawing from the South Slavonic literary tradition.
|Мая Петрова - Танева||(София) – Житие на св. имп. Теофана от дякон Николай: Издание на среднобългарския превод||101–168||THE LIFE OF ST THEOPHANO THE EMPRESS BY NICHOLAS THE DEACON:|
EDITION OF THE MIDDLE-BULGARIAN TRANSLATION
MAYA PETROVA-TANEVA (SOFIA)
The article presents the full text of the Life of St Theophano the Empress, the first wife of the Byzantine Emperor Leo VI the Wise (866‒912), attributed to an otherwise unknown author called “Nicholas, Deacon of the Great Church of St. Lazaros, Bishop of Drynopolis” in the title of the text. The Greek original of this Life is unknown. This text is now preserved in a few Bulgarian, Serbian and Moldovian manuscripts, dating from the end of the 14th to the beginning of the 16th centuries. Its Slavonic translation has been made during the Middle-Bulgarian period, most probably in Tărnovo, as a result of the dissemination St Theophano’s cult after the transfer of some of her relics to the Bulgarian capital.
The full text of the Life of St Theophano the Empress is published according to its copy preserved in the Zagreb miscellany from 1469 written and compiled by Vladislav the Grammarian. Variant readings are given according to the four other existing MSS witnessing the same translation.
|Марчелло Гардзанити||(Флоренция) – Слово о местах святых в Иерусалиме: Значение и функция паломнической литературы в Бдинском сборнике||169–184||DISCOURSE ON THE HOLY SITES IN JERUSALEM: MEANING AND FUNCTION |
OF THE PILGRIM ACCOUNT IN THE BDIN MISCELLANY
MARCELLO GARZANITI (FLORENCE)
Discourse on the Holy Sites in Jerusalem is the first pilgrim account of Bulgarian origin and constitutes the most important evidence of the pilgrim ideal and practices in the context of the Bulgarian Kingdom during the second half of 14th century. The narrative generally follows Greek and Slavonic models of short pilgrim accounts, mentioning only the most notable sites and events related to the Holy Land. The text is well integrated into the structure of the Bdin Miscellany (1359) and appears to be the answer of the new Bulgarian capital Vidin to the strong pilgrim tradition that had been focused on the Turnovo cult of St. Paraskeva.
|Анна-Мария Тотоманова||(София) – Ян Хус и Константин Костенечки: някои паралели||185–194||JAN HUS AND CONSANTINE COSTENEČKI – SOME PARALLELS|
ANNA-MARIA TOTOMANOVA (SOFIA)
This paper proves that Jan Hus and Constantine Kostenečki—two refromers of the early 15th c. whose activities seem to be rather similar at first sight—had completely different approaches to the language question. Jan Hus was a pioneer in his fight to introduce the Czech language as a language of the Holy Scriptures, whereas Constantine Kostenečki strived to reform a written language with more than a five-century long history. Unlike Hus, who according to the extant sources hardly knew anything about Serbia, Constantine had enough information about the Hussite movement and the political situation in the Czech lands, since his sovereign, despot Stefan Lazarevič, was a vassal to the Hungarian King, Holy Roman Emperor Sigizmund, and took part in the anti-Hussite military campaign of 1421. And even though Constantine created the norms of Resava School which for centuries influenced the Orthodox written tradition while Hus’s ideas came to fruition only after his death, Constantine Kostenečki remained deeply rooted in the Middle Ages whereas Jan Hus came to be seen as a precursor of the Modern Age.
|Евелина Джевиецка||(София) – Модерно и популярно: За юбилейния образ на св. Методий в българската култура през ХХ век||195–214||MODERN AND POPULAR: ON THE JUBILEE IMAGE OF ST. METHODIUS |
IN 20TH-CENTURY BULGARIAN CULTURE
EWELINA DRZEWIECKA (SOFIA)
The article analyzes the image of St. Methodius as it was documented in the Cyrillo-Methodian jubilee publications during the 20th century, understood here as “formative texts” (according to Jan Assman). The main question is why the figure of the older brother is not a site of memory. A cursory review of the material confirms that the interpretation of St. Methodius is always dependent on the current situation, but it also reveals that, regardless of the changing socio-political conditions and worldviews, he remains solely the mission’s facilitator. The article argues that there cannot be an autonomous place for St. Methodius because, in the cultural memory, the brothers’achievement is reduced to the creation of the alphabet. As an assistant dealing with church affairs, he does not fit in the (post) Enlightenment (modern) model of man as a genius artist (as does his brother). In conclusion, the author assets that the secularization of the Cyrillo-Methodian cult manifests itself on a deeper level: it is a modern cult par excellence, since its emphasis is not on catechization but culture, and on national culture in particular.
|Александър Куюмджиев||(София) – Критични бележки върху хипотезите за датирането, функцията и ктиторството на църквата „Св. Архангели“ в Бачковския манастир||215–246||CRITICAL NOTES ON HYPOTHESES ABOUT THE DATE, FUNCTION AND KTITORSHIP |
OF THE HOLY ARCHANGELS CHURCH AT BACHKOVO MONASTERY
ALEXANDER KUYUMDZHIEV (SOFIA)
This article reconsiders existing hypotheses about the function and ktitorship of the Holy Archangels Church at Bachkovo Monastery. It proposes a new hypothesis that the church was built during the time of Gregory Pakourianos or shortly after his death in 1086 in order to “serve” the katholikon, i.e. to support the daily services performed at the main monastery church. The Church of the Holy Archangels was not impressive, had no commemorative function, and was not dedicated by a famous donor to an “exceptional” goal. It belongs to the type of “auxiliary” churches erected in front of monastery katholikons for the explicit purpose of supplementing their daily services. The Church of the Holy Archangels was not originally a two-story building; its current design is the cumulative result of constructions at various times. It was built on a pre-existing colonnade linking the monastery katholikon with the western portico – possibly the site of the monastery’s oldest refectory. In this context, the fresco of Tsar Ivan Alexander, positioned on the eastern part of the northwest pillar beneath the church is not specifically related to this church, but represents more broadly the Tsar’s sponsorship of the whole monastery. In fact, the image was initially located on one of the pillars of the western monastery portico, at the end of the colonnade beneath the Holy Archangels Church, which colonnade had a representative role and was probably a passage – the main way to access the katholikon from west. The portrait of the Nemanjićes on the western gate of Studenica Monastery presents another case of positioning a donor of such rank near a monastery entrance.
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Петко Петков, Андрей Бояджиев||(София) – За една приписка от Зографския манастир||247–252||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=476776|
|Георги Н. Николов||(София) – Историята и културата на Самуилова България в българската научна книжнина от 2014–2016 г.||253–283||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=476782|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Искра Христова - Шомова||(София) – Явор Милтенов. Златоструй: Старобългарски хомилетичен свод, създаден по инициатива на българския цар Симеон. Текстологическо и извороведско изследване. София: „Авалон“, 2013. 551 с. ISBN 978-954-9704-31-0||284–291||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=476785|
|Маргарита Куюмджиева||(София) – Елка Бакалова. Култът към реликвите и чудотворните икони. Традиции и съвременност. София, Издателство на БАН „Проф. Марин Дринов“, 2016. 194 с. ISBN 978-954-322-836-2||292–298||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=476788|
|Евелина Джевиецка||(София) – Jan Stradomski. Rękopisy i teksty. Studia nad cerkiewnosłowiańską kulturą literacką Wielkiego księstwa Litewskiego i Korony Polskiej do końca XVI wieku. Kraków: Scriptum, 2014 (Krakowsko-Wileńskie Studia Slawistycznie, 10). 368 ss. ISSN 1734-042X||299–305||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=476792|
|Иванка Гергова||(София) – Александър Куюмджиев. Стенописите в главната църква на Рилския манастир. София, Институт за изследване на изкуствата, БАН, 2015. 720 с. ISBN 978-954-8594-39-4||306–308||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=476794|
|Ирина Кузидова||(София) – Диана Атанасова. Реторика на историчното. Деяние на св. Никола в южнославянски контекст. София, Фондация „Литературен вестник“, 2015. 222 с. ISBN 978-954-9602-45-6||308–313||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=476796|
|Татяна Славова||(София) – Татяна Мострова. Словообразувателни тенденции в развитието на българския книжовен език през Средновековието (Кирило-Методиевите традиции в паметници от XIV в.). София, 2015. 272 с. (Кирило-Методиевски студии, 24). ISSN 0205-2253||314–316||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=476798|
|Татяна Илиева||(София) – Международна научна конференция в Загреб, посветена на проблемите на църковнославянската и хърватската историческа лексикография||317–327||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=476801|
|Ирина Кузидова, Диана Атанасова||(София) – Проф. д.ф.н. Донка Петканова (1930–2016)||328–329||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=476802|
|Анета Димитрова||(София) – Проф. д-р d.h.c. Ангелина Минчева (1933–2016)||330–331||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=476803|
|Татяна Илиева||(София) – Д-р Емилие Блахова (1931–2016)||332–335||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=476804|
|Аделина Германова||(София) – Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 2015 г.||336–378||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=476805|
Кн. 52 (2015)
|ПРОФ. ФРАНСИС ТОМСЪН НА 80 ГОДИНИ|
|Явор Милтенов||(София) – Научните приноси на професор Франсис Томсън в светлината на методологическите проблеми пред палеославистиката||11–23||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=366160|
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Анна Влаевска - Станчева||(Пиза–Рим) – Св. Методий в латинската небогослужебна традиция до началото на Новото време||24–60||ST. METHODIUS IN THE LATIN NON-LITURGICAL TRADITION |
BEFORE THE MODERN PERIOD
ANNA VLAEVSKA-STANTCHEVA (PISA–ROME)
The present publication continues to explore images of St. Methodius in the Western (Catholic) tradition, a topic already addressed in an article by K. Stantchev and A. Vlaevska-Stantcheva (see Kirilo-Metodievski studii 17, 2007: 687–701). It focused on how the person of Methodius is represented in the Western European, predominantly non-Slavic non-liturgical tradition from the 16th through the beginning of the 17th century. The lower chronological boundary of this study is the time of Emperor Charles VI (1355–1378), who officially added SS. Cyril and Methodius to the patrons of the Czech Kingdom in 1347. The article traces mentions of Methodius in works by the chroniclers of his court, Giovanni Marignoli and Přibík Pulkava. Special attention is paid to the little-known Historia Bohemica by Enea Silvio Piccolomini (1405–1464, Pope Pius II 1458–1464), which introduces Methodius-related motives previously known only in the Czech tradition into non-Slavic Western historiography. In this connection, the article examines works by several notable representatives of Italian and German Humanism, such as Raffaele Maffei (also known as Raphaele Volaterano), Johannes Nauclerus, Johann Georg Turmair (Johannes Aventinus), Giovanni Battista Cipelli (Battista Egnazio), and Girolamo Bardi. It acknowledges that the figure of Methodius appears mostly sporadically, albeit in works of various genres, and follows the evolution of his representation from the middle of the 16th century onward, from the historiographical texts of Johannes Dubravius and Marcin Kromer (Martin Cromer) to the Ecclesiastical Annals by Cardinal Cesare Baronio, which was largely responsible for confirming the Western European image of Methodius as an Apostle to the Slavs. The last part of the publication focuses on the image of Methodius in Benedictine historiographic and hagiographic literature from the end of the 14th through the middle of the 17th century, claiming that this tradition has its own independent development and serves as a “mirror” for the evolution of Methodius’s image in the non-Slavic West.
|Анисава Милтенова||(София) – Послание на анахорет Марк до Никола (CPG 6094) в старобългарски превод||61–84||THE EPISTLE TO NICHOLAS BY MARK THE ASCETIC (CPG 6094) |
IN AN OLD BULGARIAN TRANSLATION
ANISSAVA MILTENOVA (SOFIA)
St. Mark the Ascetic (4th century) is one of the most famous Egyptian anchorites. His writings are often included in monastic collections in both the Byzantine and Slavic traditions. The Epistle to Nicholas is particularly popular because it explicates the rules for an ascetic life. The earliest Old Church Slavonic translation dates from the 10th century and is preserved in a miscellany from the Hilandar monastery No. 382 from the 13th–14th century. While part of the corresponding folia in the Hilendar codex has been lost, MSS 72 (14th c.) and 310 (16th c.) from the Library of the Rumanian Academy (Bucharest), which go back to the same group of manuscripts, allow us to reconstruct the archetype. The selective translation adapted from the Greek original illustrates well the work of the medieval Bulgarian bookman. In the 14th century, a new version of the same text was created in Bulgaria, as attested in MSS Hlud 237 and Vienna 42, which was the result of a new collation of the Old Bulgarian translation with the Greek text. The Slavonic tradition of this text is an example for the existence of multiple translations and versions of one and the same work in old Slavic florilegia.
|Станка Петрова||(София) – Канони за Безплътните сили в славянските минеи||85–116||CANONS FOR THE BODILESS POWERS IN THE SLAVONIC MENAIA|
STANKA PETROVA (SOFIA)
The atricle addresses the canons for the Bodiless Powers that appear in the Menaion for the feasts under November 8 (Synaxis of Archangel Michael and the Other Bodiless Powers), September 6 (The Miracle of Archangel Michael at Chonae), March 26 (Synaxis of the Archangel Gabriel), and July 13 (Synaxis of the Archangel Gabriel). We examine the Slavonic translations of these Greek works made in a Slavic milieu and the transmission of their manuscripts. Special attention is paid to the only two original Slavonic canons that are known to scholars to date: the anonymous Просвѣщьи древле ѹмꙑ and the canon by Constantine of Preslav, Припадаѭща мѧ боже приими щедротами си. The data for each individual work – its manuscript tradition, the extent of preservation and substitution of strophes from other canons work – allow us to draw conclusions about the time when the Greek canons were introduced into the Slavonic context and the way the original works were disseminated immediately after their composition work – a time from which we have no direct manuscript record.
|Диана Атанасова||(София) – Преводи и книжни контексти. Деяние на св. Никола (Praxis de stratilatis) и южнославянските календарни сборници||117–142||TRANSLATIONS AND BOOK CONTEXTS:|
PRAXIS DE STRATILATIS AND THE SOUTH SLAVIC CALENDRICAL MANUSCRIPTS
DIANA ATANASOVA (SOFIA)
Praxis de stratilatis is a story about a miracle of St. Nicholas who rescued three generals from death. The text was translated not once but twice at the dawn of Old Bulgarian literature. My research aims to explore the earliest translation of Praxis de stratilatis produced in a South Slavic milieu. The main objective of the study is to identify the Greek prototype of the Slavonic version and to trace the textual tradition of this account in the South Slavic context. The study is based upon the hypothesis that the two translations were affected by the introduction of specific types of calendar collections. In this respect, the earliest translation of Praxis de stratilatis was introduced into the repertoire with the emergence of a collection known in the Byzantine tradition as panegyrikomartyrology – an assemblage of texts that pertain to both the movable and immovable Orthodox feasts. Witnesses of the earliest translation of Praxis de stratilatis date from the 14th through the 17th centuries. Despite the large temporal scope, however, individual manuscripts do not show significant differences or other traces of deliberate editing or interventions. This gives us reason to believe that the Slavic version of the collection panegyrikomartyrology was not reproduced as a whole, which would account for the fact that the texts, although they were copied in the later manuscript tradition, remained relatively unchanged.
|Лора Тасева||(София) – Параметри на преводаческия избор в един атонски книжовен кръг от 60-те години на XІV в||143–176||PARAMETERS OF THE TRANSLATION CHOICES |
IN AN ATHONITE LITERARY CIRCLE OF THE 1360S
LORA TASSEVA (SOFIA)
The subject of this study is data about the individual styles of two Athonite men of letters of the 1360s. The first translated Gregory Palamas’ First and Second Logoi apodeiktikoi; the other translated Polemics against the Latins and Syntagma by Barlaam of Calabria. Our main source – Codex 88 of the Visoki Dečani monastery – is a translators’ working copy. This study compares the approaches of the two translators through a quantita tive analysis of the originals and their translations, searching for equivalences at the lexical level (additions and repeatedly translated words, periphrastic, analytical and double translations), at the level of word-formation tendencies, morphological changes, and lexical synonymy (both quantitative and qualitative). The systemati cally organized data are evaluated not only in isolation, but also in the context of other translated works from the same literary center, both contemporaneous with the target works and belonging to earlier periods. The facts presented in the article confirm that the governing principles of the 14th- century Athonite translation circle are relatively uniform, while revealing considerable differences in the personal translation technique of the two bookmen. Barlaam of Calabria’s translator is more independent from his original in choosing qualitative Slavonic lexical equivalents, resorting to lexemes without any Greek parallel, duplication of prepositions and content parts of speech, and pleonastic translations. By contrast, the translator of Gregory Palamas demonstrates greater freedom in choosing Slavonic correlates: his translations deviate more often from the morphological categories in the original, offer a greater number of Slavonic variants for the same Greek lexeme, and use more collocations to render two-stem Greek words. Each of the two translators prefers different Slavonic equivalents for particular Greek lexemes, especially those in the terminological sphere. Some of the variants stand out against the background of correlates traditionally used in Athonite theological translations and could, therefore, be seen as features of the translators’ individual styles.
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|свещ. Козма Поповски||(София) – Зографската електронна научно-изследователска библиотека в Софийския университет „Св. Климент Охридски“||177–182||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=366178|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Регина Койчева||(София) – Мария Йовчева. Старобългарският служебен миней. С., Изд. „Боян Пенев“, 2014. 390 с. ISBN 978-954-8712-90-3||183–194||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=366182|
|Красимир Станчев||(Рим) – Ольга Б. Страхова. Глаголическая часть Реймского евангелия: история, язык, текст. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2014 (Palaeoslavica. Supplementum, 3), 261 рр. ISSN 1070-5465||194–199||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=366185|
|Аделина Германова||(София) – Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 2013–2014 г.||200–262||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=366189|
Кн. 51 (2015)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Светлана Куюмджиева||(София) – Имало ли е старобългарски Трополог?||11–38||WAS THERE AN OLD BULGARIAN TROPOLOGION?|
SVETLANA KUJUMDZIEVA (SOFIA)
The liturgical hymnographic book Tropologion was in use until about the end of the 12th century: in the 13th century, sources with such a designation are rare. In its classical complete form, this book contains hymnographic repertory for immovable and moveable feasts that are arranged sequentially according to the church calendar, for the common services and for the eight mode consequences. The movable feasts are included between the immovable ones after the Hypapante on February 2.
While there is no book designated as Tropologion among extant Old Slavic books, and among Old Bulgarian books in particular, it does not mean that such a book was not known during the early Old Bulgarian era. We can assume that the earliest extant Old Slavic (Old Bulgarian) books reflect a later stage of development of liturgical books, so that the Tropologion precedes the formation of the Menaia, Triodia and Oktoechoi, in which significant portions of it were preserved at a time when the book itself was already out of use.
One of the basic criteria for identifying a book as a Tropologion is its structure. The availability of a continuous sequantial arrangement according to the liturgical calendar, where the moveable are included after the Hypapante and in between immovable feasts, is typical of the earliest hymnographic books at least until about the mid-10th century. The earliest Slavic manuscript that meets this criterion is the famous Iliya’s book, the oldest Russian hymnographic codex. Scholars agree that its protograph is of Bulgarian origin. This study shows that the nucleus of Iliya’s book was formed at the time of Ss. Cyril and Methodius. Hence, the protograph of the book goes back to the 9th-10th centuries. The earliest extant copy is from the 11th-12th centuries.
After the Hypapante in Iliya’s book, there is an indication for the beginning of Lent. This peculiarity clearly shows the copyist’s intention to arrange services in an uninterrupted order, as in the book of the Tropologion. The indication for Lent in Iliya’s book remains unique – it is the only such indication known in the Slavic manuscript tradition and one of the most convincing arguments that the Old Bulgarian protograph of Iliya’s book might have been a Tropologion: the hymnographic book of the Tropologion was most widely spread throughout the Eastern world, including Southern Italy, between the 7th and the 12th centuries.
One more early Slavic manuscript is defined as a Topologion – the Glagolitic fragment Sinai 4/N dated from the 11th-12th centuries and also linked to the Cyrilo-Methodian era.
Based on the manuscripts discussed, the author concludes that the hymnographic book used by Cyril and Methodius in their worship was most probably the Tropologion and that this book was known in Bulgaria during the early Old Bulgarian period.
|Светлана Полякова||(Лиссабон) – Русская Триодь: на перекрестке традиций||39–53||THE RUSSIAN TRIODION: AT THE CROSSROADS OF TRADITIONS|
SVETLANA POLJAKOVA (LISBON)
This article analyses two particular Russian znamenny manuscripts from the Moscow Historical Museum—the Synodal Triodion 319 and the Voskresensky Pentecostarion 27, both written in the last third of the 12th century in Novgorod—as integral parts in the formation of a unified tradition. The analysis of the codices’ content and notational peculiarities reveals traces of five sources: three major ones directly used by the scribes, and two supplementary ones.
The oldest prototype (probably from the 10th century) appears to be the same Greek Triodion that was used as the main source for the first Triodion translated into Russian. This source did not contain the prosomoia by St. Joseph in its Lenten part. The second source was most likely a notated Russian Sticherarion, and the third a znamenny Heirmologion. The fourth source must have been a Slavonic Triodion, since the GIM-set contains hymnography by Konstantine Preslavsky. Finally, the fifth source must have been the Greek Studite codex, from which the Lenten prosomoia by St. Joseph and some anonymous hymns were introduced into the GIM-set. The author argues that this Greek source could be indirectly connected with some Greek Triodia from the Grottaferrata collection.
|Искра Христова - Шомова||(София) – Акатистът на Пресвета Богородица и Службата за Благовещение||54–74||THE AKATHISTOS OF THE THEOTOKOS AND THE OFFICE OF THE ANNUNCIATION|
ISKRA HRISTOVA-SHOMOVA (SOFIA)
The Akathistos of Theotokos is closely related to the feast of the Annunciation: it was sung on this day for many centuries and it was inscribed in the kondakaria under the date 25 March. Nowadays the Akathistos is included in the Triodia books on the fifth Saturday of the Great Lent, but its first two stanzas (the kukulion and the first oikos) are used in the Office of the Annunciation as kondakion and oikos. The third kondakion of the Akathistos was also included in the Office of the Annunciation in two Bulgarian manuscripts: the early twelfth century Dragota Menaion and the Ochrid Menaion from 1435. Most probably, this is a trace of an old practice of including the first three kondakia and oikoi in this office. The entire text of the Akathistos is incorporated after the sixth song of the canon in the Office of the Annunciation in an Old Russian office menaion for March, kept in RGADA, in the collection of the Synodal Typography, under no. 106. In addition, the article provides a comparison among the texts of the stanzas included in the Office of the Annunciation in twelve Slavonic (Bulgarian, Serbian and Russian) menaia, three Bulgarian triodia, and one Russian kondakarion. The manuscripts divide into two groups, which reflect two different translations of those texts. The first consists of four South Slavic manuscripts: the Dragota Menaion, the thirteenth century Festal Menaion Hludov 166, the fourteenth century Festal Menaion Sinai 25, and the Ochrid Menaion. Most probably the earliest translation of the hymnographic units was represented in those four Festal menaia. The second group consists of the other menaia and the triodia. Presumably, these menaia contained the secondary version of the Office, in which the stanzas from the Akathistos were revised according to the text in the Triodion.
|Венета Савова||(София) – Св. Алексий Човек Божи, св. Йоан Каливит и каноните на св. Йосиф Песнописец за тях||75–116||ST. ALEXIUS, THE MAN OF GOD, ST. JOHN CALYBITЕ, AND THEIR CANONS |
BY ST. JOSEPH THE HYMNOGRAPHER
VENETA SAVOVA (SOFIA)
The article explores the similarities between two saints – St. Alexius, the Man of God, and St. John Calybitе. It presents a brief history of their hagiographic traditions East and West, and their veneration among the Orthodox Slavs. The article focuses on their respective Canons written by Joseph the Hymnographer—the two most popular hymnographic texts about the saints in Slavic milieu. Through a comparative textological analysis, the author highlights both the peculiarities in form and content of each work and their similarities in building the characters of these typologically similar saints.
|Евелина Минева||(Атина) – Византийското пространно житие за св. Петка Епиватска (BHG3 1420z) като извор за химнотворчеството за светицата||117–130||THE BYZANTINE VITA OF SAINT PARASKEVA OF EPIVATES (BHG3 1420z) |
AS A SOURCE FOR THE SAINT’S HYMNOLOGY
EVELINA MINEVA (ATHENS)
By comparing the text of the Byzantine vita of St. Paraskeva of Epivates (BHG3 1420z) and the canon from the oldest Slavonic office for the saint from the 13th c., this article establishes that the canon in question (whose Byzantine original has not been found) was composed on the model of the hagiographic text. The episodes from the saint’s life are introduced almost in the same sequence as in the Vita and sometimes even use similar phrases. Such correspondences suggest that the canon is a translation from Byzantine Greek, and that the Byzantine vita here analyzed was probably the one brought and translated into Slavonic together with the encomium and the hymns for St. Paraskeva at the time of the transfer of her relics from Kallikrateia to the Bulgarian capital Tarnovo in the second quarter of 13th c. The Slavonic translation of the Vita was probably the basis for the composition of the oldest Slavonic canon. Unlike the oldest Slavonic canon, the extant Byzantine canon, written most likely in the 14th c., and its Slavonic translation both omit important hagiographic episodes and differ from the Vita in some details. These differences indicate either that, in the meantime, the vita had been shortened and revised or that it had lost its popularity after the 13th c. This assumption is confirmed by the fact that the early Byzantine hagiographic text has a very limited manuscript tradition: it is documented only in two fourteenth-century codices and its Slavonic translation has not yet been discovered.
|Марияна Цибранска - Костова||(София) – Старозаветни ексцерпти с юридическа функция: текстова история и културен код||131–156||OLD TESTAMENT EXCERPTS WITH JURIDICAL FUNCTION: |
TEXT HISTORY AND CULTURAL CODE
MARIYANA TSIBRANSKA-KOSTOVA (SOFIA)
The article aims to trace how the Old Testament compilation known in the Byzantine juridical literature as Νόμος Μοσαϊκός (Nomos Mosaïcos), or Moses’ Law (Laws), functions in the Slavonic translation, through what manuscript sources it was disseminated, and how it differs from other Slavonic translations of Old Testament books made for liturgical or non-liturgical (individual reading) purposes. The analysis is focused on the earliest known copy of this compilation from the Ilovik Kormchaia of 1262, which reproduces St. Sava’s Zakonopravilo (Legal Code) and is known as the South-Slavonic Kormchaia with commentary. In this fundamental compendium for all Balkan Slavs, Nomos Mosaïcos appears as Chapter 48, in the portion of the manuscript written by the copyist priest Bogdan, on leaves 249б–255а. Comparison of the Slavonic text to approximately 40 Byzantine copies from the 11th through the 16th centuries reveals two main typological peculiarities. First, the translation and text history of Nomos Mosaïcos exhibit in Slavic milieu an independence similar to that of other, secular, Byzantine legal texts (e. g., the Ecloga, Procheiros nomos, Nomos Georgikos). Second, it was copied mostly within the Kormchaia, which became for the Slavs the natural context for reproducing Old Testament normative legal texts. Its presence in the Kormchaia culturally codes not only the prestige of Old Testament law as eternal model and norm and the influence of the Greek prototype upon the Slavonic translator(s) (the closest Byzantine counterpart is Vat.gr.1167), but also the need to establish a legal basis for the new Serbian Archbishopric of 1219-1220. On the other hand, the fact that a copy of Nomos Mosaïcos appears in the Ilovik Kormchaia allows us to explore the tradition of Slavonic Old Testament excerpts back to the 13th c,, almost a century prior to the date of the first extant Slavonic translation of the Pentateuch.
|Явор Милтенов||(София) – Нови данни за Поучението за спасението на душата, приписвано на Черноризец Петър||157–188||SERMON ON THE SALVATION OF THE SOUL, |
ATTRIBUTED TO PETER THE MONK: NEW DATA
YAVOR MILTENOV (SOFIA)
The Sermon On the Salvation Of the Soul, attributed to the 10th c. Bulgarian writer Peter the Monk (Peter chernorizets) is poorly attested in the Slavonic manuscript tradition. It is evidenced in only two Russian miscellanies dating from 14th and 16th c., respectively.
This paper identifies a witness of a second branch in the tradition of the text, under № 54 in the longer redaction of the Chrysorrhoas (Zlatostrui) collection. Analysis shows that a number of innovations were introduced in this version. It features a new title, an introduction and conclusion, segmentation into three parts, abridgement, and various editorial interventions. Even though this branch is independent from the first one, it could still contribute to the reconstruction of the archetype, especially since the text variant featured in the Slavic Synaxarion (Prolog) clearly derives from it.
The study also reveals a Byzantine source for a passage in the Sermon On the Salvation Of the Soul, identifies other passages that might have Greek counterparts, and offers some lexical observations on the Slavonic text. Both versions of the Slavonic text are published side by side in the appendix.
|Татяна Илиева||(София) – Терминологичната лексика в Йоан-Екзарховия превод на „Богословието“ – статистическа характеристика||189–196||TERMINOLOGICAL VOCABULARY IN THE TRANSLATION OF DE ORTHODOXA FIDE BY JOHN THE EXARCH –|
TATYANA ILIEVA (SOFIA)
The present study is an attempt to apply statistical methods to analyzing the terminological vocabulary of Old Bulgarian on the basis of lexical material from John the Exarch’s translation of De Orthodoxa Fide. The author uses tables to present a glottometric characterization of the lexical material under study. The article concludes by comparing its results to data from other Old Bulgarian written monuments that have already been the object of similar studies.
|Евгения Кожухарова||(София) – Стефан Кожухаров в семейството си||197–202||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=341279|
|Гергана Николова, Лили Щамлер||(София) – ХХІІ Интердисциплинарен колегиум по старобългарска литература и култура в памет на акад. Петър Динеков и в чест на 80-годишнината от рождението на ст.н.с. Стефан Кожухаров||203–210||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=341282|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Мария Йовчева||(София) – Искра Христова - Шомова. Служебният апостол в славянската ръкописна традиция. Том 2. Изследване на синаксарите. София: Университетско издателство „Св. Климент Охридски“, 2012. 1133 с. ISBN 978-954-07-3330-2||211–224||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=341288|
|Елена Узунова||(София) – Вася Велинова, Нина Вутова. Славянски ръкописи, кирилски печатни книги и периодични издания. Том 1. София, Национален исторически музей, Уникарт ЕООД, 2013. 456 с. ISBN 978-954-2953-26-5||224–230||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=341289|
|Евелина Джевиецка||(София) – Święci Konstantyn-Cyryl i Metody – Patroni Wschodu i Zachodu. Tom 1. Apostołowie Słowian w dawnej Europie. Tom 2. Apostołowie Słowian w nowożytnej Europie. Opracował zespół pod redakcją Aleksandra Naumowa. Kraków: Collegium Columbinum, 2013. 254 s., 338 s. ISBN 978-83-7624-035-0||230–234||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=341290|
Кн. 49-50 (2014)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Хайнц Миклас||(Вена) – Синайский глаголический псалтырь Димитрия||11–27||THE SINAITIC GLAGOLITIC PSALTER OF DEMETRIUS|
HEINZ MIKLAS (VIENNA)
The article reviews the latest results from the analysis of the Old Church Slavonic Glagolitic Psalter Sin. slav. 3/N, which was discovered in 1975 at St. Catherine’s Monastery and named after its prominent user and, possibly, last private owner, Demetrius of Sinai. Attached to the article is the text of the manuscript’s first page, containing the beginning of the prayer-cycle and an intertwined Graeco-Latino-Glagolitic abecedarium that was added by Demetrius on empty folia after the Psalter’s completion. On the basis of this and similar additions to other Sinaitic Glagolitic manuscripts, we can hypothesize that their author was a monk-priest (Glagolash) from the Western Balkans, who migrated to Sinai in an attempt to preserve and defend the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition.
|Явор Милтенов||(София) – Общите пасажи между колекцията Златоструй и Княжеския изборник||28–45||COMMON PASSAGES IN ZLATOSTRUY AND THE KNYAZHIY IZBORNIK|
YAVOR MILTENOV (SOFIA)
Zlatostruy and the so-called Kniazhiy (or Kniazheskiy) Izbornik (the Princely Florilegium) are among the most interesting and important Old Bulgarian anthologies. The former is a collection of more than 120 Chrysostomian homilies that served as a source for miscellanies of stable content (known as “redactions of Zlatostruy”) and strongly influenced the Lenten homiliaries and other early florilegia. The latter is a compilation from compilations, as William Veder defined it, which means a selection from various previously made and subsequently revised Slavonic translations from Greek.
Both Zlatostruy and the Knyazhiy Izbornik have much in common: time and place of origin, a connection with the Bulgarian royal court during its early history, similarities in terms of structure and source adaptation. Last, but not least there are direct textual correspondences between them. The article compares the common passages. This analysis leads to the conclusion that the collections under consideration do not depend on one another, but transmit a larger proto-collection containing translations, excerpts and gnomai.
|Маргарита Живова||(Пиза) – Папа Григорий І Великий (Двоеслов) в богослужебной и агиографической традиции Slavia Orthodoxa||46–68||POPE ST. GREGORY DIALOGUS IN THE LITURGICAL AND HAGIOGRAPHIC TRADITIONS OF SLAVIA ORTHODOXA|
MARGARITA ZHIVOVA (PISA)
The article examines the historical development of the cult of St. Gregory Dialogus [or: St. Gregory the Dialogist], Pope of Rome, in the Orthodox Slavic tradition through analysis of the cult’s liturgical evidence. It studies in detail various hagiographic texts about the saint, with a focus on the relationship between his Vita and the Synaxarion (Prolog) Vita of St. Gregory. By comparing the longer version in the Simple Prologue with the Life from the reading Menоlogion (čet’i-minejnoe žitie) the author examines how the hagiographical texts of this version were compiled and edited, reconfirming the hypothesis that the longer version of the Simple Prolog, while traditionally called “second”, was in fact created before the short one. Furthermore, she offers enough evidence to suggest that this version is an original medieval East Slavic work.
|Мая Петрова - Танева||(София) – Търновският надпис на Иван Асен ІІ, св. 40 „добропобедни“ мъченици и някои аспекти на култа им във Византия и в средновековна България||69–96||THE TĂRNOVO INSCRIPTION OF TSAR IVAN ASEN II, THE FORTY MARTYRS OF SEBASTEIA |
AND SOME ASPECTS OF THEIR CULT IN BYZANTIUM AND IN MEDIEVAL BULGARIA
MAYA PETROVA-TANEVA (SOFIA)
The triumph in the battle of Klokotnica in 1230, a great success for Tsar Ivan Asen II, made Bulgaria a dominant power in the European South-East. This seemingly improbable Bulgarian victory turned out to be so complete as to appear miraculous to its contemporaries. Byzantine sources explain it as a just punishment of Epirus’ Emperor Theodore Komnenos, who breached the peace treaty with Ivan Asen II and invaded Bulgarian territories with an enormous army. Yet the only Bulgarian source for this encounter, the Tărnovo inscription, attributes Ivan Asen’s victory to the help of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste. In modern historical writings this evidence is unanimously interpreted as an indication that the battle took place on 9 March, the feast date of the saints. It is very likely, however, that the mention of the Forty Martyrs in the inscription has not only chronological, but also ideological meaning. The article examines the information from the Tărnovo inscription in the context of the cult of the Forty Martyrs in Byzantium (where they were particularly honoured by the imperial court) and in medieval Bulgaria, as well as in relation to their veneration as victorious helpers in battles. Attention is paid to the claim on the Forty martyrs’ patronage as a piece of propaganda and a proof for the religious sanction of Ivan Asen’s rule. It is viewed as a constituent part of the policy of Asenid dynasty for securing of powerful heavenly patrons for the state by “taking over” the cults of important Christian saints, promoting their (real or invented) Bulgarian origin, and translating saints’ relics to the new capital of Tărnovo.
|Славия Бърлиева||(София) – Св. Амфилохий Иконийски в светлината на гръко-латинската и славянската агиография||97–114||ST. AMPHILOCIUS OF ICONIUM IN THE LIGHT OF GRECO-LATIN AND SLAVIC HAGIOGRAPHY|
SLAVIA BARLIEVA (SOFIA)
The article presents two medieval translations – Latin and Slavic – of the pre-Metaphrastian Life of St. Amphilocius (c. 340–395), one of the honored Fathers of the Eastern Orthodox Church, Bishop of Iconium and a staunch opponent of the Arians. Basing her argument on Paolo Chiesa’s conclusion that the Latin translation, extant in MS 354 of The Municipal Library in Mantuva, was made by Anasthasius the Librarian, and assuming that the Slavic translation is most likely synchronic to the Latin one, the author compares the Mantuva text with a Slavic copy from MS 218 of the Museum of the Serbian Orthodox Church. She establishes evident similarities in the two translations, which inlcude also common deviations from the putative Greek original, the closest extant text to it being the copy in Cod. Barberinianus Gr. 318. This comparative analysis is the first stage toward preparing a critical edition of the Greek pre-Metaphrastian Life of Amphilocius and a study of its relation to the Slavic lives of the saint. The Appendix to the article includes a reprint of the Latin translation and an edition of the Slavic copy from the Serbian MS 218.
|Сергей Темчин||(Вильнюс) – О вероятном синайском происхождении среднеболгарского Германова сборника 1359 года||115–125||ON THE PROBABLE SINAITIC ORIGIN|
OF THE MIDDLE-BULGARIAN GERMANOS FLORILEGIUM OF 1359
SERGEY TEMCHIN (VILNIUS)
The author proposes that the Middle-Bulgarian Germanos Florolegium of 1359 is a slightly modified copy of a lost original compiled on Mount Sinai in the 1320s–30s in the time of Archbishop Germanos IV of Sinai (ante 1322–post 1335), who supported the continual presence of Slavic and Georgian monks on Mount Sinai.
|Ана Стойкова||(София) – От Месопотамия до Етрополе. Трансформации на мита за гигантската космическа птица||126–168||FROM MESOPOTAMIA TO ETROPOLE.|
TRANSFORMATIONS OF THE GIANT COSMIC BIRD MYTH
ANA STOYKOVA (SOFIA)
The paper discusses the archaic mythological motif of giant cosmic birds that invoke the sun to rise, escort it on its heavenly way, or protect the earth from solar radiation. Tracing variants of this motif in the literary tradition (Slavonic Book of Enoch, Apocalypse of Baruch, Physiologus, etc.) points to the conclusion that it occurs in texts that originated in the form familiar to us in Greek, during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, most probably in Alexandria. It appears that sun-birds absorbed ancient ideas that passed from Sumer and Akkad through Babylon into the Hebrew apocalyptic tradition and were later combined with Greco-Roman elements. The names for the bird in the texts under anaylsis – phoenix, gryphon, halkydra – are the result of interpratatio graeca; they appear in order to “translate” the image of the cosmic bird from one culture into another. In the end, the motif, in a Christianized form, penetrated into the Byzantine tradition and, from there, into Old Slavic writing, enjoying a sustained interest through the Late Middle Ages. This case of millennial continuity points to the transplantation of an ancient mythological motif from Mesopotamia to various monotheistic cultures and its eventual adaptation into the Christian Byzantino-Slavic cultural sphere.
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Мария Спасова||(Велико Търново) – Неизвестен препис на Беседа 45 и Беседа 47 от старобългарското Учително евангелие на Константин Преславски||169–187||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=340872|
|Христо Андреев||(София) – Два стенописни надписа с литургиен произход от времето на крал Милутин||188–206||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=340879|
|Доротей Гетов||(София) – Гръцкият оригинал на душеполезния разказ Птиците||207–214||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=340887|
|Heinz Miklas||(Wien) – Bemerkungen zu einer Rezension von Nikolaos Trunte||215–219||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=340891|
|Лиляна Грашева||(София) – Пълноценна професионална реализация (Проф. Джордже Трифунович на 80 години)||220–228||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=340895|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Регина Койчева||(София) – Георги Попов. Старобългарска църковна поезия за Рождество Христово и Богоявление. Книга първа. Климента пясни. С., Изд. „Изкуство“, 2013. 532 с. ISBN 978-619-90200-1-2||229–238||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=340897|
|Татяна Славова||(София) – Архимандрит д-р Атанасий Бончев. Речник на църковнославянския език. Том II. П–Я. С., Национална библиотека „Св. св. Кирил и Методий“, 2012. 354 с. ISBN 978-954-523-128-5||238–243||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=340899|
|Татяна Илиева||(София) – Славяно-русский пролог по древнейшим спискам. Синаксарь (житийная часть Пролога краткой редакции) за сентябрь-февраль. Т. 1: Текст и комментарии / Изд. подгот. Л. В. Прокопенко, В. Желязкова, В. Б. Крысько, О. П. Шевчук, И. М. Ладыженский. Под ред. В. Б. Крысько. Москва: Издательский центр „Азбуковник“, 2010. LXXX, 824 с.; Т. 2: Указатели. Исследования. Изд. подгот. В. Б. Крысько, Л. В. Прокопенко, В. Желязкова, И. М. Ладыженский А. М. Пентковский. Москва: Издательский центр „Азбуковник“, 2011. 856 с. ISBN 978-5-91172-041-4||243–250||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=340902|
|Лора Тасева||(София) – Екатерина Дикова. Фразата в житията и похвалните слова на св. патриарх Евтимий Търновски. Т. 1. Изследване. Т. 2. Приложения. С., 2011. 236, 257 с. ISBN 978-954-885-413-9||250–255||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=340903|
|Иван Илиев||(Пловдив) – Маргарет Димитрова. Тълкувания на Песен на песните в Ръкопис 2/24 от Рилската света обител. С., Херон прес, 2012. ISBN: 978-954-580-310-9||256–258||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=340906|
|Аделина Германова||(София) – Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 2011–2012 г.||259–313||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=340909|
Кн. 48 (2013)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Искра Христова - Шомова||(София) – Св. Теодор Тирон и трансформациите на неговия култ||9–27||ST. THEODORE TYRON AND TRANSFORMATIONS OF HIS CULT |
ISKRA HRISTOVA-SHOMOVA (SOFIA)
The article studies the representation of the cult of St. Theodore of Amasea (known better as St. Theodore Tyron) in Orthodox Christian calendars, narratives, offices, religious images and in the folk culture. The article provides an overview of the Greek texts (vitae, sermons, offices), dedicated to St. Theodore, written in the period from the fifth to the tenth centuries, and of their Slavic translations, kept in manuscripts from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries.
The veneration of St. Theodore Tyron started as a typical cult of a martyr, who was persecuted in the early period of the Christianity. However, when St. Theodore miraculously appeared in the dream of the archbishop Eudoxios warning him and the citizens of Constantinople not to eat the food contaminated with sacrificial blood on the order of Julian the Apostate, the saint obtained a special place of celebration in the Christian calendar on the first Saturday of the Great Lent. His cult began to acquire new dimensions; he was revered as a glorious soldier, as well as a victorious dragon-slayer (draconomachos). His cult became even stronger and more popular when his twin saint appeared: St. Theodore Stratelates, who had similar characteristics and was celebrated in February on a date close to St. Theodore Tyron’s feast, as well as in June. The most conservative among the texts dedicated to St. Theodore Tyron are the hymnographic works, in which he is revered only as a martyr. Indeed, there is an exapostilarion, in which he is said to have destroyed a three-headed dragon, but most probably this is a rather common trope presenting the victory over paganism and might not be connected with his celebration as a dragon-slayer. In the narratives, new episodes were added, and on the frescoes, he was usually depicted together with his twin St. Theodore Stratelates as a pair of saints-soldiers. In the 19th century he was included in a new iconographic scheme and was depicted riding on a horse together with three other soldiers-riders. In the Balkan folk tradition he is revered as a holy rider, who changes the winter into spring and unlocks the spring waters. His feast was accompanied by a system of prohibitions, but in the most modern time the old customs are more and more forgotten and the horse races take central place in the feast. The twin character of the cult is demonstrated further in the existing of the feasts of St. Theodore of Winter on the Orthodox Saturday and St. Theodore of Summer on the 8th of June (the feast of St. Theodore Stratelates).
|Нина Гагова||(София) – Св. Никола – застъпник на душите пред Страшния съд||28–40||ST. NICHOLAS – INTERCESSOR FOR THE HUMAN SOULS ON THE DAY OF JUDGMENT|
NINA GAGOVA (SOFIA)
The article discusses the notion of the St. Nicholas as an intercessor for the human souls on the Judgment Day. In her monograph The Life of Saint Nicholas in Byzantine Art N. Р. Ševčenko analyses the frequent choice of St. Nicholas as a patron saint, especially of the burial churches and church spaces, as well as some special arrangements of his painted portraits, including a modified Deesis composition in which St. Nicholas has replaced John the Baptist. It does seem possible that this notion originated from two hagiographical texts about the saint – (1) a fragment from the Vita Nicolai Sinaitae, containing a Vision of St. Nicholas about the Last Day and its explanation in another vision; and (2) a Prayer of the saint “when an angel comes for his soul” from the Povest o pogrebenii/Story about the burial of the St. Nicholas/. The article seeks to explain the dissimilarity between the medieval Greek and the South-Slavic practices noted by N.Р. Ševčenko with the differences in the popularity and the dissemination of the medieval texts dedicated to the saint.
|Ана Стойкова||(София) – Св. Георги в ислямската традиция на Близкия изток||41–55||ST. GEORGE IN THE MIDDLE EASTERN ISLAMIC TRADITION|
ANA STOYKOVA (SOFIA)
The cult of St. George is one of the few Christian cults accepted by Muslims who call him Jirjis and honour him as a healer and helper in trouble. In Palestine, the cult of the martyr was shared between the two big religions during their long coexistence. The oldest anonymous Passio of St. George penetrated into Arabic as well as into Turkish medieval literature. Despite its adaptation and undergone modifications, this text has preserved many of its most archaic features known from Byzantine literature, but at the same time presents some specificities common only to the South Slavic manuscript tradition.
The article traces back the peculiarities of the development of the cult of St George, the history, and the fate of this archaic hagiographical work in the Islamic world. Some aspects of the cult, which functions in mixed confessional environment, show certain specifics, but also allow for comparisons with the folk tradition of his veneration on the Balkans and Eastern Europe.
|Василка Тъпкова - Заимова||(София) – Св. Дазий и Доростолската епархия: нови разсъждения||56–66||ST DASIUS AND DUROSTORUM EPARCHY: NEW OBSERVATIONS|
VASILKA TAPKOVA-ZAIMOVA (SOFIA)
The author summarizes the results of her research on the cult of St Dasius in the medieval town of Dorostol (ancient Durostorum, present-day Silistra in Northeastern Bulgaria) and the region of Lower Danube. She suggests that his cult was reflected in the popular culture rituals of kukeri masquerades in the present-day region of Silistra. Further, the author discusses the results of the study by other scholars of the vita of the saint, relics of whom were donated to the Bulgarian Church during the visit of Pope John Paul II to Bulgaria in 2002.
|Бойка Мирчева||(София) – Култът към св. Еразъм Охридски (Формийски) в източната и в западната традиция||67–78||THE CULT OF ST ERASMUS OF OHRID (OF FORMIA)|
IN THE EASTERN AND THE WESTERN TRADITION
BOYKA MIRCHEVA (SOFIA)
The aim of this study is to explore whether there is a blending of different cults in the veneration of St Erasmus of Ohrid. As is known, in the Western Church several other cults were attached to and merged with the cult of St Erasmus. This fact explains the popularity which the Saint enjoys in Central and Southern Italy and Sicily. However, in the Eastern Orthodox tradition there are no detectable traces of combining or mixing hagiographic motifs from the stories of other saints in the texts or images of St Erasmus. The church celebration on May 10, which is usually regarded as a blending of various commemorations, is in fact an entirely different fest. The only thing that could somehow point to such a blending is the preservation of copies of the Vita of St Erasmus of Ohrid under different dates (May 4, June 10, and even May 10) instead of original dates of his celebration, namely 1st or 2nd of June. The Vita, however, was left uncorrupted and uncontaminated with other stories. The data presented in the article led to the conclusion that the cult of St Erasmus developed locally, and was not translated or adapted from elsewhere. In supporting this assertion the author presents oral and written evidence about the allegedly legendary name of the place where the Saint died according to the local Ohrid tradition – Hermelia. It appeared to be a toponym attested over time in the area near the town of Ohrid.
|Алексей Пентковский||(Москва) – Почитание святителя Климента в Охриде в X–XІV вв.||79–113||THE CULT OF ST CLEMENT OF OHRID |
BETWEEN THE TENTH AND THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY
ALEKSEI PENTKOVSKII (MOSCOW)
Тhe complex study of the cult of St Clement of Ohrid from the time of its initial formation to its evolution up to the fifteenth century, when it achieved a stable structure, shows that the worship of St. Clement began soon after his death and his burial in the grounds of Ohrid monastery which the saint himself had established. The development of cult of St Clement is inextricably linked to religious and political activities of the Archbishopric of Ohrid, and its religious leaders, namely the archbishops, Theophylaktos of Bulgaria, John Komnenos , Demetrios Khomatianos, Konstantinos Каvasilas and Gregory. The hagiographic and hymnological works created by them became an organic part of the Ohrid literary repertoire belonging to the period between the tenth and fourteenth centuries. The relics St Clement were found in the time of Archbishop Demetrios Khomatianos, and the saint became the heavenly protector of Ohrid and the entire Ohrid Archbishopric. Over the centuries the tradition of the cult of St Clement as a miracle worker and educator of Slavs existed in both Slavic, and Greek versions. The focal point of his cult in Ohrid was the monastery, founded by the saint on a spot chosen by him to be also his resting place – a place that would be the symbol of Slavic education for centuries to come.
|Бистра Николова||(София) – Вярата и нейното пространство. Храмът и селищната мрежа през Първото българско царство. Фактори за развитие на свещеното пространство||114–128||THE FAITH AND ITS SPACE.|
The Church and the Settelment Network in the First Bulgarian Empire.
Factors for the Development of Sacred Space
BISTRA NIKOLOVA (SOFIA)
One of the methods to study the intensity with which Christianity has spread in medieval Bulgaria after the official conversion is to compare the density of the settlements with the number of the Christian buildings located within their parameters. The article focuses on North-eastern Bulgaria in the period between eighth and tenth centuries. The early Byzantine churches, although reduced to ruins, were still perceived as sacred places by pagan Bulgarians, – a fact, supported by the establishment of early Bulgarian Christian cemeteries (necropoles) and churches on these ground (e.g. Abritus).
The construction of churches intensified during the ninth and the tenth centuries, mainly in the two capitals, Pliska and Preslav – the political and religious centres of the state. The discrepancy between the density of the settlement network and the number of the church buildings is one of the typical characteristics of this early period. In the course of these two centuries, there were still large medieval settlements and even whole regions with no church building, regardless of the facts, that data extrapolated through other sources shows the presence of a Christian population in them. At the same time, the proximity or remoteness of a settlement from the capital cities appears to be an important factor for erecting a church building. In areas close to Pliska and Preslav, the density of churches was greater, while, apparently, the monasteries had more tangible presence in the countryside.
In the ninth and the tenth centuries there were two or three main religious centres in North-eastern Bulgaria: Durostorum and Pliska/ Preslav. Following the roads which connected these main centres, one could detect a higher concentration of churches and monasteries near them. This fact suggests that the road system was a strong factor in establishing and expanding the sacred spaces in the early medieval Bulgaria.
|Аделина Ангушева - Тиханова||(Манчестър) – Култовете към жените-светици в Средновековна България: два компаративни прочита||129–156||THE LOCAL CULTS OF THE WOMEN SAINTS IN MEDIEVAL BULGARIA: TWO COMPARATIVE APPROACHES|
ADELINA ANGUSHEVA-TIHANOV (MANCHESTER)
The article offers a comparative typology of the cults of local women saints in Bulgaria, Serbia and Russia during the Middle Ages. Further, it analyzes the transformations of traditional Marian imagery applied in hagiographic presentations of these saints (e.g. the employment of the Virgin’s Dormition narrative in the vita of St Helene of Anjou by Archbishop Danilo II; the Marian symbols in the vita of St Parasceve/Petka by Patriarch Euthymios). The article examines the use of the theological trope of Christ’s Bride in South Slavic hagiography and its modifications in St Olga’s Vita from Stepennaia kniga in order to establish the changes in perception of these cults articulated through hagiographical convention.
The comparison showed that, with the exception of the commemoration of Kievan Princess Olga, the cults of the local women saints in the Orthodox Slavic countries were relatively late formations, established from the thirteenth century onwards. In medieval Serbia the women rulers were the only social group from which local women saints emerged, unlike Bulgaria where the only type of locally celebrated female sainthood was the anchoretic one. In this respect medieval Russia presented a greater variety (there were holy princesses, nuns, and even town anchoress, and martyrs). Most of these cults in Serbia and Russia appeared in the field of direct interaction between royal and monastic milieu, and the real participation of the saint in both contexts, her dual identity was almost an indispensible precondition for her sainthood. In a sense Bulgarian cults were also a result of the efforts of the rulers and clergy, but they had different dynamics in which strict ascetic holiness was additionally used by the institutions of power. Unlike the Russian and Serbian cults, Bulgarian were not based on ethno-localism, they were imported from outside and domesticated, but either because these ascetic cults articulated better the Hesychast ideology that dominated the epoch, or because the cults were actively developed in Bulgarian capital, they were the only one to cross the state boundaries and become Pan-Orthodox heavenly protectors.
|Александър Наумов||(Венеция) – Семейният живот на православните славянски светци според балканската агиография||157–164||FAMILY LIFE OF SLAVIC ORTHODOX SAINTS |
ACCORDING TO BALKAN HAGIOGRAPHY
ALEKSANDER NAUMOW (VENICE)
Family life does not appear as a fundamental topic in any hagiographical work, but in the majority of texts it is possible to discover references to the relations among family members. In most of cases saint’s parents are mentioned, referring to their social status and sometimes their belonging to an ethnic group. In Slavic tradition the relation with the mother is more important than the relation with the father; stepmothers are considered negatively. The relations of the saint with the brothers and sisters or with the children are rarely mentioned. We sometimes find references to a nuptial tie, including references to an unconsummated marriage. If we consider the scarcity of sources about social life in the medieval times in the Balkans, the analysis of hagiographies from this point of view can provide a lot of interesting and valuable data.
|Малгожата Сковронек||(Лодз) – Маргинален герой или творец на сакрална история? За няколко славянски текста, свързани с името на Йосиф Ариматейски||165–195||PARENTHETIC HERO OR CREATOR OF A SACRAL STORY? |
ON SOME SLAVONIC TEXTS PRESENTING JOSEPH OF ARIMATHAEA
MAŁGORZATA SKOWRONEK (LODZ)
The study presents the literary creation of St Joseph of Arimathaea, the witness of the Passion, in the literary output of the Slavia Orthodoxa circle. The mediaeval Slavonic tradition does not present Joseph in a context different from this one known from the New Testament, but completes it with numerous details unknown from the canonical writings.
The oldest pseudo-epigraphic source preserved in the Slavonic culture and most original one, in which Joseph is mentioned, is the Nicodemus Gospel. Chapters 12–16 are dedicated to the imprisonment of Joseph by Jews and releasing him by Christ, who transfers him to his native Arimathaea.
The Story of Joseph, Who Burried Our Lord’s Body (Narratio Iosephi de Arimathaea, BHG 779r) is a secondary text, that uses extensive fragments of the Nicodemus Gospel as a base for the compilation. The oldest copy of its Slavonic translation derives from the Middle-Bulgarian period, however it’s not easy to judge its popularity and spread it obtained, although one could assume that it was probably smaller than this of the Nicodemus Gospel. The narrative led by Joseph himself is applied as a frame for the story of Christ’s passion, as well for other genres – such as angels’ letter about Christ, visions, thoughts of the Good Thief.
Among narrative texts, the Story of the righteous Joseph by Priest Puncho (18th cent.) occupies a special place. The story is limited to Joseph’s conversation with Pilate, but its main part features the speech of Joseph, who is begging for the Lord’s body.
The Story of Burying Christ’s Body and of Joseph of Arimathaea and of Nicodemus by Epiphanius of Cyprus deserves a special attention among the relevant homiletic works. It has been translated twice into Slavonic (around the 10th cent.). The text, particularly popular in Russia, used to be read on Easter Saturday and on the Sunday seven weeks after Easter. Epiphanius (and his Slavonic translators) presented Joseph’s speech to Pilate with a real mastery.
The East Slavonic tradition contains some texts modeled after Latin and Polish Passions. Usually they do not deviate from the Bible account, but amplify some motifs related to Joseph, like the conversation with Pilate or his lamenting and mourning. In one of them, Joseph is named ‘Apostle’. The liturgical poetry, too, do not differ the New Testament account.
The study is accompanied by the edition of the Story of the righteous Joseph by Priest Puncho according to four copies from manuscripts: NBKM 693, NBKM 722, CIAI 232 and NBKM 726.
|Евелина Минева||(Атина) – Предложения за канонизация на светци през ХV в. – примери от византийската, старобългарската и старосръбската литература||196–209||PROPOSALS FOR SANCTIFICATION IN THE 14-15TH CENTURIES – EXAMPLES FROM BYZANTINE, OLD BULGARIAN AND OLD SERBIAN LITERATURE|
EVELINA MINEVA (ATHENS)
Тhe article discusses proposals for the official canonization of prominent personalities of the 14th and the 15th centuries in Byzantine, Old Bulgarian and Old Serbian literatures. These texts are the Canon in honor of the Patriarch of Constantinople Euthymios II (26.10.1410–29.03.1416), composed by Mark Eugenikos, bishop of Ephesus (1394/95–1446), the Life and the Office in honor of the same Mark Eugenikos, written by his brother John Eugenikos (1400-ca. 1457), the Encomium of the Patriarch of Tărnovo Euthymios (1320/30 – ca. 1402), written by Gregory Tsamblak (ca. 1364–1419/20), and the Life of the Serbian despot Stefan Lazarević (1370-1427), written by Constantine of Kostenets (ca. 1380 – first half of 15th c.) It should be noticed that the official canonization takes place long after the composition of the relevant texts – in the case of the Patriarch of Constantinople Euthymios II no official canonization takes place at all. The main reason for the postponement, or even the rejection of the proposed canonization, is that all these efforts come from the milieu of the Hesychasts. We should remember that the conflict between Hesychasts and Barlaamites did not end until the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Another reason may be that these proposals for the sanctification came from well-educated high clergy men or state officers and not from the people. The process of canonization might have been delayed due to the fact, that the relevant texts did not contain any miracles, while many historical episodes and facts were mentioned. Therefore these texts have several formal characteristics which do not follow the rules governing the literary genre of medieval hagiographical texts. It should be added that in some cases some texts obligatory for the cult had not yet been composed, for example the short synaxarium vita or the liturgical office in honor of the saint. The above mentioned stylistic and structural peculiarities may have been interpreted as reflecting the pre-renaissance tendencies of their authors; however those tendencies did not lead to a development of new kind of literature as it happened in Western Europe, due to the historically different situation of the Balkan lands in the 15th century.
|Красимир Станчев||(Рим) – Култове, култови места и богослужебни ритуали на българските католици през ХVІІ в.||210–220||CULTS, PLACES OF WORSHIP AND LITURGICAL RITES OF THE CATHOLIC BULGARIANS DURING THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY |
KRASSIMIR STANTCHEV (ROME)
Using the rich documentation of the time, the author proposes a systematization of the extant information about cults and liturgical practice of the Bulgarian Catholics in the 17th c. The first part of the article explores data concerning the various types of the liturgy, the liturgical calendars (Julian or Gregorian), and relations with the Orthodox and folk traditions. In the second part, the author offers a systematization of the extant dedications of religious buildings: a/ in the regions of the converted Paulicians in Moesia and Thrace; b/ in the Archbishopric of Čiprovci (Kiprovats) and its surroundings; c/ in the city of Sofia where the Catholic community was composed by merchants from Dubrovnik.
|Ян Страдомски||(Краков) – Балканските светци и свети места като аргумент в полско-рутенската религиозна полемика през ХVІ–ХVІІ в.||221–231||THE SAINTS AND HOLY PLACES IN THE BALKANS AS AN ARGUMENT IN THE POLISH-RUSSIAN RELIGIOUS POLEMICS IN THE SIXTEENTH AND THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES|
JAN STRADOMSKI (KRAKÓW)
After the conclusion of a union between the Roman Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church, a religious polemic between the supporters and the opponents of the ecclesiastical union started in the territories of Polish Commonwealth (Rzeczpospolita). It has lasted for over two centuries, and aimed at the transfer of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Papal power. The literary aspect of the dispute intended to show which of the two Churches maintained the purity of ancient faith and the true sacraments, which one of the Christian communities preserved the original God’s orders, and – most importantly –through which Church (Eastern or Western) the believer would be granted salvation. The hagiographic examples are frequently quoted among the countless arguments preserved in old manuscripts. References to the Balkan ritual and the cults of saints cited in these religious polemics aimed at presenting religious, moral and social models for the followers of the Orthodox Church, interpreted, each time, as examples of the true orthodoxy and as an adherence to the ancient patristic tradition.
In this respect, the writings of the Ukrainian monk from Mount Athos, Ivan of Vishnya (Iwan Wiszeński) offer one of the most interesting and telling examples. They preserve an account of the martyrdom of Barlaam, Archbishop of Ohrid, unattested in any other written source. This valuable monument from the seventeenth-century hagiographic literature of the Balkans adds new data to the rather modestly presented Bulgarian literary culture under the Ottoman rule.
|Анна Влаевска - Станчева||(Пиза) – Святост и изобретяване на историческа памет: култът към San Pietro Levita (De Bulgaro)||232–246||HOLINESS AND THE INVENTION OF HISTORICAL MEMORY:|
THE CULT OF ST PETER LEVITE (DE BULGARO)
ANNA VLAEVSKA-STANTCHEVA (PISA)
The article discusses the cult of a local Italian saint, the blessed Peter Levite. Frequently called de Bulgaro in sources since the late sixteenth century, Peter has sometimes been ‘awarded’ Proto-Bulgarian descent by modern scholarship. The author argues that Peter’s cult developed in Vercelli (Piedmont, Northern Italy), in the tenth century, out of the historical figure of Peter, the deacon of Pope Gregory I (d. 604) and his interlocutor in Gregory’s famous Dialogues. The extant sources show that the cult started with the inventio of relics, and moreover, with their translatio to Salussola (province of Biella, Piedmont), which displays all the characteristics of a furtum sacrum. Over time, the local tradition altered the biography of Peter, linking the historical figure to the presumed ancestors of the noble family de Bulgaro (from Vercelli). From the end of the sixteenth century onwards, Peter has been celebrated as their protector. Yet, the historians who grounded their assumptions in the local tradition (a good example of a constructed, invented past and even of mythologized historical memory) have in fact turned the hagiographical legend into a historiographic one. Taking for granted the Proto-Bulgar origin of de Bulgaro family, some scholars have also attributed such descent to Peter, Pope Gregory’s collaborator, who, in fact, had no actual ties to the de Bulgaro family.
|Иванка Гергова||(София) – „Побългаряване“ на светци||247–257||“BULGARISATION” OF SAINTS|
IVANKA GERGOVA (SOFIA)
As a rule, the ethnic origins of the saints do not influence the establishment, dissemination, and popularity of their cults. Yet, there are some historical circumstances in which the ethnicity of the saints is underlined. The cases of “Bulgarisation” of saints reveal alteration of the emphases of their cults. The claims from the Second Bulgarian Kingdom that the father of St. Demetrius of Thessaloniki was Bulgarian and that Constantine-Cyril and Methodius were of Bulgarian origin represented two early cases of this kind. Both claims seem to have been due to ideological motifs although they are likely to have occurred in different social strata.
During the Ottoman period, new attitudes toward saints had been developed. Since in that period the ethnicity was identified with the religious denomination, the origin of the saints was not that important for different ethnic environments. Quite different are the ideas of the Bulgarian National Revival at the beginning of which, in 1862, Paisij of Hilandar emphasized the Bulgarian national ideals. Part of his national (and political) program is the chapter in his Istorija slavenobolgarskaja dedicated to the saints of Bulgarian origin. In his list of Bulgarian saints, there are both saints of Bulgarian origin and saints to whom Bulgarian origin was additionally attributed. In the middle of the 19th century, particularly in the Bulgarian calendars with special sections on the Bulgarian saints, the number of saints with “Bulgarian origin” increased. Such saints and their imaged appeared also in other sources of that period. This tendency is a reflection of the struggle of the Bulgarian Church for independence.
|Ралица Русева||(София) – Образите на св. Петнадесет Струмишки (Тивериуполски) мъченици в църковното изкуство. Исторически предпоставки и иконографски особености||258–275||THE IMAGES OF THE HOLY FIFTEEN MARTYRS OF STRUMITSA (TIBERIOPOLIS) |
IN THE CHURCH ART.
HISTORIC PRECONDITIONS AND ICONOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
RALITSA ROUSSEVA (SOFIA)
The cult of the Holy Fifteen Martyrs of Strumitsa has a significant presence in the medieval literature, which does not have a reflection on their iconography. Their first depiction is from the martyrdom Church in Strumitsa (the 9th -10th century), which remains the only one up until the 19th century, and therefore there is no tradition of visually representing these saints as such. Up until recently there was only one publication of their icon from Radovish (1828) and one engraving from Mount Athos (1866). The present study attributes the engraving to the works of the engraver Anthimos of Peloponnese, of whom about ten other works are known. For the first time three icons of the Holy Fifteen Martyrs of Strumitsa from the Rhodope Mountains from the middle of the 19th century have been studied (one from the village Pelevun and two from Topolovgrad).
The pictorial aspect of the cult of the Holy Fifteen Martyrs of Strumitsa has been created, or rather regenerated in the 19th century. After nine centuries of absence of their images from the iconographic repertoire of the Orthodox painting it appeared again. The new visual realization of their cult could be explained through the activity of Gregorios Visantios, bishop of Strumitsa (1818‒1830) and Adrianopolis (1830‒1840), who has not only reprinted their Akolouthia in Constantinople, but most possibly has transferred their cult from Strumitsa to the region of the Rhodope Mountains and Mount Athos.
Despite the fact, that they are from different parts of the Balkans (Strumitsa, the Rhodope mountains, Mount Athos), all examined images are following a common iconographic model and have most possibly a common prototype, which presumes the existence of a popular enough image of the Holy Fifteen martyrs of Strumitsa with established iconography before 1828. This could be a printed graphic image – print or engraving in a printed edition, which in the 18th and 19th century often served as a iconographic model for paintings.
|Александра Трифонова||(София) – Св. св. Кирик и Юлита и техният култ на Балканите||276||THE SAINTS CYRICUS AND JULITTA AND THEIR CULT IN THE BALKANS|
ALEKSANDRA TRIFONOVA (SOFIA)
The present paper discusses the hagiographical tradition and representations of the Saints Cyricus and Julitta in monuments of the Balkans. The emphasis is put on their images which are known from the twelfth-century wall paintings and from the fifteenth-century icons. The scenes of their Vita are rarely represented. They can be seen on frescoes from the 14th up to 19th centuries, and on icons from the 17th to 19th centuries (of which only two examples are known). In contrast, on Russian icons these scenes are often depicted which points at the use of different type of sources.
|Илиана Чекова||(София) – Изображения на източнославянски светци в български храмове през Средновековието и Възраждането||286–310||IMAGES OF EAST SLAVIC SAINTS IN BULGARIAN CHURCES FROM THE MIDDLE AGES AND THE PERIOD OF NATIONAL REVIVAL|
ILIANA CHEKOVA (SOFIA)
Together with the literary monuments, the images of East Slavic saints in Bulgarian churches are quite indicative for cultural and historical relationships between Bulgarians and Eastern Slavs.
The wall paintings and icons of East Slavic saints in Bulgarian churches from the Middle Ages up to the period after the Liberation (the last quarter of the 19th century) are traced in chronological order. The purpose of the paper is to highlight the literary and cultural aspects of the topic rather than to present a strict art historical analysis. The reasons and the distribution of East Slavic saints icons in Bulgarian territory as well as their meaning in historical context related to Bulgarian society constitute the main focus of present study.
Images of East Slavic saints can be seen in the major citadels of spiritual life during the Bulgarian Revival period – Rila, Troyan and Preobrazhenie monasteries, also in Beliova church near Samokov, St George church in Dolni Lozen village, The Assumption of the Holy Mother church in Saparevo village, St Nikola church in Topolnica village, the monastery of village of German, The Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary church in the town of Panagiurishte and the Metropolitan church of Assumption of the Holy Mother in the town of Samokov.
The wall paintings and icons in these temples were created by Bulgarian iconographers, who belonged to Samokov painting school, such as Ivan Obrazopisov, Dimitar Zograf, Zachari Zograf, Nikola Obrazopisov and his assistants Christo Zachariev, Dimitar Christov, Christo Georgiev and Kosta Gerov, the brothers Nikola and Ivan Dospevski. Among the producers of the images, there were supposedly some representatives of Razlog-Bansko painting school, as well as less known local artists like Milosh Jakovlevich and Marko Minov.
|Кристиано Дидди||(Салерно) – К семантикe священных мест загробного мира (Γέεννα : родъ огньнъіи, родьство огньное, матица огньнаꙗ) .||311–327||TOWARD THE INTERPRETATION OF ‘SACRED’ PLACES OF THE NETHERWORLD|
(ΓΈΕΝΝΑ : РОДЪ ОГНЬНЪІИ, РОДЬСТВО ОГНЬНОЕ, МАТИЦА ОГНЬНАꙖ)
CRISTIANO DIDDI (SALERNO)
The article offers an interpretation of some Old Church Slavonic translations of Greek γέεννα – i.e. родъ огньнъіи, родьство огньное, матица огньнаꙗ –, since X-XI century in use in South and East Slavic literatures as synonyms of the loan word геена, геона, ћеона. While many scholars usually consider them a misunderstanding of Gr. γέννα, γενεά instead of γέεννα (see, e.g., Miklosich, Vondrák, Horálek, Vasmer, Trubačev and others), the present analysis, taking account of several issues in the field of etymology, semantics and ethnography, suggests that both expressions матица and родъ, родьство should not be considered erroneous (moreover originated by different translators working independently from each other), but rather relics of Slavic pagan beliefs illustrating the topography of the netherworld, and afterwards, in the Church Slavonic literature, readapted in the light of the interpretatio christiana.
|Маргарет Димитрова||(София) – Молитвите на св. Трифон в требник № 167 от Хилендарския манастир||328–351||THE “PRAYERS OF ST TRYPHON”|
IN THE HILANDAR MONASTERY TREBNIK, NO. 167
MARGARET DIMITROVA (SOFIA)
The author edits a cycle of five prayers attributed to St Tryphon in the 15th-century Slavonic manuscript (Trebnik, Euchologion) 167 kept in the Hilandar Monastery. The texts were copied with Ressava orthography. Four of these prayers contain incantations against insects and animals that attack the crop in gardens and vineyard. Structured as dialogues of the saint and archangels, and as a first-person narrative, they fall into the category of apocryphal texts. All the five texts are known from other sources but only in Hilandar 167 they appear as a cycle beginning with the Office to St Tryphon and ending with the Apocryphal Prayer of St Paul in case of snake-bite. The author suggests that this cycle may have been composed in the Hilandar Monastery in the orchard of which there was a chapel dedicated to St Tryphon.
The apocryphal prayers were translated from Greek and in the lists of the harmful insects and animals, there are new bookish loanwords and calques but also there are lexemes used in the early Old Bulgarian/ Old Church Slavonic (Cyrillo-Methodian) translation of the Bible. The language of the prayers follows the literary norm and their style register is far from the vernacular because of the use of bookish words and allusions to or phrases from the Bible.
|Алексей В. Юдин||(Гент) – Святые Константин и Елена в русской народной магии||352–365||SAINTS CONSTANTINE AND HELENA IN THE RUSSIAN FOLK MAGIC|
ALEKSEY V. YUDIN (GHENT)
The article discusses the images and magical functions of Saints Constantine and Helena in Russian charms. We show that the image of these important saints in Russian folklore is different from their image in the popular tradition on the Balkans. Our description of their characters is based on a formal scheme that was developed for the future vocabulary of names and characters in the East Slavic magic.
|Лилия Илиева||(Благоевград–Любляна) – Деянията на светците: южнославянският просешки епос||366–374||THE DEEDS OF SAINTS: SOUTH-SLAVIC BEGGARS EPICS|
LILIA ILIEVA (BLAGOEVGRAD‒LJUBLJANA)
There are different historical strata forming the tradition of Bulgarian folklore songs: Indo-European, Balto-Slavic, Common Slavic, as the formulaic language of the songs indicates. The corpus of the Beggars’ epics is relatively late. The songs are mainly devoted to Christian saints and their deeds presented through folklore poetics. It have been claimed that the characters of the saints had their pagan prototypes and originated from the pre-Christian oral tradition. Still, our analyses of several folklore texts suggest that the Christian vision prevails in the songs and that the characters were formed upon the visions of the Middle Ages. The vision of the saints is formed upon the picture of their relics (the physical remains of the saints ‒ Saint Parascevе /Veneranda and Saint Nedelya / Dominica). This representation of the relics of both saints in Bulgarian folklore songs may have reflected their popularity in the Second Bulgarian Kingdom (1185‒1396) and especially in its capital, Turnovo.
|Оля Григорова||(Благоевград) – Взаимотношения между християни и мю¬сюлмани в София през ХVІ в. (Житие на св. Никола Нови Софийски)||375–382||RELATIONS BETWEEN CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS IN SOFIA DURING THE ХVІ CENTURY (THE VITA OF ST. NIKOLA FROM SOFIA)|
OLYA GRIGOROVA (BLAGOEVGRAD)
The paper discusses the relations between everyday life and religious practices among Christians and Muslims in the town Sofia during the XVI century, based on the vita of St. Nikola of Sofia. The Saint was a shoemaker, who came to Sofia from the town of Yannina, to in search of professional accomplishment. The Christians and the Muslims of the town shared common activities, and were united in common professional groups on a daily basis. St Nikola of Sofia was a respected shoemaker. In his trade he had good relations with the other craftsmen and had no problem with Muslims and their religious practices. The conflict began when the Muslims by tricks, based on everyday life intimacy, tried to turn St. Nikola into a Muslim. Nikola’s impatient and insulting denial of the Islam made them require his death penalty. The Christians accepted his death as a salvation and an extreme act of religious piety that served as a compelling example.
|Константин Рангочев||(София) – Модели на святост І: Град Самоков и Самоковско||383–397||MODELS OF SANCTITY I:|
THE TOWN OF SAMOKOV AND ITS REGION
KONSTANTIN RANGOCHEV (SOFIA)
The paper discusses a model of sanctity specific for the town of Samokov and its vicinities. In Samokov there are five churches. Four of them are dedicated to Virgin Mary and one to St Nikolaos of Myra. This model of nomination is reproduced in villages in the vicinities of the town. In the nomination of the sacred space of Samokov, the Virgin Mary designates “our space here and now, the space of the living,“ while St Nicholas marks the ‘hereafter, the world of the dead’ (necro-polis) because his church is located in the graveyard. Thus ‘our world’ is marked by the four great Church feasts celebrating the Virgin Mary, namely Dormition of the Theotokos, Nativity of the Theotokos, Presentation of the Theotokos to the Temple, and the Intercession of the Theotokos as the four main altars of the churches in Samokov are dedicated to these holy events. The ‘world of the dead’ is marked by the church dedicated to St Nicholas (with a variation in the region: to Archangel Michael). This organization of the sacred space is specific (and unique) for Samokov. There have been recorded also three folk legends about Virgin Mary saving the town three times between the 17th and 20th centuries. These records and the dedications of the churches in the town show that the cult of the Virgin is very strong in Samokov and that this could be traced back to the pre-Ottoman period.
|Росен Р. Малчев||(София) – Връзката „Белчин – Герман (Джерман)“ в „Рилската повест“ на Владислав Граматик. 1. Топосът „Белчин“||398–406||THE ‘BELCHIN-GERMAN [DZHERMAN]’ CONNECTION IN VLADISLAV’S THE GRAMMARIAN TRANSLATIO OF THE RELICS OF ST IVAN OF RILA |
1. THE TOPOS OF BELCHIN
ROSSEN R. MALCHEV (SOFIA)
The translation of the relics of St Ivan of Rila from Tărnovo to his monastery in 1469 and its subsequent literary representation by Vladislav the Grammarian have triggered a long lasting debate about actual itinerary of the convoy, so craftily mapped out by this late medieval writer. The paper endeavours to further the discussion by advocating a new hypothesis about the actual route of the holy relics. It focuses on the participation of the presbyter John of Belchin in this remarkable event, and asserts that the solemn procession passed in fact through the lands of today’s village of Belchin, the municipality of Samokov.
|Съкратени названия на институции, библиотеки и архиви||407||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=6916|
|Съкращения на поредици и периодични издания||408–409||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=6929|
|Аделина Германова||(София) – Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 2009–2010 г.||410–461||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=6919|
Кн. 47 (2013)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Мая Петрова - Танева||(София) – Неизвестен източник на Изборника от 1076 г.: една непозната славянска версия на житието на св. Теодора Александрийска||11–45||A NEW SOURCE OF THE IZBORNIK OF 1076:|
AN UNKNOWN SLAVIC VERSION OF THE LIFE OF ST THEODORA OF ALEXANDRIA
MAYA PETROVA-TANEVA (SOFIA)
The article introduces to scholarship and examines the peculiarities of an unknown Slavic version of the Life of St Theodora of Alexandria. This text is incorporated (along with a great number of early Slavic translations of hagiographic narratives and some original Old-Bulgarian works) in the September section of a Russian Reading Menaion from the first quarter of the 16th century originating from the Suprasl Monastery – MS F 19-79 from the Library of the Lithuanian Academy of sciences in Vilnius. Until now the full text of the Pre-Metaphrastic Life of St Theodora was known in a single Slavic translation (referred to as translation A in the article). Translation A reveals many archaic language traits, it is included in the South-Slavic Reading Menaia of the old redaction structured according to the Studite Typikon (the so-called Preslav Reading Menaia), in many miscellanies (such as the Sevasjanov Sbornik and the Bdinski Sbornik), in different Paterika collections. Translation A is widely disseminated in Bulgarian, Serbian and Russian medieval manuscripts. The version of St Theodora’s Life found the Vilnius codex is substantially different from the popular one. It is evident that it is a result of a Slavic translation (referred as translation B) made from another Greek original. The analysis of its language, along with some typical numerical discrepancies, suggests that translation B appeared in Bulgarian linguistic milieu, that it belongs to legacy of Preslav literary school and was most probably initially written down with Glagolitic script. Crucial evidence in this respect is the textual identity of the Chapter 12, Theodora’s Instruction [to her son], in the Izbornik of 1076 and the relevant part of St Theodora’s Life in the Vilnius codex. We could only guess why in Preslav in the 10th century the Life of St Theodora was translated anew, in the frames of what kind of manuscript was this translation made and why did it remain isolated in the Slavic tradition. It is however clear that Theodora’s Instruction [to her son] in the Izbornik of 1076 is a fragment of a previously existing Slavic translation and that, like most of the excerpts included in it, in the course of Izbornik’s compilation the text was slightly edited and subjected to adaptation.
The full text of St Theodora’s Life from the Vilnius codex is published as an appendix to the article.
|Явор Милтенов||(София) – Conversio Taisiae (BHG 1696) в славянската ръкописна традиция||46–59||THE SLAVIC MEDIEVAL TRADITION OF CONVERSIO TAISIAE(BHG 1696)|
YAVOR MILTENOV (SOFIA)
The story about the repentant prostitute Thais (Taisia), absolved of her sins and glorified as a saint after years of a voluntary banishment in a monastic cell, has enjoyed noteworthy popularity in West European art and society – since the end of 19th c. it has been remade in novels, films and even in an opera. If we turn farther back to the Middle Ages, we would find out that this story rouse interest too as it has Greek, Latin, Syriac and Slavic versions. In the Byzantine manuscript tradition (from which all the rest derive) it circulates in several variants and genres – oral narrations became apophtegmata, one apophtegma became sermo, then finally sermo became vita.
The article examines the Slavic medieval translation of one of these Greek texts, namely Conversio Taisiae. The stress is laid on its dissemination in manuscripts that are successors of the initial Chrysorrhoas (Zlatostruy) corpus. An attempt has been made to reconstruct the stages in the transmission of the Slavic version by joining data of both text critical comparison of the witnesses and the history of the collections that incorporate these witnesses.
|Marijana Vuković||(Budapest) – Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium in the 10th-century Codex Suprasliensis||60–73||MARTYRDOM OF IRENAEUS OF SIRMIUM IN THE 10TH-CENTURY CODEX SUPRASLIENSIS |
MARIJANA VUKOVIĆ (BUDAPEST)
The cult of the early Christian martyr and saint Irenaeus of Sirmium, who suffered during Diocletian’s persecutions of Christians in 304 CE, have been attested through archeological and epigraphic testimonies to have existed in Sirmium from 4th – 6th centuries CE. The cult has ceased to exist after the Avar invasions in the region. However, the appearance of the Martyrdom of Irenaeus of Sirmium in the Codex Suprasliensis from the late 10th century, copied in the Preslav literary school, enlivened the conviction of some scholars that the narrative earned its place in the collection due to the agency of Irenaeus’ local cult. Needless to say, the First Bulgarian Empire wielded their territorial pretensions over Sirmium during the 10th century. This article discusses the links between the potential Irenaeus’ cult in Sirmium and the appearance of the narrative about his martyrdom in the Codex Suprasliensis. The juxtaposition of all the available sources demonstrated significant discrepancy and temporal chasm among them. I argue in this article that it was not the local cult that installed Irenaeus in this collection, but his presence in the earlier type of the calendar for March, on the basis of which the Codex Suprasliensis has been aligned.
|Диетер Штерн||(Гент) – Изучая источники Бдинского сборника: Слово об Аврамии Кидунском и его племяннице Марии||74–91||IN SEARCH OF THE SOURCES OF THE BDINSKI SBORNIK: THE STORY OF ABRAHAM OF QIDUN AND HIS NIECE MARY |
DIETER STERN (GHENT)
The present paper addresses the textual history of the Story of Abraham of Qidun and his niece Mary. It aims at reconstructing the main trajectories of transmission not only of the available Slavic copies, but also of the Greek manuscript tradition. The paper is placed within the framework of the recent project of a digital edition of the Bdinski Sbornik (Ghent University Library, cod. slavicus 408), which envisages a full-scale research into the textual history of all the texts contained in that miscellany. Since within the Slavic manuscript tradition the Story of Abraham and his niece (itself forming only part of the full vita of Abraham) was transmitted primarily within the context of the collection of works of Ephrem the Syrian, known as Paraenesis, the results of this research bear also on issues related to the history of that collection. By analyzing the Slavic and Greek variant readings of just one passage which, however, appears to be key to understanding both the Greek and the Slav text transmission as well as their interrelations, it is shown that the Slavic translation goes back to the most archaic layers of the Greek tradition. At the same time Kodov’s hypothesis of a secondary translation of the Paraenesis may be called into question on the ground of the available textual evidence.
|Анета Димитрова||(София) – Третият превод на житието на св. Антоний Велики||92–107||THE THIRD TRANSLATION OF THE LIFE OF ST. ANTONY THE GREAT|
ANETA DIMITROVA (SOFIA)
The Slavonic manuscript No 43 from the Museum of the Serbian Orthodox Church (14th c.) contains a unique copy of the Life of St. Antony by Athanasius of Alexandria (BHG 140). It presents a rendition that differs from the other two known translations: the one made in 10th century Preslav and the translation originating from fourteenth-century Tărnovo. The rendition in question dates back to the 13th-14th c. and it is known as “the third” translation in spite of the fact that it probably precedes the Middle Bulgarian one from Tărnovo. In this article I discuss some linguistic features of this text in comparison to the other two in order to more accurately assess the principles of translation, and to establish its date. The research is focused on some of the ways of rendering the Greek definite article, substantival and declarative infinitives, and the participles. The influence of the vernacular and the aspiration for readability and grammaticality are the features the first and the “third” translations have in common (e.g. postposition of the attributive phrase, or use of predicative participles with a conjunction). The so-called “third translation” shares with the second one several characteristics, typical for the Middle Bulgarian period: a very close adherence to the Greek original, use of inflexible and artificial means of expression, etc. (e.g. indeclinable иже, declarative infinitive, constructions such as accusativus cum infinitivo). The Life of St. Antony in MSPC 43 has probably come into existence in response to the need for a new translation. It is a good, readable translation, but it remained isolated after a new “official” translation appeared in the 14th c.
|Ирена Шпадиjер||(Београд) – Jужнословенски пустињаци Х–ХІІІ века у наjстариjоj литерарноj традициjи||108–120||SOUTH-SLAVIC HERMITS FROM THE TENТH TO THE THIRTEENTH CENTURIES |
IN THE OLDEST LITERARY TRADITION
IRENA ŠPADIJER (BELGRADE)
A number of anachoretic cults were created in the period from the second half of the tenth century up to the end of twelfth century, in the region between Rila and Kosovo. It was in this region, defined as the authentic hub of South-Slavic literature, where Slavic hermits lived as early as the tenth and eleventh centuries. Both written records and oral tradition about their lives date back to a very distant past. The cults of the hermits who were proclaimed saints - St John of Rila (946), St Prochorus of Pčinja (the 11th c.), St Gabriel of Lesnovo (the 11th c.) and St Joachim of Osogovo (the 11th -12th c.), as well as St. Peter of Korisha (the 12th, possibly the early 13th c.) - were established very early. Some texts dedicated to these anchorets were definitely written soon after their death, as by the end of the 13th century there were already witnesses in the written tradition – namely, vitae of St John of Rila, St Gabriel of Lesnovo and St Prochorus of Pčinja), as well as church services dedicated to St. John of Rila and St. John of Osogovo. The earliest works on St. Peter of Korisha also belong to the thirtheenth-century literary tradi¬tion. This paper looks at the oldest texts dedicated to these South Slavic hermits and analyses their inter-relations.
|Климентина Иванова, Иван Петров||(София) – Неизследван превод на житието на една византийска императрица||121–147||THE UNEXPLORED TRANSLATION OF THE VITA OF BYZANTINE EMPRESS IRENE-XENIA|
KLIMENTINA IVANOVA, IVAN PETROV (SOFIA)
The focus of the article is the Vita of empress Irene-Xenia. It was written in the Constantinople monastery of Christ Pantocrator built by her. The anonymous Vita came into existence soon after she was canonized, around the mid of the 12th c. The time of its composing is situated between 1143 (as the death of the emperor John II Comnenos is mentioned at the end of the text) and 1180 (the death of emperor Manuel Comnenos). There are two redactions of the Vita in the Greek tradition. It can be found in the Synaxaria for the second half of the year (under the date of 13th August). There are other copies of the Vita in the August Menaia with verse Synaxaria under the same date. In Bulgaria it was translated as a part of the Verse Prolog for August; it is known in numerous manuscripts (Bulgarian, Serbian and Russian) under the same date. At the same time, there is a copy of the saint’s life in a Moldavian Menologion from the Russian State Library (fund 178, № 3171) under the date of 24th January – the day of St. Xenia of Rome. The manuscript is the only Slavonic codex in which the life functions as a reading from a Menologion. The Slavonic text is without any doubt a translation of a version very close to the full redaction of the Greek text. All Slavonic copies seem to have originated from one translation. This translation is correct in certain parts while there are passages which the Bulgarian translator had seemingly not understood or had missed. There are passages showing a freer interpretation or even deliberate changes in the text.
The Greek and the Slavonic texts are published in the two Appendices. The Greek one – according to its full redaction, and the Slavic one – according to its oldest copy from the Zograph Monastery with variations based on the Moscow manuscript (№ 3171).
|Vesna Badurina - Stipčević||(Zagreb) – Kult svetoga Nikole u hrvatskoj srednjovjekovnoj književnosti||148–161||THE CULT OF ST NICOLAS IN CROATIAN MEDIEVAL LITERATURE|
VESNA BADURINA-STIPČEVIĆ (ZAGREB)
Broadly recognised as one of the most important saints in Christian world, St Nicolas was a bishop of Myra in Asia Minor. Despite his great popularity during his lifetime, his biography remains largely unknown to us due to the uncertainties of the historical facts that surround his life, and to the legendary character of the extant literary works dedicated to him. This rich legendary tradition is attested in many different versions of Greek and Latin hagiographic texts.
The cult of St Nicolas was well known among the Croats, too. The dissemi¬nation of his cult is reflected in many accounts in both oral tradition and written Croatian medieval literature. Further, many Croatian Glagolitic sources contain various episodes from life of St Nicolas. The most extensive texts are kept in the Oxford Zbornik (the 15th century) and in the Petrisov Zbornik from 1468. The text in the Oxford Zbornik is a copy of the Church Slavonic translation of the Greek narrative (BHG 1347), and contains many details about the life of St Nicolas Sionites. The text in the Petrisov Zbornik follows the Western tradition of St Nico¬las’s hagiography: it is very similar to St Nicolas’s vita included in the Legenda aurea by Jacobus de Voragine. In comparison to other Croatian Glagolitic texts, the version in the Petrisov Zbornik is far more complete. At the end of this study the Latin-script transliteration of so far unpublished Croatian Glagolitic text from the Oxford Zbornik is given.
|Petra Stankovska||(Ljubljana) – Odraz kultu Řehoře Velikého-Dvojeslova ve středověkých památkách na slovanském Západě a Východě||162–173||ТHE CULT OF GREGORY THE GREAT ACCORDING TO MEDIEVAL SLAVONIC MANUSCRIPTS OF WESTERN AND EASTERN ORIGIN|
PETRA STANKOVSKA (LJUBLJANA)
Pope Gregory the Great was known in the Christian East and West as the author of many doctrinal and didactic interpretations. Futher, in the West he esta¬blished his reputation as one of the great Popes, a reformer of the liturgical chant (Gregorian chant) and an author of the written Rule of St Benedict. All these facts guarantee him popularity and frequent use of his works in the Western and Eastern liturgy. Several biographies were written after his death, some parts of which were copied in the liturgical books in order to be read on the 12th of March, the day of St Gregory´s feast. Sporadically, one could find the texts of Pope Gregory´s Life in medieval Orthodox Slavonic written tradition. In fact, two such texts are attested: first, the so-called Metphrastian legend of the sailor who came to Gregory to ask for money, and, second, the Synaxarion (Prolog) reading (a short text discending from the Greek Menology of Basil II). In the Christian West, as a rule, there is a much higher number of narrative texts dedicated to St Gregory the Great. Out of the three texts dedicated to him in the Latin liturgical books, only one occurs in Latin breviraies from the late 14th and 15th centuries. It also exists in a Church Slavonic translation attested in the Croatian Glagolitic breviaries.
|Симеон Стефанов||(София) – Наблюдения върху езика на Житието на св. Екатерина в хърватската книжнина от XV в.||174–185||NOTES ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE VITA OF ST CATHERINE WRITTEN IN VERNACULAR CROATIAN|
SIMEON STEFANOV (SOFIA)
The paper offers observations on the language of a hagiographic text written in vernacular Croatian. It survives in a manuscript of the 15th century but in all likelihood was written earlier. The work is a translation from Latin written down with Latin script. The language displays features of the Croatian dialects in northern Dalmatia. It presents a relatively early attempt to render ecclesiastical literature in vernacular. The paper discusses vernacular features and suggests that some language peculiarities may have been due to a possible influence of Croatian Glagolitic literature.
|Milan Mihaljević||(Zagreb) – The Office for St. Dominic in Croatian Glagolitic Breviaries||186–210||THE OFFICE FOR ST. DOMINIC IN CROATIAN GLAGOLITIC BREVIARIES|
MILAN MIHALJEVIĆ (ZAGREB)
The Office for St. Dominic belongs to those texts which Croatian glagolites could not copy from older Cyrillo-Methodian protographs or from texts taken over from some other redaction of Church Slavonic, but they had to translate them directly from Latin. Therefore, such texts are good indicators of their knowledge of Latin, from which they translated, as well as of Church Slavonic. In the paper, the author comparatively analyzes the text of The Office for St. Dominic in seventeen Croatian-Glagolitic breviaries, describes in detail its language and compares it with the language of texts copied from older protographs, in order to identify the differences between them and to determine to what degree the text of the office was influenced by the Croatian (Čakavian) vernacular, as well as to determine the time of it's translation. He concludes that differences among the codices are not numerous, and that in all codices we have the same translation. Proceeding from some errors in the oldest copies, which can only be explained if we assume that they were copied from still older Glagolitic protographs, he also concludes that the office was translated not later than the beginning of the 14th century, if not even in the second half of the 13th century. The translator had a very good knowledge of Croatian Church Slavonic, but was not an expert in Latin.
|Сергей Темчин||(Вильнюс) – О греческом происхождении славянской службы Михаилу Воину из Потуки||211–221||GREEK ORIGIN OF THE SLAVONIC LITURGICAL CANON FOR ST MICHAEL THE SOLDIER OF POTUKA|
SERGEY TEMCHIN (VILNIUS)
The author discusses the possibility of the Old Church Slavonic liturgical Canon for St Michael of Potuka being a translation from а lost Greek original. In the result of a retranslation of the Slavonic incipits back into Greek, it was possible to reconstruct (with a certain probability) a fragment of the original Greek acrostic, which includes the saint’s name ΜΙΧΑΗΛ and testifies to the translational nature of the Old Church Slavonic text of the Canon.
|Радослава Станкова||(София) – Ранните (пред-Евтимиеви) жития и служби за св. Петка Търновска в българската и сръбската книжовна традиция от ХІІІ–ХV в.||222–239||THE EARLIER (PRE-EUTHYMIAN) VITAE AND OFFICES OF ST. PARASKEVE OF TĂRNOVO |
IN BULGARIAN AND SERBIAN LITERARY TRADITION
FROM THE THIRTEENTH TO THE FIFTEENTH CENTURIES
RADOSLAVA STANKOVA (SOFIA)
The paper offers a comprehensive picture of the earliest calendar commemo¬rations and literary sources which demonstrate the establishment of cult of St. Paraskeve of Tărnovo (Paraskeve of Epibatai) among Bulgarians and Serbs from the 13th century on. The saint is first mentioned in the calendars of Gospels and Apostolos Synaxaria, Psalters and in a Prayer-book. The paper also discusses the versions of the (short) Prolog vitae of St. Paraskeve and gives an account of their copies in Prologs and Menaia from 14th and 15th centuries. Further, there is also a troparion commemorating the St. Paraskeve in the Prolog. In the Versified Prolog, the short vita is copied without the Prolog verses, which, however, could be found in the Menaion copies of the saint’s Office. The paper offers a detailed scrutiny of texts from the 13th to the 15th centuries which present the three recensions of the Saint’s Office. The Serbian copies are prevailing, especially in the manuscripts associated with the Hilandar monastery at Mount Athos.
The last part of the paper focuses on the represantional devices (tropes) used in the texts on St. Paraskeve. It demonstrates the similarities in the poetics and the differences in the stylistics of the two genres – namely, the short vita and the office. The author suggests that the comparative study of the representation of the saint in the hagiographic and hymnographic works could answer important questions, such as: How have the liturgical texts been changed, revised and reconsidered through the centuries within the ritual to acquire a new meaning?; Why and at what point were the new texts created?
|Марина Чистякова||(Вильнюс) – Минейное житие Параскевы Тырновской на руськой мове (на материале списка Национальной библиотеки в Варшаве – BN Akc. 2996)||240–250||RUTHENIAN VERSION OF THE EXTENDED LIFE OF PARASCEVE OF TĂRNOVO|
(On basis of manuscript BN 12188 I from the National Library of Poland)
MARINA CHISTIAKOVA (VILNIUS)
The seventeenth-century Ruthenian Reading Menaion from the National Library of Poland, BN 12188 I (former Akc. 2996), contains an extended Life of Parasceve (St. Petka) of Tărnovo. The content of the text suggests that it was created no earlier than in 1641, probably in the Duchy of Moldova. Copies of this version of the Life of St. Parasceve of Tărnovo in Church Slavonic have not been unknown so far. Judging by the Ruthenian version, the text is close to the edition of saint‘s Life by deacon Moses from the collection of Božidar Vuković published in Venice in 1536. However, in comparison to the latter, the Ruthenian version is abridged and contains some episodes represented in a more realistic manner. One of the main features of this version is the inclusion of the story about the translation of the relics of St. Parasceve to Yaşi in 1641. Therefore, we propose calling this text the Moldovan version of the extended Life of St. Parasceve of Tărnovo.
|Елена Томова||(София) – Култът към св. Петка Търновска в Румъния (Из ръкописната сбирка на манастира Драгомирна)||251–259||THE CULT OF ST PETKA OF TĂRNOVO IN ROMANIA |
(From the manuscript collection of Dragomirna Monastery)
ЕLENA TOMOVA (SOFIA)
The article discusses the literary history of the vitae of St Petka of Tărnovo (of Iaşi) in view of their fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Cyrillic copies kept in the Romanian libraries and monasteries (and in particular, in Dragomirna Monastery). It also presents the results of a text critical analysis of the saint’s Prolog vita known in seven copies, the key one being preserved in the fourteenth-century manuscript BAS 73.
|Arhim. Policarp Chiţulescu||(Bucarest) – Les saints et leurs vies dans les manuscrits slavons de la collection de la Bibliothèque du Saint Synode de Bucarest. Sources des vies des saints||260–266||СВЕТЦИТЕ И ТЕХНИТЕ ЖИТИЯ В СЛАВЯНСКИТЕ РЪКОПИСИ|
ОТ БИБЛИОТЕКАТА НА СВЕТИЯ СИНОД В БУКУРЕЩ
архим. ПОЛИКАРП КИЦУЛЕСКУ (БУКУРЕЩ)
Библиотеката на Светия синод е основана едновременно със създаването на Светия синод през 1872 г. През 1959 г. библиотеката е преобразувана според научни критерии и е поместена в Двореца на Светия синод при манастира „Св. Антим“ в Букурещ. Основната колекция е съставена от книги от старата библиотека на Унгаро-Влахийската митрополия, книги от духовните семинарии, разпуснати от комунистите през 1948 г., както и закупени книги.
Сбирките на Библиотеката на Светия синод са съставени от документални фондове, които включват почти сто хиляди печатни книги, сред които има няколко хиляди старопечатни и редки книги, както и периодични издания. Пазят се и над 500 ръкописа от ХV до ХХ в., от които 150 славянски. Най-старият от тях има датиращ надпис от 1433 г., но има и ръкописи, които може да са от ХІV в. Сбирката от славянски ръкописи е проучвана спорадично от изследователи от Русия и България, но повечето от тях досега не са изследвани.
Най-голямата част от тези ръкописи са агиографски. В тях има жития на светци, които са много слабо известни в Румъния: Йоан Переяславски, Йосиф Волоколамски, Зосима Соловецки и Саватий Соловецки (в ръкописи от началото на ХVІ в.), Никита Стълпник Переяславски, Василий Блажени (московски юродив), Макарий Желтоводски и Уженски, княз Андрей Смоленски (Переяславски) и др.
Повечето ръкописи са получени от старообрядческия манастир „Успение Богородично“, окръг Тулча. Част от останалите са купени през ХІХ в. от старообрядци от манастира в Нямц, друга част са преписани от монаси от Успенския манастир, редица томове са донесени от далечния Архангелск.
Статията е и един вид покана към специалистите, които проявяват интерес да си сътрудничат с Румънската патриаршия (с Библиотеката на Светия синод), с цел научното използване на нейната сбирка.
|Замфира Михаил, Мария Осиак||(Бухарест) – Жития балканских святых в славянских рукописях Библиотеки Румынской Академии||267–274||VITAE OF BALKAN SAINTS IN THE SLAVONIC MANUSCRIPTS|
FROM THE LIBRARY OF THE ROMANIAN ACADEMY
ZAMFIRA MIHAIL, MARIA OSIAC (BUCHAREST)
The paper presents an overview of the examination of several Slavonic manuscripts in the Library of the Romanian Academy in Bucharest. It presents new information about copies of texts dedicated Balkan saints included in these codices. The authors point out the importance of the copies of Bulgarian Patriarch Euthymios’ textual corpus which were made by the monks in Romanian principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia in the 15th-16th centuries, as these copies often present the earliest preserved witnesses of Euthymios’ literary legacy. The two scholars also discuss other texts concerning Balkan sainthood and Bulgarian history that have survived in manuscripts housed in the Library of Academy in Bucharest, such as Paisij of Hilandar’s Istorija slavenobolgarskaja and a Synaxarion narrative about the martyrs who died in the battle between the Byzantine Emperor Nicephorus Gennicus and the Bulgarian Khan Krum in the summer of 811 (which was part of the Verse Prolog/ Synaxarion translated in Tărnovo).
|Елена Коцева||(София) – Към състава на три ръкописа от Националната библиотека в София: Енински апостол, Шопов-Карадимов псалтир и Софийски апостол (НБКМ 882)||275–294||NOTES ON THE CONTENTS OF THREE MANUSCRIPTS FROM THE NATIONAL LIBRARY IN SOFIA: ENINA APOSTOLOS, SHOPOV-KARADIMOV PSALTER AND SOFIA APOSTOLOS|
ELENA KOTZEVA (SOFIA)
The paper studies three of the most important manuscripts of the medieval Bulgarian cultural heritage kept in the National Library in Sofia, namely, Enina Apostolos (NBKM 1144), Shopov-Karadimov Psalter (NBKM 454 & 1138) and Sofia Apostolos (NBKM 882). While considering the contents and the composition of the three codices, the paper discusses the contents of their possible precursors that could help the precise dating and localizing of the manuscripts. It also studies them with the preservation of the tradition in early liturgical calendar and texts from the (ninth) tenth to fourteenth centuries in mind. The paper deliberates on the possible origin of the explanatory texts attached to calendar dates. Finally, it discusses (e) the revisions, the editorial changes in the contents and the composition of the texts in the macro-generic structure of “the Psalter with addenda.” These manuscripts are crucial for the study of the compilation and the composition of Slavonic liturgical books and their Byzantine sources. At this stage, their contents should be studied in detail with the application of new methods, available to the modern scholarship.
|Лора Тасева||(София) – Личните и географските имена в българския и сръбския превод на Стишния пролог (по материал от месец март)||295–312||THE PERSONAL AND GEOGRAPHIC NAMES IN THE BULGARIAN AND SERBIAN TRANSLATIONS |
OF THE BYZANTINE VERSIFIED SYNAXARION
LORA TASEVA (SOFIA–BERN)
The paper presents a comparative study of the personal and geographic names in the two complete Slavic translations of the Byzantine Versified Synaxarion, namely the Bulgarian and Serbian Prolog Stišnoj, which appeared around the first half of the 14th century. On the basis of the March texts in seven South Slavic manuscripts, the differences in the rendering of the personal names are analysed on the level of phonetics, orthography, morphology and word formation. The data allow the following conclusions: 1) The differences in the forms of these names in the Bulgarian and Serbian Prolog Stišnoj give further arguments supporting their independent origin; 2) Several specific tendencies are noted which more or less differentiate them. The Bulgarian translation reproduces more accurately the graphics of the original names, allows dativus possessivus, often replaces the Greek anthroponyms and toponyms with adjectives, presents many local names in the plural, and sometimes retains Greek nominative endings in masculine personal names. The Serbian translation, on the other hand, follows more often the Byzantine pronunciation of the names, complies more strictly with their grammatical characteristics (case, number), separates more often the ending -ς from the stem, and incorporates the accusative ending -ν into the stem of certain anthroponyms several times. 3) The tendency towards Slavicisation of the personal names is nearly the same in both translations and cannot be viewed as peculiar of either of them.
|Синтия Вакарелийска||(Юджийн, Орегон) – Култове и календари в Сред¬новековна България. До каква степен култовете на светците са отразени в месецословите?||313–320||CULTS AND CALENDARS IN MEDIEVAL BULGARIA: |
TO WHAT EXTENT ARE CULTS OF SAINTS REFLECTED IN MENOLOGIES?
CYNTHIA VAKARELIYSKA (EUGENE, OREGON)
This paper shows that the saints’ entries in pre-fifteenth-century medieval Bulgarian calendars of saints cannot serve as evidence of cults of saints in Bulgaria, because they are composed not from vitae or liturgical texts, but instead from a combination of earlier calendar sources. The paper illustrates this with examples of co-occurring saints in related Bulgarian calendars who do not have vitae in the Slavic tradition.
|Марияна Цибранска - Костова||(София) – Календарите във венецианските сборници за пътници: към типологията на явлението||321–335||THE CALENDARS IN THE VENETIAN BOOKS FOR TRAVELERS:|
TOWARDS THE TYPOLOGY OF THE PHENOMENON
MARIYANA TSIBRANSKA-KOSTOVA (SOFIA)
The article is the first one dedicated to the Calendar peculiarities of the fourth early printed book of the Bulgarian printer Yakov Kraykov – the miscellany “Book for various occasions” released in 1571–1572, Venice. The book has not been subjected to digitalization or facsimile reproduction yet. The current analy¬sis is based on the full Leiden University copy № 1370G21 from Joseph Justus Scaliger’s collection, testifying to the presence of the Balkan popular traditions, attested mostly in the topographic environment of the commemorations. At the same time, the Calendar offers a relatively complete picture of the 16th century Southern Slavic pantheon of saints. Another specific feature of the Calendar is the cult of St. Rocco (23.08), and the cult of St. Nicolas of Myra’s uncle (30.06), which reflects local worship traditions. In conclusions, the article searches the relations between Yakov’s calendar and the cultural heritage of the Greek-Slavic Orthodox community in Venice, as well as with the Serbian Diaspora from Adriatic coast, and finally with the Mount Athos’ s tradition.
|Диляна Радославова||(София) – Памети извън състава на Съкровище в българските дамаскини||336–361||THE CALENDAR ENTRIES IN THE BULGARIAN DAMASKINI|
NOT PRESENTED IN THE THESAUROS OF DAMASKENOS STUDITES
DILYANA RADOSLAVOVA (SOFIA)
The article reconsiders the structural characteristics of the source for the Bulgarian Damaskini – Damaskenos Studites’ vernacular anthology Θησαυρός (Venice, 1557/8 г.). The author reckons it to be an intricately conceived book containing sermons and vitae, all selected and put in a complicated calendar order in accordance to the following general thematic frame: the Incarnation and the earthly life of Christ; the life in Christ and the Salvation – through fasting, penance, and martyrdom; and the God’s blessing manifested through the Descent of the Holy Spirit and the miracles of the saints.
Based on this interpretation, the study attempts at complementing the known composition models of the archaic Sredna Gora Damaskini and the New-Bulgarian Damaskini of the classic period (late 16th – 17th c). It also aims at summing up the records on the non-Thesauros’ texts for calendar entries that do not derive from the original anthology and on those that duplicate or replace texts of the original Damaskenos Studites’ collection. Within the group of the Damaskini that have calendar related contents the study identified six structural variants of transforming the Thesauros’ model, as well as their sub-variants. The classification reflects the degree of preservation/destruction or resemantization of the thematic-calendar frame of the original anthology.
|Diana Atanassova||(Sofia) – Narrating Exorcism and Performing Prayers (Aspects of Performativity of Some Early Martyria Spread in South Slavic Milieu)||362–376||ДА РАЗКАЖЕШ ЕКЗОРЦИЗЪМ, ДА ИЗВЪРШИШ МОЛИТВИ|
(Перформативни аспекти на някои ранни мъчения, разпространявани в южнославянски контекст)
ДИАНА АТАНАСОВА (СОФИЯ)
Статията е посветена на текстовите особености на пет агиографски текста, възникнали във Византия (не по-късно от VII в.) и популярни в славянския свят, където проникват вероятно още съвсем рано (в старобългарската епоха). Това са: 1. Мъчение на св. Никита, син на Максимиан, BHG 1346d (начало BHG 1342z); 2. Мъчение на св. Варвара, BHG 213-214; 3. Мъчение на св. Юлиания от Никомидия, BHG 962z; 4. Мъчение на св. Марина, BHG 1165; 5. Мъчение на св. Параскева Римлянка, BHG 1420d. Основната ми хипотеза е, че има структурно-семантична обвързаност между 1) типа светец (а именно мъченик), 2) един определен сюжетен момент (разпита и победата над дявола в тъмницата, където е затворен героят), и 3) евхемния финал.
На особената взаимосвързаност между трите елемента и на смислопораждащите механизми в резултат на това се дължи специфичния перформативен характер на анализираните текстове. Те не просто разказват за мъченическите подвизи на своите герои, те пресъздават, така да се каже, нещата разказани в тях. Как става това? Най-вече чрез своеобразните перформативни функции на текста, породени от сдвояването на един (централен) епизод, който е същностен за смисъла и посланията на мъченията (победата над дявола и неговата изповед) и финалните молитви – заклинания.
Онова, което свързва петимата светци – мъченици и посветените на тях текстове в настоящото изложение, е фактът, че става дума за светци със спорна историчност (1), на което се дължат по-фриволните, макар и изградени основно върху клишета разкази за живота на тези персонажи (2), от една страна, и финалните, предсмъртни молитви на светците (3), от друга.
|Любка Ненова||(Благоевград) – Данни за св. Димитър Басарбовски в „История славяноболгарская“ на св. Паисий Хилендарски (Текстологически преглед)||377–390||THE ACCOUNT ON ST. DIMITAR OF BASSARBOVO IN “SLAVO-BULGARIAN HISTORY” BY ST PAISIJ OF HILANDAR|
(Text critical notes)
LYUBKA NENOVA (BLAGOEVGRAD)
The study discusses the account on St Dimitar of Bassarbovo (known also as St Dimitar the New) included under Nr. 29 in the chapter “Bulgarian saints” in Istorija Slavenobolgarskaja by St Paisij of Hilandar. Five edited manuscripts and ten digitalized copies of the text are examined. The so-called Museum copy is used as a basis for the edition of the account about St Dimitar of Bassarbovo. The study presents a text with a full collation of variants, and a translation into contemporary standard Bulgarian language. The article comments on the textual variation, the scribal errors, changes in the vocabulary and word order. On the basis of this comparison, the copies are classified in four textual groups.
|Анна Е. Косицкая, Жанна Л. Левшина||(Санкт-Петербург) – Гимнография Area Orthodoxa в проекте „Литургическое наследие Православной Церкви“. Цели и задачи проекта. Археография и источниковедение||391–406||THE HYMNOGRAPHY IN AREA ORTHODOXA REPRESENTED IN THE PROJECT|
“LITURGICAL HERITAGE OF ORTHODOX CHURCH”
ANNA E. KOSITSKAIA, ZHANNA L. LEVSHINA (SANKT-PETERBURG)
The project “Liturgical Heritage of Orthodox Church” aims at the introduction of forgotten, unknown and newly written hymns into liturgical practice. They are dedicated to church feasts and saints, both universal and local. The final goal of the project is to compile a Festal Menaion in Church Slavonic which will contain texts that are not present in the so-called “Green” Moscow Festal Menaion of 1978-1979.
The project started in 1998 and since then numerous texts in manuscripts and early printed books written in various languages used in the Orthodox world have been examined and translated into Church Slavonic. Some of these hymns have been already implemented in church practice. In the present article are reported the most important results of the archeographical and textual work with manuscripts and early printed books in Russia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Greece, and other countries. The materials collected exceed the volume of the “Green” Menaion.
The huge material collected required elaboration of well-grounded criteria for selection of texts to be published. These criteria are based on detailed textual analysis of the mosaic structures of the hymnic works studied. In this analysis, a new method was used for comparison of similar sources by distribution of the incipits of hymnic units in tables. This type of textological analysis of similar hymnic sources with mosaic structures is demonstrated in the paper on the units for September 3.
The texts chosen for publication are edited in accordance with the norms and rules of the present-day liturgical rites and Church Slavonic. The editors aim at greater comprehensibility, euphony, theological faithfulness, and correspondence to the present-day Russian Typikon. In result, various hymns dating from different periods can be included in the present-day liturgy conducted in Church Slavonic.
|Съкратени названия на институции, библиотеки и архиви||407|
|Съкращения на поредици и периодични издания||408–409|
Кн. 45–46 (2012)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Георги Попов||(София) – Химнографското наследство на Кирило-Методиевите ученици и съставът на Рождественско-Богоявленските последования в миней № 98 от типографската сбирка в РГАДА, Москва||9–85||TOWARDS THE HYMNOGRAPHIC HERITAGE OF THE DISCIPLES OF CYRIL AND METHODIOS: THE COLLECTION OF THE SERVICES FOR THE NATIVITY OF CHRIST AND FOR THEOPHANY|
GEORGI POPOV (SOFIA)
The present study is a part of a Bulgarian-Russian project aimed at producing a diplomatic edition of Menaion No 98 from the Typographic Collection of RGADA, Moscow (fund 381), an Old Russian MS from the 12th–13th century. The study presents the peculiar features of the varied and many-layered content of the MS. The Old Bulgarian hymnographic works with acrostics written by the disciples of Cyril and Methodios, that are in the December and January services, are the object of special attention. The state of the copies has been described and some of the peculiarities of their composition and structure have been analyzed. “Old Bulgarian Ecclesiastical Poetry for the Nativity of Christ and for Theophany”, a three-volume work that has been prepared for the press, as well as other publications by the same author present a detailed comparative study of these hymns. The present article also deals with the translated hymnographic works in the services for the Nativity of Christ and Theophany (in accordance with the text available in the MS – the services for the period from 25th December to 7th January). This liturgical section contains archaic elements, as well as material excerpted from revised antigraphs. Individual peculiarities have also been found. They are the result of the striving to supplement and enrich the codex with hymnographic texts from additional sources.
|Климентина Иванова||(София) – Неизвестна компилация, съдържаща Климентовата похвала за Йоан Кръстител||86–115||AN UNKNOWN COMPILATION COMPRISING THE ENKOMION FOR JOHN THE BAPTIST BY CLEMENT OF OHRID|
KLIMENTINA IVANOVA (SOFIA)
The text presented (under the title Homily for Theophany) is an interesting example of a compilation of two rhetorical works. The first one is a part of the Oration on the Mathew’s Gospel by John Chrysostom (Мt 3: 13–17; Greek in РG 57, col. 201–208). Attached to it is the Enkomion for John the Baptist by Clement of Ohrid. The fragment by Chrysostom is taken from the already existing Old Bulgarian translation, transcripts of which are included in some 14th-century Serbian Panegirika collections. The Enkomion for John the Baptist is incorporated almost in full. To the exegetic Chrysostom’s oration Clement’s texts adds rhetorical pathos and an emotional rhythmic prize of the Baptist. In the process of creating the compilation, its two parts were not edited, so they preserved their independence in the frame of the new literary piece. The Compilation on Theophany is attested in two late Serbian manuscripts. The older transcript is preserved in a sixteenth-century codex. Its copyist Timothy the Deaf stated that he had written the book in Ozren Monastery (Bosnia) in 1589. The manuscript, which belonged to the Hopovo Monastery, is now stored in the Library of the Serbian Patriarchy in Belgrade (No 282). The second transcript is incorporated in a Reading Menaion for January, compiled by the well-known man-of-letters Averkios in 1626 on Mt Athos (now in the Hilandar Monastery, MS 443). The two copies reveal minor variations. It seems that Timothy’s MS served as the source of Averkios. The protograph of the Compilation on Theophany most likely appeared in Serbia. It is difficult to define its exact date, yet it was not earlier than the 14th century and not later than 1589. The existence of such a compilation reveals the authority of the Old Bulgarian translated and original rhetorical texts in the literature of the Balkan Slavs.
|Искра Христова - Шомова||(София) – Византийските синаксари и техните славянски реплики||116–143||THE BYZANTINE SERVICE TYPIKA AND THEIR SLAVONIC REPLICAE|
ISKRA HRISTOVA-SHOMOVA (SOFIA)
The term Typikon and its meanings are discussed in the article and the difference between the Monastic and Service Typika is explained. The significant role of the Byzantine Lectionaries (Aprakos Gospels and Apostoloi) is discussed as well. Further, three Byzantine Service Typika are described: a) the Typikon of the Great Church, which was used in the parish liturgy in the 9th and partly in the 10th century; b) the Typikon of the Studion Monastery, which was used since the 10th century both in the monasteries and in the town churches; c) the Jerusalem Typikon, which became mandatory for the Greek churches from the 13th century. At first, the Lectionaries, especially the Aprakos Apostoloi, contained the Synaxaria of the Service Typika, so the Typikon of the Great Church and the Studion Typikon were preserved mainly in Apostoloi. Later, the Synaxaria of the Jerusalem Typikon were imbedded in Psalters. In the article some examples of the Slavic replicae of the Greek Typika are cited which prove that the Typikon of the Great Church was translated in the earliest age of the Slavic Christianity, most probably by the Holy Brothers Cyril and Methodios. The problem of the existence of a book called Tropologion in the early period in medieval Bulgaria is discussed in connection with the Studion Typikon and its use.
|Cynthia M. Vakareliyska||(Eugene, Oregon) – The Preservation of the Synaxarion to the Constantinople Typikon in the Medieval Bulgarian Calendar Tradition||144–164||ЗАПАЗВАНЕТО НА СИНАКСАРА КЪМ ТИПИКА|
НА ВЕЛИКАТА ЦЪРКВА В СРЕДОВЕКОВНАТА БЪЛГАРСКА
СИНТИЯ ВАКАРЕЛИЙСКА (ЮДЖИЙН, ОРЕГОН)
Средновековните български, сръбски и източнославянски календарни традиции имат като основа един или друг от най-раните календари, свързани с гръцките типици. Повечето от българските календари до края на XIVв. отразяват до известна степен съдържанието на синаксара към типика на Великата църква (IX–X в., тук ВК) и на неговия разширен и редактиран наследник, Менология на император Василий ІІ (тук Всл). Не съществуват славянски календари, преводи на пълния ВК или Всл, обаче някои архаични памети на светци от ВК, по-късно изпуснати от Всл, се срещат в български календари на различни по тип книги от XIII–XIVв. Статията очертава в най-общи линии взаимоотношенията между преписите, принадлежащи към семейството гама, т.е. три двойки български календари от този период, които съдържат архаични памети от ВК и Всл. Това семейство се съпоставя с месецословите на Остромировото евангелие, Охридския апостол, Карпинското евангелие и най-древния запазен пълен месецослов, староцърковнославянското евангелие Codex Assemanianus.
|Анета Димитрова||(София) – Авторски и преводачески стил в старобългарската агиография||165–177||AUTHOR’S STYLE AND TRANSLATOR’S STYLE IN THE OLD CHURCH SLAVONIC HAGIOGRAPHY|
ANETA DIMITROVA (SOFIA)
As Old Church Slavonic (OCS) translations of Byzantine prose are called in question, some of the most debated issues concern the principles of translation. This article draws attention to the importance of analyzing the linguistic features of the original as well.
Byzantine Greek and OCS are structurally similar. Syntactic synonymy results in both author and translator having to choose between several options. A close study of their preferences makes it possible to differentiate between the style of the original and that of the translation. On the other hand, the two languages differ in various ways. By the 9th century there is already a big difference between spoken and literary Greek so that the authors’ styles depend on their education and purposes, on the genre or the literary trends of the time. OCS, by comparison, is a young literary language, based on the vernacular and occasionally exposed to Greek influence. There are also many linguistic differences between them. In each case of linguistic asymmetry the translator has to pick out between possible solutions and it is on these choices that we can draw conclusions about the style and the methods of translation.
The article gives several examples of how one can draw a conclusion about the author’s or the translator’s style based on linguistic data. The examples are from three Byzantine Vitae (4th–10th c.) translated into OCS during 10th–11th c. and they deal mainly with the use of infinitives and the Greek definite article. At the end some syntactical criteria are derived for analyzing both original and translation.
|Татяна Славова||(София) – Славянският превод на Посланието на патриарх Фотий до княз Борис||178–196||THE SLAVONIC TRANSLATION OF PATRIARCH PHOTIOS’ LETTER|
TO THE BULGARIAN KNYAZ BORIS-MICHAEL (ARCHEOGRAPHY)
TATYANA SLAVOVA (SOFIA)
The article explores the manuscript tradition of the Slavonic translation of Patriarch Photios’ letter to the Bulgarian knyaz (prince) Boris-Michael. The translation has been preserved only in Russian copies dating from the beginning of the 16th century to the beginning of the 20th century. The study reveals archeographical data on 15 copies of the Letter – both in complete (Russian State Library, Moscow, f. 178 № 3112, f. 113 № 522, f. 113 № 488, f. 113 № 489, f. 113 № 506, f. 310 № 588; State Historical Museum, Moscow, Sin № 235/384; Sin № 996) and abridged (Russian State Library, St. Petersburg, f. 113 № 522; f. 209 № 572; State Historical Museum, Khludov collection № 333; Russian National Library, collection of Theological Academy № 52) versions; 4 of them are introduced for the first time in scholarly circulation. Also, the author comments on the texts surrounding the Letter as well as the interest in it on behalf of the heretics in Novgorod and Moscow during the 15th century. The assumption about the Bulgarian archetype of the Slavonic translation of the Letter is built upon the linguistic and spelling features.
|Florentina Badalanova Geller||(Berlin–London) – Heavenly Writings: Celestial Cosmography in The Book of the Secrets of Enoch||197–244||НЕБЕСНИ ПИСАНИЯ: КОСМОГРАФИЯ НА БОЖЕСТВЕНОТО МИРОЗДАНИЕ В КНИГА НА СВЕТИТЕ ТАЙНИ ЕНОХОВИ|
ФЛОРЕНТИНА БАДАЛАНОВА ГЕЛЕР (БЕРЛИН–ЛОНДОН)
Настоящата статия е посветена на една относително слабо проучена в старобългаристиката апокрифна творба, позната в науката като Книга на светите тайни Енохови и/или Втори (славянски) апокалипсис на Енох (2 Енох). Произведението е част от един значително по-широк корпус от старозаветни апокрифни съчинения, свързани с името на родения седем поколения след Адам пророк Енох, когото Бог вдига жив на небесата, за да му разкрие съкровените тайни на отвъдните селения.
Една от най-съществените особености на самия наратив на апокрифната Книга на светите тайни Енохови е описанието на отвъдните селения, разположени на седемте (а в някои от версиите – на десетте) небеса, които пророкът посещава едно след друго, преди да се срещне „лице в лице“ с Бога, който му разкрива тайните на миротворението; това описание на Еноховото пътешествие-“пренасяне“ разкрива една вътрешна логика и неочевидна, но строга архитектоника. Отделните небесни нива са подредени в симетрична хармония, а вселената е уподобена на храм, разположен в подножието на Божия престол. Всичко това Енох описва в съкровените си книги, превръщайки се по този начин в архетип на „твореца/писателя“, докоснал се до небесното знание на ангелите и до самата Божествена мъдрост. Когато му разкрива тайните на творението на видимото и невидимото, на материята и законите, които я управляват, Бог го посвещава и в крипто-знанието на астрономията, като го информира за подредбата на звездите. Тази подредба не следва нито един от познатите планетарни модели, регистрирани в съчиненията от същата епоха (Симеоновия сборник, творбите на Йоан Екзарх и др.). Тези, а и други особености на 2 Енох насочват към една ранна композиция на текста; протографът му вероятно възхожда към епоха, предшестваща периода на установяването на Птолемеевата стандартната подредба на небесните тела (наложена през II в. сл.Хр.); от друга страна, писменото описание на мъдростта, придобита от Енох, наподобява предания за вавилонски предисторически мъдреци. Това на свой ред ни дава основание да интерпретираме апокрифната Книга на светите тайни Енохови като специфичен посредник между културното наследство на Вавилон и Византия.
|Марияна Цибранска - Костова||(София) – Към историята на изповедния чин на славянския Юг през XIV век||245–272||TOWARDS THE HISTORY OF THE CONFESSIONAL RITE|
ON THE SOUTH OF SLAVS IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY
MARIYANA TSIBRANSKA – KOSTOVA (SOFIA)
The article focuses on two 14th-century copies of the South Slavic confessional rite in the following manuscripts: Zaykovski Hagiorite Trebnik (Cod. Slav. 954) from the National Library “SS. Cyril and Methodius” in Sofia and the MS 67 from Dečani monastery, now in the National Library of Serbia in Belgrade. They are both rare representatives of the historical development of the Slavonic Trebnik before the post-Byzantine period. The copies are submitted to a close study in order to find out the similarities and the differences in the structure of the confessional rite in three of its sections: the Questionnaire for men and women; the Prayer’s repertorium; and the abridged redaction of John the Faster’s Kanonarion. The last part exists only in Deč. 67 and reveals tangible traces of the first Old Slavonic translation of the Greek prototype, most likely undertaken in Eastern Bulgaria and connected to the Preslav literary school. The greatest similarity is established in the Questionnaire, when rare lexical uses (such as, for instance, лошады) have been preserved in both copies. Deč. 67 sheds supplementary light on the meaning and the grammatical form of several words, helping the revision of the current opinions and opening up the discussion about the probable origin of the text archetype. It remains a facultative component of the Rite. In addition, the abridged version of John the Faster’s Kanonarion is published according to MS Deč. 67.
|Марко Скарпа||(Венеция) – Монашеското образование на Патриарх Евтимий в манастира Кефаларево||273–282||THE MONASTIC EDUCATION OF THE PATRIARCH EUTHYMIOS|
OF TĂRNOVO IN THE KEFALAREVO MONASTERY
MARCO SCARPA (VENICE)
The patriarch Euthymios of Tărnovo started his spiritual path in the monastery of Kefalarevo, which was founded by Theodosios of Tărnovo, a disciple of Gregory of Sinai. In this monastery, Euthymios was educated according to the principles of Gregory of Sinai’s new spiritual school and soon became a teacher of the younger monks.
Studying some ascetic monastic South Slavic miscellanies related to the Kefalarevo monastery and to Gregory’s monastery (Paroria), we were able to understand the spiritual scene and Euthymios’ monastic education and, in general, the life in these monasteries.
The miscellanies that have been analyzed include works of contemporary writers: Pseudo-Symeon the New Theologian, author of the Three Methods of Prayer, Nikephoros of Mount Athos (13th century) and Gregory of Sinai himself. In their works these three authors explicitely refer to a number of previous writers and texts, that reflect, in a certain sense, the entire history of the Byzantine spirituality. Along with the contemporary works, these miscellanies comprise also works of various earlier authors, starting from Ephrem the Syrian, Evagrios of Pontus and Pseudo-Makarios of Egypt (4th century) to Isaiah of Gaza and Mark the Monk (5th century). They also include excerpts from various Paterika (especially those from the Collective (Svodnyi) Paterikon, that was presumably written in the 14th century) and passages by Zosimas (6th century). There are found as well authors from the 7th century, such as Athanasios of Sinai, Thalassios of Caesarea and Maximos the Confessor. Theodore of Edessa’s writings (11th century) can be seen as a sort of synthesis of the previous ones. Philotheos of Sinai (10th century), Symeon the New Theologian and Niketas Stethatos (11th century) represent the second stage of the Byzantine mysticism. Finally, Hesychios of Sinai (12th century) anticipates the spititual renaissance of the 13th and 14th centuries.
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Вася Велинова, Нина Вутова||(София) – Славянските ръкописи от сбирката на Националния исторически музей||283–304||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=196290|
|Мария Шнитер||(Пловдив) – Нови сведения за дейността на Йосиф Брадати||305–310||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=196302|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Маргарита Куюмджиева||(София) – Боянската църква между Изтока и Запада в изкуството на християнска Европа. Под редакцията на Бисерка Пенкова. С., 2011. 272 с.||311–318||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=196295|
|Елена Томова||Лора Тасева. Триодните синаксари в средновековната славянска книжнина. Текстологично изследване. Издание на Закхеевия превод. Словоуказатели. Weiher: Freiburg i. Br., 2010 (Monumenta linguae slavicae dialecti veteris, 54). 823 S.||318–323||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=196286|
|Елка Бакалова||(София) – Георги Минчев. Слово и обред. Тълкуванията на литургията в контекста на други културно близки текстове на славянското Средновековие. ПАМ Пъблишинг Къмпани, С., 2011. 200 с.||323–327||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=196298|
|Димо Чешмеджиев||(Пловдив) – Георги Николов. Самостоятелни и полусамостоятелни владения във възобновеното Българско царство (края на ХІІ–средата на ХІІІ в.). ИК „Гутенберг”, С., 2011. 256 с.||327–333||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=196288|
|Десислава Найденова||(София) – Иван Божилов. Българската архиепископия XI–XII век. Списъкът на българските архиепископи. ИК „Гутенберг“, С., 2011. 160 с.||334–337||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=196301|
|Съкратени названия на институции, библиотеки и архиви||338|
|Габриела Георгиева||(София) – Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 2007–2008 г.||339–402||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=196296|
Кн. 43–44 (2010)
|100 ГОДИНИ ОТ РОЖДЕНИЕТО НА ПЕТЪР ДИНЕКОВ|
|Клео Протохристова||(Пловдив) – Петър Динеков в българската академична традиция||5–15||PETĂR DINEKOV IN THE BULGARIAN ACADEMIC TRADITION |
CLEO PROTOKHRISTOVA (PLOVDIV)
The main concern of the paper is to recall the presence of Professor Petǎr Dinekov in the Bulgarian academic tradition. Sought is the image of the teacher and researcher, stabilized during the period from the 1960s to the 1980s. First, his figure is contextualized in the framework of the general tendencies intrinsic to Bulgarian academia. Then the outlined specifics are analyzed from a diachronic perspective and, consequently, an attempt is made to historicize Dinekov’s legacy.
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Маргарита Младенова||(София) – Преобръщане на парадигмите, или има ли мода в науката||16–37||REVERSING THE PARADIGMS OR IS THERE FASHION IN SCIENCE? |
MARGARITA MLADENOVA (SOFIA)
The paper offers a critical discussion of the theory of the southern localization of Great Moravia as proposed by Imre Boba in his book Moravia’s History Reconsidered and presented in a new variant by Peter Juhas in his (Bulgarian) monography Cyril and Methodius in Bulgarian Morava (Sofia, 2000). The arguments against this theory concern three subjects: (1) the interpretation and reinterpretation of the historical sources; (2) the archeological data from excavations made in the second half of the 20th c. and their interpretation; (3) the overall context of the historical facts and their interpretation. The conclusion is that the way I. Boba and P. Juhas reinterpret history is based on a small part of the extant sources while the classical theory neglects none of them. And since the archeological sources and the context do not support their theory either, it is interesting as an experiment in reinterpretation but cannot serve as an alternative possibility to explain the historical situation.
|Ростислав Станков||(София) – Проблемы текстологии древнеболгарского перевода Хроники Георгия Амартола||38–95||TEXTOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF THE OLD BULGARIAN TRANSLATION OF GEORGE HAMARTOLOS’ CHRONICON ROSTISLAV STANKOV (SOFIA) (S u m m a r y) Textological problems of the early Slavonic translation of George Hamartolos’ Chronicon (Old Bulgarian in its origin) so far have been discussed in the studies of several scholars. In the beginning an attention is paid to V. A. Matveenko – L. I. Ščegoleva’s hypothesis that a collation of translation with the Greek original might have taken place. The analysis of Matveenko-Shchegoleva’s examples shows that there is no evidence for such a collation. Basically the study examines the textological method and main conclusions of V. M. Istrin and O. V. Tvorogov. The analysis reveals that all the eight Old Russian copies of George Hamartolos’ Chronicon in Istrin’s edition have common textual variants. Istrin’s division of copies into two groups (further subdivided into two versions) opposed to Tr (Troice-Sergieva Lavra 100) is dubious and far from reality. What is more, Istrin claimed closeness of Tr to the archetype of the translation of George Hamartolos’ Chronicon but even copies considered distant from the archetype of the translation have their original textual readings. Istrin’s stemma is to be considered artificial; it does not contribute to the further textological investigations of the early Slavonic translation of George Hamartolos’ Chronicon. As O. V. Tvorogov sayed, the textual variations of the early Slavonic translation of George Hamartolos’ Chronicon could not be considered as detached versions. Nevertheless, the scholar continued the tradition by using the term version (redakcija). In his studies Istrin’s stemma received further development and assumed more complicated form. Even more, Tvorogov even supposed a secondary textual influence upon a group of some Old Russian copies George Hamartolos’ Chronicon (A in his stemma) by the Second version of the Ellinskij Letopisec. Such a thesis is beyond proof. A special attention is paid to manuscript P (Pogodin 1432 from the Russian National Library in Saint Petersburg). It was written by several copyists. One of them in contrast to the others used Old and Middle Bulgarian orthographical features. The fact is significant enough to prove that P goes to the Old Bulgarian tradition of the early translation of George Hamartolos’ Chronicon. But none of the Russian scholars ever said a word about that. In the end of the study some theoretical notes on Mediaeval Slavonic textology were made. The long tradition of the early Slavonic translation of George Hamartolos’ Chronicon reveals a great chaos in textual readings witnessed by its Old Russian copies. In that situation a stemma does not make sense because the stemma is chaotic in itself. This could be seen in T. V. Anisimova’s stemma. It is beyond hope that the chaos in variant readings witnessed in the manuscripts will ever coincide with the chaos of the stemma, so that some kind of a real picture could be received. A better decision could|
be a critical edition of the early Slavonic translation of George Hamartolos’ Chronicon.
Istrin’s and Matveenko–Ščegoleva’s editions of the early Slavonic translation of
George Hamartolos’ Chronicon are not satisfactory.
|Мая Петрова||(София) – Мъчението на св. Пелагия от Тарс в южнославянските староизводни чети-минеи||96–117||THE MARTYRDOM OF ST PELAGIA OF TARSUS IN THE OLD RECENSION OF THE SOUTH-SLAVIC READING MENAIA |
MAYA PETROVA (SOFIA)
The paper studies the Slavic translation of the Martyrdom of St Pelagia of Tarsus preserved in several fourteenth-century copies of the so-called “Reading Menaia of the old recension”, i.e., collections of saints’ Lives structured by the Studite Typikon. A collation of the transcripts reveals that this legend was rendered into Slavic only once. The translation is extant in a limited number of Serbian and Bulgarian manuscripts, while it has not survived in the Russian tradition. It could be positively stated that the translation was made in Preslav during the 10th or 11th century, since its language bears clear traces of norms typical of that period and region (archaic grammatical forms, rare lexis, Hunno-Bulgarian loan-words, etc.). In the course of time this initial translation underwent changes leading to two independent recensions. The analysis shows that both are of equal value for the reconstruction of the protograph.
|Елка Мирчева||(София) – Търновският новоизводен превод на Мъчението на св. 40 мъченици от Севастия||118–166||THE TĂRNOVO TRANSLATION OF THE MARTYRDOM OF THE FORTY HOLY MARTYRS OF SEBASTE PRESERVED IN THE NEW RECENSION OF THE READING MENAIA |
ELKA MIRCHEVA (SOFIA)
The Martyrdom of the Forty Holy Martyrs of Sebaste belongs to the earliest translated works in Old Bulgarian literature. Its two Old Bulgarian translations – the archaic Cyrillo-Methodian preserved in the Gherman Codex and the Preslav one in the Codex Suprasliensis – are well known and have been studied several times. In this article for the first time its Middle Bulgarian translation made from Greek originals in Tarnovo during the 14th century are presented in detail. The article provides a comparative textual and linguistic analysis of the three Middle Bulgarian translations in comparison with the relevant Greek versions, making extensive use of a large range of other original and translated works. In this context observations and conclusions have also been made about the Menaion-collections structured according to the Jerusalem Typikon, the techniques of the Tarnovo translators, and the characteristic features of the language of the medieval Bulgarian texts.
|Радослава Станкова||(София) – Проложните жития на св. Параскева Епиватска (Петка Търновска) в южнославянски преписи от ХІV–ХV в.||167–182||THE PROLOGUE VITAE OF ST. PARASKEVЕ OF EPIBATAI (PETKA OF TĂRNOVO) IN SOUTH-SLAVIC MANUSCRIPTS FROM THE 14th AND 15th CENTURIES |
RADOSLAVA STANKOVA (SOFIA)
The article discusses the prologue vitae of the popular South Slavic anchorite saint St. Paraskeve (Petka) in Bulgarian and Serbian copies from the 14th-15th c. There are two such (pre-Euthymian) prologue vitae known so far – the first extant in twenty copies, the second only in three. These texts can be found in two types of books – in the Versified Prologue (in its Tărnovo version) and in the Menaion, while the Prologue vita is not included in the old recension of the South Slavic Prologue (the so-called Simple Prologue), where only the dismissal troparion from the saint’s service is inserted. Since the Menaion copies of the vita have not been subject to research so far, two such copies from the 14th c. and ten from the 15th c. are being treated in the article. In the course of the research two tercets could be made out which precede this type of vitae in the Menaion, while there are no verses in the Prologue. It could be established that the First Prologue vita of St. Petka is more commonly used and is incorporated both in the Prologue and in the Menaion, while except for minor variations the text is the same. The Second Prologue vita is known only in one copy from the discussed period and in two from the 16th c., published in Menaia. It also turns out that there is no connection between the Prologue text and the recension of the service in which it is placed. An edition of the texts of the two vitae is provided in the appendices. As can be seen, there are no significant variants to be observed in the First prologue vita so there are no grounds for distinguishing of two separate recensions.
|Тотю Тотев||(Шумен) – Повторно за надписа от северната крепостна стена на Вътрешния град на Велики Преслав||183–193||ONCE AGAIN ON THE INSCRIPTION FROM THE NORTHERN WALL OF THE INTERIOR CITY OF VELIKI PRESLAV |
TOTIU TOTEV (ŠUMEN)
Some 50 years ago the first excavators and researchers of Tsar Symeon’s capital city discovered an inscription in the earthen mass which deserves a second reading and, hence, publication, caused by new, additional observations. They are partly related to the paleography and partly also to the numerical value of several letters of this interesting source, which may be called “mysterious”. On the basis of the paleographic form of the characters and in comparison with other available Old Bulgarian epigraphic monuments, the inscription can be allocated between the chronological limits of the 11th–12th centuries or, at the latest, to the first half of the 13th century.
|Светлана Куюмджиева||(София) – Реликти от стара практика: някои наблюдения върху аранжирането на репертоара на ранните кондаци||194–208||RELICTS OF AN OLD PRACTICE: SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE REPERTORY OF EARLY KONTAKIA |
SVETLANA KUJUMDZIEVA (SOFIA)
On the focus of the article is the repertory of kontakia that are arranged for the whole ecclesiastical year and are included in the book of the Psaltikon. The latter was in use between 11th and 14th century and was designated for the performance of soloists for the cathedral rite of the secular churches, known as “sung Office”. The study of the kontakia in the Greek Psaltikons shows that in terms of the arrangement they resemble the repertory of one of the earliest hymnographic books preserved in Georgian copies, the so-called Iadgari, the book that goes back as early as the 6th/7th century and presents the cathedral rite of Jerusalem. Like the repertory of the Iadgari, the kontakia in almost all of the Greek Psaltikons are arranged in an uninterrupted order: the yearly cycle of both the fixed feasts for the twelve months throughout the liturgical year and the movable feasts for the periods of Lent, Easter, and Pentecost are interspersed in a single calendar sequence. The movable feasts are placed between February 2, the Hypapante, and June 24, the feast of St. John Prodromos. The first two weeks of the preparatory period of Great Lent – of the Publican and Pharisee and of the Prodigal Son – are missing. The movable cycle starts with the Meatfare Sunday – a fact that is established for all of the older hymnographic books containing the repertory of Great Lent. The arrangement of the kontakia in the Psaltikons reveals that they have preserved an archaic tradition that goes back before the 9th century. The study of the Slavic kontakia preserved in five Old-Slavic Kontakaria from the 11th to the 14th century, shows that they are arranged according to the “newly” “interrupted” order: the yearly cycle is divided into two separate cycles containing, respectively, fixed and movable feasts. The movable cycle starts like the Greek Psaltikons with the Meatfare Sunday. The existence of two different practices of the arrangement of the repertory of the kontakia between 11th and 14th century – an older one and a new one – speaks about the use of different Typika. It is very possible that the newer arrangement of the kontakia in the Old-Slavic Kontakaria appeared as a result of the activity of the Studite shool of poet-composers from the 9th century onwards: it is almost sure that the Studite monks rearranged the repertory of the kontakia dividing it into separate cycles of fixed and movable feasts. Hence the Old-Slavic Kontakaria in terms of the arrangement of the kontakia for the whole ecclesiastical year represent a later stage in the development of the repertory of kontakia.
|Маргарита Куюмджиева||(София) – Изображението на Св. Троица в наоса на църквата „Рождество Христово“ в Арбанаси – иконографски прототипи|
|209–235||THE TRINITY IMAGE IN THE NAVE OF THE NATIVITY OF CHRIST CHURCH IN ARBANASSI: ICONOGRAPHIC PROTOTYPES AND CONTENT |
MARGARITA KUYUMDZHIEVA (SOFIA)
This composition belongs to the rare anthropomorphic type of Trinity imagery known in the relevant studies as Throne of Mercy, Gnadenstuhl, or Razpiatie v lone Otchem. It shows God the Father supporting close to His chest the crucified Christ and the Holy Spirit as a dove depicted above the cross. The Throne of Mercy is a variant of the Trinity which is emblematic for Western painting, where it already existed by the end of the 12th century. Its diffusion in Orthodox painting is very restricted both during the Byzantine and post-Byzantine periods. The Western composition influenced the images in the parish church of the Virgin in Roustica in Crete (1380-81) and in two Cypriot churches dedicated to the Holy Cross from the 15th and 16th centuries. The Throne of Mercy composition occurs also in Russian icon painting from the 16th-17th centuries, where it achieved a more radical transformation. Specific to the Russian variants are the depiction of Christ on the cross with cherub wings, and a crown on the head of God the Father. An elaborate image of this type is painted on the famous four-segment icon from the middle of the 16th century in the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. The 17th-century example of the Throne of Mercy in the Nativity of Christ church in Arbanassi strictly follows Russian variants, as known from the four-segment icon of the mural paintings in the Holy Dormition Monastery of Sviyazhsk (c. 1560), and from a similar 17th-century icon kept today in the Republic of Karelia Museum of Fine Arts. How the obviously direct Russian influence reached Arbanassi cannot be determined any more. Yet, it is well known that the Metropolitans of Tǎrnovo traditionally kept close ties with Russia, and that during the 16th and 17th centuries there were numerous visits of Bulgarian clergymen to Moscow. Often these visitors received church vessels and icons as presents. This fact may have furthered the transmission of this iconographic model to the Bulgarian church.
|Красимир Станчев||(Рим) – Отива си една епоха. In memoriam Riccardo Picchio (1923–2011)||236–241||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=106774|
|Нели Ганчева||(София) – Виртуалната библиотека „Manuscriptorium“, или за пътя към интегрираното представяне в интернет на колекции от ръкописи и старопечатни книги||241–246||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=106763|
|Татяна Илиева||(София) – Чествания в памет на 1100 години от успението на св. Наум Преславско-Охридски в България||247–253||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=106773|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Татяна Славова||(София) – Старобългарски речник. Т. 2 (О–Y). С., Изд. „Валентин Траянов“, 2009. 1320 с.||254–259||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=106769|
|Мария Йовчева||(София) – Екатерина Дограмаджиева. Месецословните четива в славянските ръкописни евангелия (Х–ХVІІ в.). С., 2010 (Кирило-Методиевски студии. Кн. 19). 552 с.||259–272||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=106758|
|Цветана Ралева||(София) – Румяна Павлова. Восточнославянские святые в южнославянской письменности ХІІІ–ХІV вв. // Rumjana Pavlova. Ostslavische Heilige in südslavischen Kanontexten der Slavia Orthodoxa im 13.–14. Jahrhundert. Herausgegeben von Swetlana Mengel. Halle (Saale), 2008. 322 S.||273–277||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=106767|
|Иван Билярски||(София) – Иван Божилов. Византийският свят. С., Анубис, 2008, 704 с.||278–282||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=106766|
|Ангел Николов||(София) – Илия Илиев. Св. Климент Охридски. Живот и дело (Средновековна библиотека, 4). Пловдив, Фондация „Българско историческо наследство“, 2010. 262 с.||282–286||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=106761|
|Татяна Илиева||(София) – Георги Петков, Мария Спасова. Търновската редакция на Стишния пролог. Текстове. Лексикален индекс. 1–5. Пловдив, Университетско издателство „Паисий Хилендарски“, 2008–2010||287–289||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=106760|
|Съкратени названия на институции, библиотеки и архиви||290||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=106772|
|Габриела Георгиева||(София) – Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 2006 г.||291–347||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=106770|
Кн. 41–42 (2009)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Публикации на проф. д-р Красимир Станчев за периода 1969–2009||5–18||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=123526|
|Публикации на проф. д-р хабил. Александър Наумов за периода 1971–2009||19–32||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=123551|
|Георги Попов||(София) – За принадлежността на старобългарския Канон за пренасяне мощите на св. Йоан Златоуст към химнографското творчество на Климент Охридски||33–45||ON THE OLD BULGARIAN CANON “TRANSLATION OF THE RELICS OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM” – PART OF THE HYMNOGRAPHIC WORK OF ST. CLEMENT OF OCHRID |
GEORGI POPOV (SOFIA)
The conclusion that the Old Bulgarian Canon on the Translation of the Relics of St. John Chrysostom is part of the hymnographic work of St. Clement of Ochrid stems from the link between its text and the stichera in the same service. These stichera were formed as an acrostic of the syllable КЛИ (see Stanchev, Popov 1988, pp. 147–149). Both hymnographic works have the same textual basis – they were composed to be sung to tune VIII and have identical or similar peculiarities with regard to their content, language and style. Some typical musical-rhythmic and compositional-structural features in them also point to the work of St. Clement of Ochrid. In the appendix a comparative edition of the Canon is given on the basis of the two extant copies. One of them is contained in the Festal Menaion No 522 of the National library “Cyril and Methodius” in Sofi a, a Middle Bulgarian MS from the 13th century known as the Skopje Menaion, while the other appears in the Festal Menaion No 98 of the Typographic Collection of RGADA in Moscow, an Old Russian MS from the 12th–13th centuries.
|Сергей Темчин||(Вильнюс) – О греческом происхождении славянского канона св. Димитрию Солунскому||46–52||ON THE GREEK ORIGIN OF THE SLAVONIC LITURGICAL CANON FOR ST. DEMETRIUS OF THESSALONIKI|
SERGEJUS TEMCHINAS (VILNIUS)
The paper discusses the possibility that the Old Church Slavonic liturgical Canon for St. Demetrius of Thessaloniki is a translation from а lost Greek original. As a result of a retranslation of the Slavonic incipita into Greek, it was possible to reconstruct (with varying range of probability) a fragment of the original Greek acrostic which testifi es to the translational nature of the Old Church Slavonic text of the Canon.
|Мария Йовчева||(София) – Съставът на Киевските печатни минеи (1893–1894) в светлината на вековната славянска ръкописна традиция||53–63||THE CONTENT OF THE PRINTED KIEVAN MENAIA (1893–1894)|
IN THE LIGHT OF THE CENTURIES-OLD SLAVIC MANUSCRIPT TRADITION
MARIYA YOVCHEVA (SOFIA)
The article examines certain specifics of the content and language of the set of Church Slavonic Service Menaia printed in Kiev in 1893–1894, compared to handwritten copies from the 11th to the 16th century. The focus is on the variations in translation of rare Greek words and phrases, the inclusion of hymns in two or more versions, and the interpolation of individual troparia and stichera. It is proved that the major part of mistakes and deviations show parallels in handwritten Service Menaia and are therefore most probably inherited from the manuscript tradition of the offi ces. Also attested in medieval Slavic manuscripts is a number of hymns – mostly canons – of the Kievan printed Menaia, which are absent in the respective offi ces of the Venetian Greek prints. On the basis of these data it is pointed out that the study of the sources of the early Slavic written codices should not be limited to the search for the written Greek or/and Slavic protographs, on which they were based, but the tradition the Menaion circulating several centuries in Slavic environment should also be taken into consideration.
|Мария Шнитер||(Пловдив) – За побратимството и побратимените монаси между|
Изтока и Запада (Отново за „Книгата на побратимените монаси“ от манастира Райхенау)
|64–76||ABOUT FRATERNIZATION AND FRATERNIZED MONKS BETWEEN EAST AND WEST (Once Again on the Fraternization Book of the Reichenau Abbey) |
MARIA SCHNITTER (PLOVDIV)
The paper examines the presence of the names of Methodius and his companions in the Verbrüderungsbuch of the Abbey Reichenau. The relevant entries have been interpreted in the context of the various forms of companionship and “fraternization”, characteristic of the European medieval tradition – both in Eastern, Byzantine and Slavic, and Western (mostly Benedictine) monasteries. Here, additional arguments are suggested with regard to the circumstances concerning the ordination of the two brothers. The conclusion is that although they did not belong to the monastic convent of Reichenau, Cyril, Methodius and their companions enjoyed the status of “spiritual brothers” in the monastery and thus belonged to a community exceeding the regional, ecclesiastical and political boundaries of their time.
|Климентина Иванова||(София) – „Слово за зачатието на св. Анна“ – една вероятно старобългарска творба||77–86||THE SERMON ON THE CONCEPTION OF ST. ANN – A POSSIBLE OLD BULGARIAN ORIGINAL WORK|
KLIMENTINA IVANOVA (SOFIA)
The “Sermon on the Conception of St. Ann, when she Conceived the Holy Theotokos” is a rhetorical work which can be found under December 9th in a considerable number of Slavic transcripts contained in Reading Menologies from the 14th to the 17th century. A Greek counterpart has not been found so far. The Slavic text follows the classical form of the Greek sermons and has a clearly outlined and wellconsidered structure. Partially the “Sermon on the Conception of St. Ann” is based upon the so-called Protoevangelion of Jacob. Although its earliest preserved copies date from the 14th century, it reveals Old Bulgarian linguistic peculiarities. Its literary qualities point to a talented and emotional preacher, well-acquainted with the model of the sermon who freely interpreted the texts he knew. The collation reveals that he used the fi rst Old Bulgarian translation the Protoevangelion of Jacob. The analysis suggests that the Sermon was composed not later than in the 10th century. Its stylistic features are more similar to those of St. Clement than to the works of the Exarch John. Without excluding the possibility that the Sermon derives from an unknown Greek original, the assumption is made that it could have been written by an Old Bulgarian author who had learned the principles of Byzantine rhetorics.
|Искра Христова - Шомова||(София) – Eдин западен светец в православния свят – Св. Мартин от Тур в църковния календар през Средновековието||87–104||A WESTERN SAINT IN THE ORTHODOX WORLD: ST. MARTIN OF TOURS IN MEDIAEVAL CHURCH CALENDARS |
ISKRA HRISTOVA-SHOMOVA (SOFIA)
St. Martin does not appear among the main saints of the Byzantine tradition. His Greek Vita was written in the 8th or 9th century and is preserved in approximately ten copies. There are only two manuscripts (both of Italo-Greek origin) with his Greek service. Furthermore, there are two different short (synaxarion) Greek Vitae of St. Martin. In the Slavic tradition his memory is mentioned in about 15 early Gospel- and Apostle-MSS, all except one of a South Slavic origin and most of them Bulgarian. Also, the Greek synaxarion Vitae have Slavic translations which are compared in the article. Moreover, troparia for St. Martin are preserved in the Service of St. Menas which is also celebrated on November 11th. Greek originals of these troparia have not been found so far. Thus, they are either Slavonic originals or were translated from an unknown source. Most probably they were included in St. Menas’ service in Bulgaria during the 10th century. In conclusion: There are two traditions of the cult of St. Martin in the Slavic Orthodox world – one of them is represented in his short Vitae and is connected with Constantinople, the other one is connected with the Italo-Greek tradition and represented under his date in the Gospel- and Apostle-calendars, as well as in the troparia included in the Service of St. Menas. The second tradition probably derives from early Bulgaria and is to be seen together with the dedication of other Italian saints in Bulgaria (St. Alexander of Rome, Pope Stephen I, St. Alexis the Man of God, St. Apollinarius of Ravenna, St. Vitus, St. Erasmus of Formiae), especially in Ochrid. The article gives also some information on the folklore tradition of autumn feasts connected with St. Martin’s day.
|Stefano Parenti, Elena Velkovska||(Rome, Siena) – Two Leaves of a Calendar Written in “Mixed” Uncial of the 9th century||105–113||TWO LEAVES OF A CALENDAR WRITTEN IN “MIXED” UNCIAL OF THE 9TH CENTURY |
STEFANO PARENTI (ROME), ELENA VELKOVSKA (SIENA)
This study is devoted to the two folia used as fly-leaves in MS Sinai Gr. 925. The folia were written on Sinai in the 9th century in “mixed hagiopolite uncial,” a script characteristic for this area. They can be dated by internal evidence to after 835-843. The leaves are the remains of a calendar of liturgical commemorations for April and May. Some of the calendar entries consist only of names, while others contain a short hagiographical note and represent a precursor to the later Byzantine synaxarion.
|Елисавета Мусакова||(София) – За литургическия състав на старобългарските изборни евангелия||114–120||ON THE LITURGICAL COMPOSITION OF THE OLD BULGARIAN GOSPEL LECTIONARIES |
ELISSAVETA MOUSSAKOVA (SOFIA)
The source of this article is a work in progress on the ornamental marking of the liturgical content in Gospel lectionaries acknowledged as Bulgarian. Here the observations are limited to the arrangement of the lecture-cycles with variable position in the Old Bulgarian manuscripts Codex Assemanianus (As), Vatican Palimpsest (Vat), and Book of Priest Sava (Sav). The Passion Gospels in As and Sav follow the readings on Maundy Thursday, while in Vat they follow the Menologion. At the same time the liturgical address of the cycle in As points to a tradition different from that testified by Vat and Sav. A critical survey of the edition of Vat permits to argue that the Hours make no part of the extant text. Possibly, the cycle once followed the Menologion together with the Passion Gospels. If true, Vat must be considered as the predecessor of a small group of Bulgarian lectionaries showing the same cycle. Without pretending to be complete, parallels to Greek lectionaries are given along with the cases under discussion, though they should also be subjected to further analyses. The arrangement of the Morning Resurrection and the Passion Gospels in Vat is comparable to Vat. Gr. 353, a codex with intriguing history. It has been claimed that the distribution of the cycles with changeable position in the Gospel lectionary has no relevance to the textological or liturgical recension of the copies. Nevertheless, searching among the Byzantine Gospel lectionaries for compositional analogues of the Bulgarian versions is reasonable insofar as it might disclose the sources of the earliest Slavonic version of this book.
|Иван Билярски||(София) – Избраният народ и Обетованата земя (Географски черти на религиозната идентичност)||121–132||THE CHOSEN PEOPLE AND THE PROMISED LAND (SOME GEOGRAPHICAL FEATURES OF A RELIGIOUS IDENTITY) |
IVAN BILIARSKY (SOFIA)
The article is a continuation of the author’s research on the so-called “Bulgarian Apocryphal Chronicle of the Eleventh Century”. It presents one of the arguments for the identifi cation of the Early Mediaeval Bulgarians with the New Israel in the époque just following the evangelization of the country. There Bulgarian lands are presented as a replica of the Holy Land in geographical point of view: this is a fertile land situated between two waters (a sea and a big river). It is to stress also the manner how the People entered in the “Promised land” – through the river, with God’s help, led by a prophet. Some traits of this “liturgical conquest” could be discovered also in mediaeval Bulgarian literature. In author’s opinion this is another evidence in favour of the strong Old Testament basis of the Apocryphal Chronicle and of the creation of the Holy-Scripture-based-identity of the Bulgarians in the Early Middle Ages.
|Татяна Славова||(София) – Виночерпецът на българския владетел през Ранното средновековие||133–143||THE WINE-CUP-BEARER OF THE BULGARIAN RULER IN EARLY MEDIAEVAL TIMES |
TATYANA SLAVOVA (SOFIA)
The article explores the hypothesis that the term чъваньчии (“cup-bearer”) expresses an institutional status in the First Bulgarian Kingdom, i.e. the title of a courtier who served as the ruler’s wine cup-bearer. Since there is no direct evidence for the existence of such an institutionalized post in Bulgaria, various arguments are listed to support this statement: (1) historical evidence about the role of the wine cup-bearer in service to the Hunnic rulers and the Byzantine Emperor; (2) the use of the lexeme чъваньчии “ruler’s cup-bearer” in early Bulgarian translations of literary works which survived in later Slavonic copies; and (3) the Proto-Bulgarian (Turkic) origin of чъваньчии ‘one who uses a cup, pitcher’, with the following morpheme structure: a motivating lexeme чьванъ ‘vessel, cup, pitcher’ (Turkic čod(g)un with original meaning “vessel, pot”, in written Mongolian čodugar, čožugar “bottle, pitcher, jug”, secondary meaning “cast iron, molten iron”) and the Proto-Bulgarian suffix -чии for Nomina agentis. In addition, the author traces the substitution of чьваньчии with чрьпчии / чрьпьць and чашьникъ, trying to explain the reason behind it.
|Анна-Мария Тотоманова||(София) – Магьосницата от Аендор, пепелта, пепелянката и един библейски топос||144–149||THE WITCH OF AENDOR, THE ASHES, THE VIPER AND A BIBLICAL TOPOS |
ANNA-MARIJA TOTOMANOVA (SOFIA)
The article speculates on the origins of the expression влъхва попельница denominating the witch of Aendor (a woman with familiar spirit), to whom king Saul turned in his despair in order to obtain Samuel’s prophecy about the future of his bloodline and his own fate. It occurs on p. 423а18-19 of the Slavic version of the Chronicle of George Synkellos and does not correspond to the Greek word ἐγγαστρίμυθος in the Septuaginta. The ancient Greeks believed that sorcerers and necromancers (who prophesised to call upon the dead and ask them about the future) had πνεῦμα Πύθωνα and called them πυθώνες. In the Latin Vulgata magicians are referred to as people having python or contacting pythones. In the Bible the Greek idiom πνεῦμα Πύθωνα survived only in Acts 16:16, being replaced by ἐγγαστρίμυθος in the Old Testament as a translation of Hebraic 'ob ‘water skin; mumble’. King James Version describes sorcerers as having familiar spirits, i.e. being served by a spirit. We believe that Old Church Slavonic влъхва попельница reflects the Greek perception of the gift of divination as a result of having or being a python(issa). The Greek word was etymologised by the Slavic translator of Synkellos as deriving from the verb πύθομαι ‘to rot, decay’. The latter corresponds with the rare reading духъ прашьнъ for πνεῦμα Πύθωνα in some Old Church Slavonic Apostles and should be explained in the same way, since both stems прах- and попел- share the meaning ‘decay; mortality’. We suppose that the Bulgarian translator deliberately chose the noun попельница instead of the adjective попельнъ in order to identify the mythical dragon Python with the viper whose name was tabooed in South Slavic.
|Димо Чешмеджиев||(Пловдив) – Кратки бележки за култа на св. Прохор Пшински в Средновековна България||150–163||SOME NOTES ON THE CULT OF ST. PROCHOROS OF PŠINJA IN MEDIEVAL BULGARIA |
DIMO CHESHMEDZHIEV (PLOVDIV)
This article represents an attempt to collect all data from hagiography, hymnography and mural painting where information about the cult of St. Prochoros of Pšinja can be found. Special attention is being paid to the question of the commemoration dates of the saint. One of these dates, October 19th, coincides with the main date for the celebration of St. John of Rila. Thus, St. Prochoros of Pšinja is connected with St. John of Rila. Consequently, the hypothesis is made that this connection was caused by another pair of Christian saints who were often mentioned and depicted together – St. John the Evangelist and his closest student and follower, St. Prochoros.
|Анатолий Турилов||(Москва) – Заметки о тырновских „обыденных“ рукописях и книгописцах первой половины – середины XIV в.||164–171||NOTES ON “ORDINARY” TǍRNOVO MANUSCRIPTS AND SCRIBES DURING THE FIRST HALF AND MIDDLE OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY |
ANATOLII A. TURILOV (MOSCOW)
The article deals with the attribution of ordinary Bulgarian manuscripts (predominantly fragments) of the first half until mid fourteenth century, written in the capital city of the Second Bulgarian State Tǎrnovo and on Mt. Athos. They serve as a background sui generis for the famous codices of the period of John Alexander (1331–1371). 1. The author identifies the scribe of the Service Menaeum fragment NBKM No 114 with the second (anonymous) scribe of the Sofia “Pesnivets” (Psalter) of 1337. 2. The fragments of another parchment Service Menaum (Athos, Zographou, No Slav. 285 and 286) are written in a variant of Mitrophan’s hand by which Pogodin’s Prologue of 1339 was written. 3. The cursive of the paper Gospel fragment from Kiev (Library of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, f. 301, No 31, fol. 1) coincides with that of the main (anonymous) scribe of the Moscow copy of the Manasses Chronicle of 1345. 4. The handwriting of the parchment Octoechos fragment (Athos, Zographou, No Slav. 284) is identical with that of the first scribe of the Synoptic Paterikon (ibidem, No Slav. 83). 5. It can be surmised that Hieromonk Lavrentij, who copied the famous Miscellany for Tsar John Alexander in 1348, was also the scribe of the Lenten Triodion of the 1350s (Athos, Chilandariou, No Slav. 259).
|Йоханес Райнхарт||(Виена) – Апокрифният Апокалипсис на Йоан Богослов в хърватско-глаголически препис||172–197||THE APOCRYPHAL APOCALYPSE OF JOHN THE EVANGELIST IN A CROATIAN GLAGOLITIC COPY |
JOHANNES REINHART (VIENNA)
In this paper the only Croatian Glagolitic copy of the Old Bulgarian translation of the apocryphal Apocalypse of John the Evangelist is published and analyzed on the basis of the Gršković Miscellany of the sixteenth century. As the text has experienced several redactions at different times it contains not only linguistic innovations, but also some errors. The importance of the Croatian text for the reconstruction of the original text is limited. It can be assumed that the Old Bulgarian text of the apocryph came to Croatia at the end of the eleventh or at the beginning of the twelfth century.
|Емилия Гергова, Уилям Р. Федер||(Дирфийлд, САЩ) – Човекът с мулето (Не от "Мъдрата" на Карл Орф)||198–206||THE MAN WITH THE MULE|
WILLIAM VEDER, EMILIA GERGOVA (DEERFIELD, IL, USA)
The paper presents an edifying story from the Scete Paterikon, which illustrates
two separate instances of ‘the last’ becoming ‘the fi rst’ (Mt 19:30). It points out the
necessity of separating edifying stories from other genres (i.c. apophthegms and
vitae) and of tracing their Biblical and non-Biblical ancestry. In addition, it provides
an analysis of the textual changes consciously applied to the Moravian translation in
an edition, presumably made at Ohrid before 971.
|Анисава Милтенова, Явор Милтенов||(София) – Неизвестен славянски превод на словото – De neomeniis et de sabbatis et de non observandis avium vocibus от Псевдо-Евсевий Александрийски||207–225||AN UNKNOWN SLAVONIC TRANSLATION OF THE HOMILY DE NEOMENIIS ET DE SABBATIS ET DE NON OBSERVANDIS AVIUM VOCIBUS BY PSEUDO-EUSEBIOS OF ALEXANDRIA |
ANISSAVA MILTENOVA, YAVOR MILTENOV (SOFIA)
Medieval Slavic literature did not preserve the cycle of works attributed to (Pseudo-) Eusebius of Alexandria. The present article is dedicated to the textological research and editing of the Slavic translation of a rare homily of this early Christian author De Neomeniis et de Sabbatis et de non observandis avium vocibus, BHG 635kb, CPG 5516. The text is directed against magical practices, especially against the evil eye (βασκανία), and it contains a rare description of this popular belief. The homily was found in the sixteenth-century miscellany No 1170 from the collection of I. Svencickij in the National Museum in L’viv, Ukraine. The codex with Serbian linguistic features has preserved archaic specifics of a much older archetype. In its composition the L’viv MS is close to other miscellanies studied by K. Stanchev and other medievalists. Presenting it to scholarship provides new opportunities for the study of this interesting tradition.
|Мая Петрова||(София) – За един неизвестен препис на Летовника на Георги Амартол и неговите ръкописни паралели||226–245||AN UNKNOWN TRANSCRIPT OF THE LETOVNIK OF GEORGE THE MONK AND ITS PARALLELS IN THE MANUSCRIPT TRADITION |
MAYA PETROVA (SOFIA)
The article examines an unknown copy of the second Slavonic translation of the Chronicle of George the Monk – the so-called Letovnik – preserved in a fifteenth-century Moldavian manuscript (Bucharest, Library of the Holy Synod MS III 22). This MS reveals close similarities to two other transcripts of the Letovnik – to the only known Bulgarian copy (Moscow, RGB, Museum collection, N 42, 15th c.) and to a second Moldavian one (Moscow, RGB, f. 178, Museum collection, N 921, 16th c.). The three MSS share the same peculiarities as opposed to the facsimile edition made after a fourteenth-century Serbian copy: the preface, the fourth chapter (dedicated to the Byzantine emperors), as well as the exact same passages from within are omitted; the segmentation of text and the titles of the subchapters coincide (while they are different in the Serbain copy); the bigger numbers (for hundreds and thousands) are written in words, while in the Serbian MS they are transmitted entirely with letters. The similarities of the Bulgarian and the two Moldavian codices could be traced also on the level of their content – the Letovnik is followed by the same set of texts (most of them taken from the second Slavic translation of the Historical Palaea) and thus point to a different type of historical book, in the frames of which the Letovnik (or, rather, a part of it) has been transmitted. It should be noted that the MS from the Holy Synod in Bucharest reveals the initial structure of this book and the full set of the texts included, since the ends of RGB 42 and RGB 921 have been lost. A further detail collation of these three codices, on the one hand, and their juxtaposition to the preserved Serbian copies, on the other, could shed more light on their mutual relations and on the history of the second Slavonic translation of the Letovnik.
|Вася Велинова||(София) – За някои термини, свързани с войната и военното дело, в среднобългарския превод на Хрониката на Константин Манасий||246–258||ABOUT SOME TERMS FOR WAR AND WARFARE IN THE MIDDLE BULGARIAN TRANSLATION OF THE CRONICLE OF CONSTANTINE MANASSES |
VASSJA VELINOVA (SOFIA)
This article examines the group of words connected with the war, warfare and armor in the Middle Age. All the variants of translating the Greek terms into Middle Bulgarian are selected and commented. The main conclusion is that the Bulgarian translator managed to maintain the complicated poetical style of the Greek writer. Although the Bulgarian text is not in verses like the Greek one, all the rhetorical ways of expression were kept even in the field of military practices.
|Георги Петков||(Пловдив) – Неизвестен препис на Службата за Йоан Нови Сучавски от Григорий Цамблак||259–277||AN UNKNOWN TRANSCRIPT OF THE OFFICE FOR ST. JOHN THE NEOMARTYR OF SUCEAVA BY GREGORY TZAMBLAK |
GEORGI PETKOV (PLOVDIV)
The article introduces to the scientific community one previously unknown transcript of the Office for St. John the Neomartyr of Suceava written at the end of the 15th century. It is thought to be 80 years earlier than the existing copies of the Office known at present. This new transcript is a part of a miscellany, Russian edition, in the Synod collection of the Russian Orthodox Church, now kept in the State Historical archive in St. Petersburg. The article gives a short description of the manuscript and provides the complete text of the office including the spelling peculiarities. The transcript is compared with two previous editions of the Office and the discrepancies are highlighted. In broad outline the differences illustrate the usage of the lexical forms, omission or addition of words and phrases. In the text of this transcript the exact acrostic with Gregory Tzamblaks’s name is clearly visible.
|Мариола Валчак - Миколайчакова||(Познан) – Свети Стефан Дечански през погледа на Григорий Цамблак||278–284||ST. STEPHEN OF DEČANI THROUGH THE EYES OF GREGORY TSAMBLAK |
MARIOLA WALCZAK-MIKOŁAJCZAKOWA (POZNAŃ)
This work discusses how Gregory Tsamblak, slightly modifying the established traditional model of hagiographic literature, presented a portrait of a saint (what features he ascribed to him, how he described his way of life, what features of his character he found as crucial). The article aims to demonstrate how cognitive linguistics developed in the 80s of the 20th century and acknowledged as the most modern method of linguistic research (commonly practiced in Polish linguistics) can be applied to a medieval text.
|Нина Гагова||(Белград–София) – Вписването на деспот Стефан Лазаревич в Свещената история и жанровите колебания на автора на неговото Житие||285–303||DESPOT STEPHAN LAZAREVIĆ, THE SACRED HISTORY AND THE HESITATION ABOUT THE GENRE OF THE AUTHOR OF HIS LIFE |
NINA GAGOVA (BELGRADE–SOFIA)
This article analyzes the Life of Despot Stephan Lazarević with the help of two different strategies, based upon the main accents in the works on the medieval text of Alexander Naumow and Krassimir Stantchev. Its first part studies the usage of Biblical elements (citations and comparisons) in the Live’s Preface which reveal “the introduction of the described realities in the Sacred history of the world” (A. Naumow). Its second part traces the meaning of the “genre/genres”, according to which the text of Constantine of Kostenec was constructed (K. Stantchev). The conclusion compares the results of these two interpretative strategies that reveal the author’s ideas about Despot Stephan Lazarević and cast light on the main peculiarities of his Life’s composition and style. It is assumed that the method of approach chosen by Constantine of Kostenec (an evidence of his professionalism and acquaintance with the Byzantine models of the so-called highbrow literature) had defined the way the Life was perceived and was decisive for the way it functioned in medieval literature.
|Розана Морабито||(Неапол) – Ритмическа памет и формални структури (Бележки върху произведенията, приписвани на Евфимия)||304–315||RHYTHMIC MEMORY AND FORMAL STRUCTURES. NOTES ON SOME WORKS ASCRIBED TO EUPHEMIA |
ROSANNA MORABITO (NAPLES)
The author went through some formal frames in texts written by the Serbian nun Euphemia, traditionally labelled as poetic works. Due to the lack of clear metrical patterns, an analysis on the basis of logical-syntactic scanning was performed. The scansion, as well as partial accentual regularity (isocolic constructions), showed a clear well organized rhetorical speech with several devices of an ornate prose style. The second work of Eufimia’s, especially, revealed a rich phonical-rhythmical tissue.
|Драгиша Бојовић||(Ниш) – Духовна трпеза Теодосија Хиландарца||316–322||THE SPIRITUAL DINING TABLE OF THEODOSIUS OF HILANDAR |
DRAGIŠA BOJOVIĆ (NIŠ)
One gets the impression that the study of the theology of creativity has been neglected in important currents in the research of Serbian medieval literature. This issue is very important not only for studying the poetics of this literature, but also the poetics of individuals works. The attitude of the author to inspiration and to the word itself seems particularly interesting. One can find a wide repertoire of thoughts on this problem in the literary pieces by Theodosius of Hilandar, in particular in his Praise of St. Simeon and St. Sava, Serbian Teachers. The spiritual dining table and the word are dominant motives in Theodosius' theology of creativity. The writer's attitude to divine words is not a consequence of the creative act, but it derives from the author's substantial attitude to the word of ministry, which is a reflection of Divine presence in every word about God. Through this, the primary presence of the sacred in this text is realized, but it is also presented in the praise of those who attained the likeness of God and were made holy in Christ.
|Мажанна Кучиньска||(Щецин) – Рукописные учительные евангелия в собраниях польских библиотек – структурная характеристика||323–336||RUTHENIAN MANUSCRIPT GOSPEL HOMILIARIES IN POLISH LIBRARIES – ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTIC |
MARZANNA KUCZYŃSKA (SZCZECIN)
In the article the author makes an attempt to describe Ruthenian Gospel homiliaries which survived in Poland and were shaped at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries under the influence of the new tendencies in Renaissance and Baroque preaching. The immediate causes for their creation were the cultural and educational needs of the faithful and the necessity to suppress the impact of reformation propaganda. The author draws attention mainly to the assemblage where the traditional Marian cults and Lord’s feasts were supplemented with moralizing and commemorations of saints. The author points out that the rich typological formula of the Gospel homiliaries decided about liveliness and popularity of the genre as well as about its significant practical values in liturgy and religious self-education.
|Елена Томова||(София) – Проложното житие на св. Петка Търновска в кирилски ръкописи в Полша||337–346||THE PROLOG LIFE OF ST PETKA OF TĂRNOVO IN CYRILLIC MANUSCRIPTS IN POLAND |
ELENA TOMOVA (SOFIA)
The topic of the article is related to the literary history of the Prolog Life of St. Paraskeve of Epibatai (Petka of Tărnovo) in Cyrillic manuscripts stored in Polish libraries and archives (Warsaw, Cracow, Ljublin, etc.). The author makes a textual analysis of eight transcripts of the Life as included in the saint’s Office (preserved in seven Menaia from the 16th and 17th centuries and in a Verse Prolog from the 17th century). The copies of this hagiographic piece are defined as important source material in the study of the hagiographical complex of the well-known Balkan recluse.
|Ян Страдомски||(Краков) – Хожденията в Света земя в сбирките на кирилските ръкописи в Полша||347–358||PEREGRINATIONS TO THE HOLY LAND IN THE COLLECTIONS OF CHURCH SLAVONIC MANUSCRIPTS IN POLAND |
JAN STRADOMSKI (CRACOW)
The collections of manuscripts written in Cyrillic alphabet and stored in Polish libraries feature three copies of Ruthenian peregrinations to the Holy Land. The National Library in Warsaw posseses one of the older copies of the itinerary of Hegoumenos Daniel Palomnik (BOZ 124, 15th century) and a copy of its sixteenth-century reworking by Archimandrite Daniel Korsuński (BN I 12437, beginning of the 18th century). The Princes Czartoryski Library in Cracow stores a description of Daniel Korsuński’s peregrinations (Czart. 2401, 18th century), which has been so far omitted in scholarly literature. The comparison of the manuscripts has displayed a greater presence of Western Ruthenian and Polish language features in manuscript BN I 12437, as well as a tendency for shortening fragments of the text. On the other hand, the copy from the Czartoryski Library is closer to the main edition of the text and presents a language similar to the majority of the copies of the text that have been preserved.
|Giovanna Brogi Bercoff||(Milan) – Old and New Narrative: “Runo orošennoe” by Dimitrij Tuptalo, Metropolitan of Rostov||359–366||„СТАРО“ И „НОВО“ В ПОВЕСТВОВАТЕЛНОСТТА|
НА „РУНО ОРОШЕННОЕ“ НА ДИМИТРИЙ ТУПТАЛО,
ДЖОВАНА БРОДЖИ БЕРКОФ (МИЛАНО)
„Руно орошенное“, първото съчинение на Димитрий Ростовски, е отпечатано
в Украйна и е претърпяло множество издания от 1683 г. до средата на XVIII в.
То се е радвало на голям успех не само в Украйна, но и в Русия. След кратък анализ на изданията следват разсъждения върху някои особени лингвистични
форми; върху средновековните църковнославянски извори; върху западните
средновековни извори и тези от епохата на барока; върху литературната струкура
и върху логическите и философските основи на този труд. Анализът на някои особености на литературния похват изтъква на преден план повествователната дарба на писателя: разработвайки по-стари материали с техники от XVII в., той успява да предизвика у читателя чувство за напрегнато очакване и да предложи живи реалистични описания или символични интерпретации. В същото време
Димитрий Туптало третира теми от универсално екзистенциално значение и се
стреми да даде решения, едновременно религиозни и дълбоко човечни. Той би
могъл да бъде наречен не само последния повествовател в църковнославянската литература, но и първия в новата украинска и руска литература.
|Аксиния Джурова||(София) – Още веднъж за ръкописите от византийската периферия (Изборното евангелие Р-120 от Народната библиотека „Иван Вазов“ в Пловдив)||367–382||ONCE AGAIN ABOUT THE MANUSCRIPT PRODUCTION OF THE BYZANTINE PERIPHERY (THE GOSPEL LECTIONARY Р-120 FROM THE PLOVDIV PUBLIC LIBRARY “IVAN VAZOV”) |
AXINIA DŽUROVA (SOFIA)
The purpose of this paper is to present an unpublished Greek manuscript, the Gospel lectionary P-120 from the collection of the Plovdiv Library. It has been only briefly described by Kr. Stanchev during his work with the Greek manuscript collection of the Library. The publication offers a detailed analysis of the codicological parameters of the manuscript, elaborated examination of its ornament and decoration. On the basis of this review, a new chronology and localization are proposed: according to them, the manuscript was created in Epiros in the second half of the 13th century.
|Казимир Попконстантинов||(Велико Търново) – Зограф Василие и стенописът "Чудото с Василие, син Агриков" в Боянската църква||383–401||THE ARTIST BASIL AND THE FRESCO „THE MIRACLE WITH BASIL THE SON OF AGRIKOS” IN THE BOYANA CHURCH |
KAZIMIR POPKONSTANTINOV (VELIKO TĂRNOVO)
The scholarly interest towards the Boyana church and the “Boyana master” has been recently revived thanks to the inscription (“азъ василие писахъ”) and the drawings found by the restorers in the wall area around the church entrance. My work with the newly found inscription bearing the name of the artist Basil as well as with the rest of the epigraphic material made it possible to fill a considerable gap in the history of the Boyana church. Furthermore, some of the scenes painted in the narthex have provoked a new interpretation since they seem to have been related to the work and style of that artist called Basil. One of them belongs to the life cycle of St Nicholas. The Life of St Nicholas includes a miracle that happened in Myra when, during the service, the Arabs attacked the church and captured the entire congregation including a certain youth called Basil. All were carried off to Crete as prisoners. Basil, on the account of his youth and beauty, was appointed by the Emir his cup-bearer. Basil’s parents did not know anything about the fate of their son and were very desperate. Their neighbors advised them to pray passionately to St Nicholas and indeed, the saint rescued their son from the Arabs. The scene with the happy return of Basil to his family cannot be found in any of the known Byzantine fresco cycles of St Nicholas’ Life. Yet, though rear, it is depicted in several churches in Serbia and Republic of Macedonia. The artists in Boyana, Psača (R Macedonia) and Ramaća (Serbia) did not relay on a definite Byzantine iconography. According to N. P. Ševčenko, it seems rather that all of them turned to West European versions or employed their own imagination. The scene in the Boyana church does not find parallels and direct analogies in the rest of the known fresco cycles, representing that miracle of St Nicholas. It appears as a peculiar nuance and accent in the iconographic program of the Boyana church and can be distinguished not only with its artistic characteristics and composition, but also with the specifics of the personages. The most impressive is the main figure in that scene – Basil rescued from the Saracens. It can be only speculated whether that episode was somehow related to the personal life of the artist Basil and thus, he approached it in a specific, unique manner in the frescoes.
|Елена Л. Конявская||(Москва) – Церковная живопись и живописцы в Паломнике Антония Новгородского||402–412||THE CHURCH PAINTING AND PAINTERS IN THE “PALOMNIK” BY ANTONY OF NOVGOROD |
ELENA L. KONYAVSKAYA (MOSCOW)
The article presents the analysis of the descriptions and interpretations of church art pieces in the “Palomnik” by Antony, the future bishop of Novgorod. The investigation lеads to the conclusion that the Russians have adopted the main principles of understanding and apprehension of the iсon: it is a holy image of the sacral Prototype and is appreciated as a miraculous phenomenon.
|Лиляна Мавродинова||(София) – Отново за Стенописния календар на църквата „Св. четиридесет мъченици“ във Велико Търново||413–426||ON THE MENOLOGION OF THE CHURCH OF THE FORTY HOLY MARTYRS IN VELIKO TĂRNOVO |
LILJANA MAVRODINOVA (SOFIA)
In his article from 2004, published in Tărnovo, the historian K. Totev has attempted to date the well-known wall painting calendar (the Menologion) in the nartex of the church of the Holy Martyrs in the old Bulgarian capital from the 14th century. Archeologists and art historians who have studied the monument earlier are unanimous that it was created in the 13th century, presenting serious arguments both from a historical point of view and from the point of view of art history. The author of this paper, who in 1974 published a monograph on the wall paintings of the church, disputes this dating of K. Totev, which is without any justification. He is not familiar with a number of earlier monuments, neither with any earlier menologion. The author notes the existence of a group of icon-menologia from the end of the eleventh to the 12th century at the Monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai which are cited in her monograph. They were published as early as the middle of the 20th century and no doubt are close to the models of the menologion at Tărnovo. An extensive study of the late Greek specialist G. Galavaris was dedicated to these menologia. He carefully has traced the connection of Sinai with Constantinopolitan scriptoria and the closeness of the examined icons with the ornamentation of these MSS. This confirms the early date of the menologion at Tărnovo and N. Mavrodinov’s claim on the illuminated MSS as an example for the menologion. The Bulgarian terminology used in the inscriptions leaves no doubt of its early dating.
|Елена Тончева||(София) – „Болгарский напел/роспев“ в Украйна и на Балканите||427–440||BULGARIAN NAPEL/RАSPEV IN UKRAIN AND ON THE BALKANS |
ELENA TONCHEVA (SOFIA)
In Ukrainian and Belarusian manuscripts from the end of the 16th and throughout the 17th and 18th centuries and in Russian manuscripts (starting from the 17th century) a large musical repertoire was notated using the Kievan quadratic staff notation and associated with the ethnonym “Bulgarian” (i.e. Bolgarsky Napel/Raspev – Bulgarian chant). Three Heirmologia from the 17th and 18th centuries with such repertoire are located it in the Great Skit Monastery (Eastern Carpathians) – a centre of this “Bulgarian singing”. After discovering the first Slavonic Balkan musical records with late Byzantine notation dating from the 15th and 16th centuries (after a long period of oral tradition) the idea was formed to conduct a comparative research between chants with parallel texts (in Greek and Slavonic) notated whit the two notations – late Byzantine and Kievan staff notation. On the basis of such parallel transcription close resemblances between the melodies were presented. These results suggested that Balkan musical notated sources for the Ukrainian Bolgarskij napel were discovered. The question posed in this study is how the two practices of Bulgarian chant – on the Balkans and in Ukraine – are informative in terms of modal (echos) characteristics. The conclusions, based on comparative study of two versions of the automelon ‘Oi anggelikai…” in the 6th (2 th plagal) mode (from the Skit Heirmologia and from the late Byzantine bilingual MS Athens 928 – Žegligovo anthology from the 15th century) are the following: 1. In the Ukrainian “Bulgarian” singing repertoire various modal (psalmodic) melodic patterns, characteristic of the Balkans, have been known and used, and 2. the modal characteristic of the Balkan Slavonic singing in the 6th mode is diatonic – not chromatic – as it is in later modal Byzantine systematizations.
|Светлана Куюмджиева||(София ) – Отново за означените като „български“ песнопения в музикални ръкописи||441–453||THE CHANTS DESIGNATED AS “BULGARIAN” IN MUSICAL MANUSCRIPTS ONCE AGAIN |
SVETLANA KUJUMDZIEVA (SOFIA)
M. Velimirović was the first to announce about some chants designated as “Bulgarian” in medieval musical manuscripts. His work was continued by Kr. Stanchev and E. Toncheva. “Bulgarian” chants are of various genres, all of which are for festal occasions: polyeleoi, kratemata, and communion. In the present contribution one more genre (cheroubikon or offertory) and two more copies of the most popular polyelos are added to the known until now “Bulgarian” chants. The latter constitute a stable repertory in the book of the Akolouthiai-Anthologies compiled according to the revised liturgical ordo of Jerusalem. Almost all of them are linked with the names of people close to the great medieval musician John Koukouzeles: John Glykys (Koukouzeles’ teacher), John Kladas (Koukouzeles’ school-fellow), Dimitry Dokeianos (Koukouzeles’ pupil), Koukouzeles himself. Two of „Bulgarian” designations deserve special attention. One of them is “ἡ βουλγάρα” which means “Bulgarian woman”. There are different interpretations of this designation. One of them is that such chants were devoted to Koukouzeles’ mother; another is that they are evidence of the increased attention to women in the 14th century. The other designation is unique. Its rubrics read: “…by Dokeianos in the first mode, imitating a Bulgarian lamentation tune”. All the “Bulgarian” chants go beyond a local significance: in all probability they were designed to foster the unity of the Christian Faith. They could be considered as “ambassadors” for the beauty of the Eastern Orthodox culture and also, as proof of an “open” culture between East and West during the Middle Ages about which our knowledge is still rather rudimentary.
|Валентина Измирлиева||(Ню Йорк) – Книгопечатане и магия на прага на модерна Европа: Типографският амулет между Апенините и Балкана||453–465||PRINTING AND MAGIC AT THE THRESHOLD OF MODERN EUROPE: THE TYPOGRAPHIC AMULET BETWEEN THE APENNINES AND THE BALKANS |
VALENTINA IZMIRLIEVA (NEW YORK)
The early history of Cyrillic printing presents us with a paradox. Even though the printed medium ensured in perspective the emergence of a broad reading public, some of the first Slavonic texts to appear in print were intended not for reading but for wearing on the body as amulets. The article focuses on the book that embodies the paradox: Božidar Vuković’s Miscellany for Travelers (Venice, 1520). This volume was the first non-liturgical Cyrillic printed book addressed explicitly to individual secular buyers, and it was the first to include typographic amulets. The article argues that these two precedents were mutually dependent. Three groups of amulet texts made their typographic debut in Vuković’s Miscellany: 1) a short “Eulogy of the Holy Cross” with “cross-shaped words” (krestnye slovesa); 2) texts from the apocryphal cycle about King Abgar; and 3) a pair of sacronymic lists, “The 72 Names of the Lord” and “The 72 Names of the Theotokos.” The Miscellany merged these previously unrelated texts into a well-crafted amulet corpus “against all evils”, designed to appeal specifically to the book’s target audience of secular travelers. The choice of the audience was no less calculated, since itinerant merchants were some of the most promising buyers on the emerging Cyrillic book market. The typographic amulet thus proved to be an important cultural agent of early Slavic modernity that helped consolidate the market in typographic goods by promoting books even to those who could not read at all.
|Кирил Топалов||(София) – Света гора в про- и антивизантийския сюжет в българската култура през ХVІІІ–ХІХ в.||466–472||THE ROLE OF MOUNT ATHOS IN CONSTRUCTING THE PRO- AND ANTI-BYZANTIUM STORY-LINE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NINETEENTH-CENTURY BULGARIAN NATIONAL REVIVAL LITERATURE |
KIRIL TOPALOV (SOFIA)
The clash between the image of the so-called “Byzantine Dream” – a reference to the idealistic desire for recreation and restoration of the independent and powerful Medieval Bulgarian State, and its factual historical representation in the context of the “Byzantine reality” of centuries-long domination of the Fener Orthodox Clergy over the Christian population in the Balkans, invariably conditioned the idiosyncratic path of construction of the pro- and anti-Byzantium story-line in the Bulgarian literature during the nineteenth-century National Revival. In the beginning of the 18th century the “spirit” of the New Age has had already appeared in Month Athos, radiating its powerful inspirational signals towards the reviving Balkan peoples, and offering them (also imposing on them) the unique for the Balkans model of pro- and anti-Byzantine civilizational abstraction. The “Byzantine Dream” represents the construction of the first conceptual nation-building image on the Balkans. This nation-building and civilizational signal originated from Month Athos by no accident: despite the fact that the monasteries on Month Athos peninsula were characterized by their clearly exhibited national idiosyncrasies during the centuries of submission to the authority of the Ottoman Empire they also found themselves united by their common experience of a sort of national complex which generally could be termed a “pro- and anti-Byzantine complex.” The validity and importance of this complex remain invariant regardless whether the origin of its “lost paradise” could be understood as the mere existence of the Byzantium Empire itself, or of its century-long rivalry with its biggest competitor for regional power – the Bulgarian Sate.
|Георги Минчев||(Лодз) – Две славянски венециански издания от XVIII в. с литургическо съдържание. Наставление върху Тайнствата на Захарий Орфелин и Епитом на Дионисий Новакович||473–488||TWO EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY SLAVIC LITURGICAL PUBLICATIONS FROM VENICE: ZAHARIJE ORFELIN'S ON THE SACRAMENTS AND DIONISIJE NOVAKOVIĆ'S EPITOME |
GEORGI MINCZEW (ŁÓDŹ)
The study analyzes the content of two little-known liturgical works (mystagogies) written by Serbian theologians: A Short and Simple Teaching on the Seven Sacraments (Kratkoe da prostoe o sedmych tajnstvach uchitelskoe nastavlenie) by Zaharije Orfelin (1726–1785) and The Epitome, or a Short Story of the Holy Temple (Epitom ili kratkija skazanija sveshtenago hrama) by Dionisije Novaković (1705–1767). Both texts/treatises were published by the Venice-based Greek printer Dimitrios Theodosios in 1763 and 1767, respectively. The analysis concentrates on these texts’ dependence on certain early Church Slavic prints, particularly the Skrizhal’ published in 1665 in Moscow – the most widely read work on theology among the Orthodox Slavs in the 17th and 18th centuries. Other works that appear to have influenced the Serbian commentators include certain late Byzantine mystagogies, the most significant of which are De sacra liturgia and Expositio de divino templo by St. Symeon of Thessaloniki (second half of the 14th century – 1429). The appearance and spread among the Balkan Slavs of two printed mystagogies is the outcome of the more general processes connected with the struggle of the Orthodox Slavic nations (living under Ottoman or Austro-Hungarian rule) to find their own approach to theology – in this particular case, to liturgics. This approach, which has its origins in Greek and Russian religious thought, develops in the second half of the 18th century into a plan to enrich the Eastern tradition with ideas taken over from Western theology – a plan which was never carried out.
|Константинос Нихоритис||(Флорина) – Славяно-гръцкият речник от Църковнославянската христоматия на Неофит Рилски (Цариград, 1852 г.)||489–498||THE SLAVONIC-GREEK DICTIONARY IN THE CHURCH-SLAVONIC READER BY NEOPHYTOS OF RILA (1852) |
KONSTANTINOS NIXORITIS (FLORINA)
After the foundation of the Theological school of Halki (1844) language courses were taught, such as Latin, Hebrew, Armenian, Arabian and Slavic. In order to facilitate the learning of Slavic, with the help of the rector, metropolitan Konstantinos Typaldos (1844–1865), teachers prepared various textbooks and translations that were used not only there, but also in other schools in the Slavic provinces. Leaning on his long pedagogical practice and his literary activities Neophytos of Rilla (teacher at Halki), created a remarkable textbook, namely the “Reader of Slavonic Language”, accompanied by a Slavonic-Greek dictionary which included the words from the Reader. The richness of words, the accuracy of expressions and the historical and philological value of the interpretative explanations inside this book make it unique for the Orthodox world and equally valuable for both the Greeks and the Slavs (Bulgarians, Serbs, and Russians). According to Ljubomir Miletich, “the dictionary as a whole demonstrates the originality of Neophytos’ work as a scholar, which even today (1906) does not lack historical and philological value in the Slavic literature”.
|Съкратени названия на институции, библиотеки и архиви||499||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=123538|
Кн. 39–40 (2008)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Регина Койчева||(София) – В света на палеославистиката – с дарба и ерудиция (Професор Георги Попов на 65 години)||3–15||GEORGI POPOV AT 65|
REGINA KOYCHEVA (SOFIA)
The article sums up the most important achievements of the outstanding Bulgarian palaeoslavist Prof. Georgi Popov on the occasion of his 65th anniversary. It is centered around the main topic of his studies – medieval Slavic hymnography – and presents the most important attainments of the scholar in three groups: 1) Discoveries of unknown poetic works and other important monuments, as well as of facts related to the attribution of certain texts; 2) Literary history of the rise and development of the Old Bulgarian hymnography; 3) Theoretical studies in the realm of hymnology and of palaeoslavic studies in general. The article summarizes Popov’s views on some principal theoretical problems, such as: the function and significance of the acrostic, the reasons for the flowering of the Old Bulgarian original hymnography in the ninth century, the specificity of the hymnographic text as a synthesis of original and translated components, etc.
|Красимир Станчев||(Рим) – Incognita Cyrillomethodiana||16–29||INCOGNITA CYRILLOMETHODIANA|
KRASSIMIR STANTCHEV (ROME)
The article subjects to a critical analysis the interpretations of some parts of the Life of St. Cyril, XV and the Life of St. Methodios, XV.4.
1. The evidence from the Life of Cyril, XV that in Moravia Constantine translated въсъ цръковныи чинь is analyzed. An attempt is made to prove that this phrase does not point to the corpus of the liturgical texts, but rather to a book regulating and/or clarifying the liturgical order (чинь); it is also possible that it does not speak about translation, but – in agreement with a part of the manuscript tradition – about the acceptance and explanation of the liturgical order (notwithstanding which one).
2. A new interpretation is proposed of the phrase “selected church liturgies” in the Life of Methodios, XV.4 based upon usage of the word combination “church liturgies” in the oldest texts. The author supports Alexander Naumow’s hypothesis that the phrase о(т)чскыꙗ книгы (“the Books of the Fathers”) in the Life of Methodios, XV.5 most probably does not speak about a different translation that took place along with the translation of the Nomokanon, but should rather be interpreted as a extended explanation of the Greek term: “Than he translated the Nomokanon, that is to say the Rules of the Law and [those of] the Books of the [Church] Fathers.” An attempt is made to support this hypothesis both with evidence from the manuscript tradition of the Nomokanon and with contextual analysis of some of the lexemes used. Furthermore, some considerations about the chronology of the usage of the term Nomokanon are put forward.
|Татяна Славова||(София) – Титулът таркан – почетно звание и/или длъжност?||30–44||“TARKAN” – AN HONORARY TITLE AND/OR AN ADMINISTRATIVE TITLE|
TATYANA SLAVOVA (SOFIA)
The article comments on the usage of the title “tarkan” and its double function in epigraphic and literary monuments from the ninth–tenth century (i.e. protoBulgarian inscriptions, Greek sources, Slavic originals and translated works). It is argued that when the title was used in post-position after another administrative / status title (e. g. ὁ βουλίας ταρκάνος, ὁ ζουπαν ταρκανος) or after an adjective (e. g. Κουλουτερκάνος, Καλουτερκάνος, Кълоутороканъ) it performed the role of an honorary title – probably accorded as a reward for specific services. However, when the same word was a part of composite titles, in post-position after a word meaning “rank” (ολγου, turk. uluγ, uluq “great, big”; ζερα, turk. yiri, yir “north, northern”; βορι, turk. böri, buri “wolf”) it accrued the function of administrative title, synonymous with a representative of the ruler of an enormous province.
|Ростислав Станков||(София) – Древнеболгарский перевод Хроники Георгия Амартола в древнерусской письменной традиции||45–103||THE OLD BULGARIAN TRANSLATION |
OF THE GEORGE HAMARTOLOS’ CHRONICON
IN THE OLD RUSSIAN LITERARY TRADITION
ROSTISLAV STANKOV (SOFIA)
The present study of the first Slavonic translation of George Hamartolos’ Chronicon has four parts. The first part deals with some general issues of the Greek original and its Slavonic translation. The second part gives brief information about the Old Russian manuscripts which contain the first Slavonic translation of the Chronicle and surveys scholars’ opinions and hypotheses about the origin of the first translation. The third part shows the textual connection between the first Slavonic translation of George Hamartolos’ Chronicon and the Primary Russian Chronicle (known as Povest’ Vremennych Let). The textual comparison between George Hamartolos’ Chronicon (first translation) and Povest’ Vremennych Let is attended with linguistic analysis. The linguistic analysis reveals new data about Old Bulgarian origin of the first translation of George Hamartolos’ Chronicon. The Old Russian manuscripts descend from a late Old Bulgarian protograph that contained some Middle Bulgarian features. The fourth part of the study considers George Hamartolos’ attitude to ancient philosophy. This question is related to another one – to what extend was ancient philosophy known to the orthodox Slavs. It is possible to claim that the first translation of George Hamartolos’ Chronicon provided literate people of Slavia Orthodoxa with some knowledge of ancient philosophy, though transformed (most probably distorted) according to the Christian doctrine.
|Димитър Пеев||(София) – Архивският хронограф и Летописец Елински и Римски I редакция||104–131||THE ARCHIVSKIJ SBORNIK AND THE ELLINSKIJ LETOPISETS – FIRST RECENSION|
DIMITER PEEV (SOFIA)
The article deals with two Old Slavonic historical compilations – the Archivskij Sbornik and the Letopisets Ellinskij i Rimskij (first recension). Although they are known only from Russian codices, they bear definite marks of the Bulgarian cultural doctrine from the tenth century. The monk Gregory’s heading saying that he had translated the Books of the Old Testament from Greek into Slavonic by the order of Tsar Symeon I of Bulgaria in the beginning of the tenth century is to be found in the Archivskij Chronograph. The second compilation discussed keeps the Rulers’ List (Imennik of the Bulgarian Khans). The comparative analysis of composition and contents of the two compilations suggests that the Heading of monk Gregory functions as an introduction to the world history that marks the first appearance of the Bulgarians in it , whereas the Rulers’ List is used as a substitute for the Bible books Paralipomenon in the composition of the Letopisets Ellinskij i Rimskij. Both the Heading and the Rulers’ List are seen as parts of ideological constructs representing the concept of ruling of the tenth-century Bulgarian tsars Symeon and Peter.
|Мария Спасова||(Велико Търново) – Клонки от "родословното дърво" на някои старобългарски съчинения||132–142||BRANCHES OF THE ‘FAMILY TREE’ OF SOME SLAVONIC TEXTS|
MARIJA SPASOVA (VELIKO TĂRNOVO)
The paper raises the question whether the similarity of motifs and expressions in texts translated from Greek and texts composed directly in Slavonic in the ninth and tenth centuries does not betray more than merely the general erudition of the authors of the latter.
It examines the metaphor of the ‘busy bee’ in three homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus and the Catena to Mt 9:1–8 (Gospel Homiliary, 26) and in the verse Eulogy to Tsar Symeon. Detailed examination of the lexical and morphological features of the five texts reveals that the translation of the Catena and the composition also must have had first-hand knowledge of the Slavonic translation of the homilies of St Gregory.
The expression ‘easier to do smth. than the opposite’, which occurs in the treatise On the Letters (13:8–9) appears to be directly derived from the translation of St Gregory’s Funeral Oration for Basil the Great. And the description of the palaces of Preslav in John the Exarch’s Hexameron, 6, outright paraphrases its source, St. Gregory’s homily On the Love of the Poor. It might be presumed that both authors have participated in the translation of the Greek collection of 16 homilies of St. Gregory.
These and other ‘incrustations’ in early Slavonic texts should be considered pointers to the training of the authors, for at this early stage erudition is more likely to have been acquired hands-on, i.e. in translation, than by mere reading.
|Стиляна Баталова||(София) – Из историята на латинската агиология||143–162||ON THE HISTORY OF THE CRITICAL LATIN HAGIOGRAPHY|
STILYANA BATALOVA (SOFIA)
Although in contemporary Bulgarian studies medieval Byzantine, Latin and Slavic hagiographic works are subject of various publications, Latin hagiography and hagiology have never been presented to the Bulgarian scholarly community in their entirety and interdependence. In this paper two significant topics are surveyed. Firstly, special attention is paid on the first investigators’ undoubted contribution to the research and publication of the hagiographic documents both in Greek and in Latin. Secondly, stressing on the necessity of considering every single literary work in its context, the author presents the variety of hagiographic sources and the main methods of hagiographic research.
|Бисерка Пенкова||(София) – Образът на св. Йоан Рилски в Боянската църква||163–183||THE IMAGE OF ST. JOHN OF RILA IN THE BOYANA CHURCH|
BISERKA PENKOVA (SOFIA)
The latest restorations of the Boyana church near Sofia revealed that the image of a monk in the nartex defined as St. John of Rila in the inscription (written by a different hand than the rest of the inscriptions in the church) has not been altered. This is the oldest preserved image of St. John of Rila, dating from 1259. The formation of his iconography is a part of the development of the saint’s cult in the capital of Tărnovo after 1195 when his relics were translated there from Sredec. The article raises the question if some depictions of St. John of Rila were created in Sredec (where his relics were kept for more than a century and where a local cult was formed). According to the author the few images of St. John of Rila dating before the fifteenth century could be divided in two groups, defined as “Sredec type” and “Tărnovo type”. The painting in the Boyana church belongs to the former. Its iconographic analysis leads to the conclusion that the most appropriate model for it was the image of St. John Klimax. The depiction of St. John of Rila in Boyana testifies that in the middle of the thirteenth century a Bulgarian tradition for representing the saint as a high-ranking monk who had taken vows of the Great Schema already existed. Yet, in the Boyana church St. John of Rila is depicted along with the most respected figures of the Eastern monasticism (across him is St. Pachomios, the founder of the cenobitic monasticism) and next to the portraits of the Bulgarian rulers. The place of St. John of Rila in the iconographic program of the Boyana church suggests that those who had painted his image considered St. John a spiritual advisor of great authority rather than a hermit living in utmost solitude. This representation corresponds to the outstanding place of the saint in the spiritual life of the Second Bulgarian State during the second half of the thirteenth century.
|Евгени Зашев||(Братислава) – Размисли за търновския книжовник Лаврентий от XIV в.||184–196||CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT THE FOURTEEN-CENTURY TĂRNOVO MAN-OF-LETTERS LAURENTIOS |
ЕVGUENI ZASHEV (BRATISLAVA)
The article is focused on the personality of the mediaeval Bulgarian man-of-letters Laurentios. According to the author, along with the colophon to the so-called John Alexander’s codex from 1348, some other MSS (recently identified by K. Ivanova, D. Karadžova and A. Turilov as belonging to Laurentios’ legacy) could serve as important source for a partial reconstruction of his biography. Laurentios’ work presents him as a man-of-letters and editor who knew equally well the literary heritage and the contemporary literature, who had active social and moral position, who was distinguished for his great calligraphic skills, and who specialized in copying predominantly books for individual reading. It could be presumed that Laurentios worked in a hesychastic milieu that was related to institutions close to the Tsar, as well as to the Patriarch (it is quite possible that Laurentios was a member of a scribal community, supported financially by the highest representatives of the secular and church authorities). The author puts forward the hypothesis that Laurentios was approximately of the same age as Tsar John Alexander and belonged to the social stratum which is close to the court in Tărnovo. Zashev also suggests that Laurentios took care of a public library in the immediate proximity of the capital city and that the Sbornik of 1348 was a handbook used for the education of ruler’s children.
|Марияна Цибранска - Костова, Мария Райкова||(София) – Богомилите в църковноюридическите текстове и паметници||197–219||THE BOGOMILS IN CANON-LAW TEXTS AND MANUSCRIPTS |
MARIYANA TSIBRANSKA-KOSTOVA, MARIYA RAYKOVA (SOFIA)
The article deals with the problem of how the Bogomils are presented in Slavic juridical manuscripts and what is the place of the texts about them among the other textual components. It is well known that unlike the rich documentation of the heretic movements in Medieval Western Europe, the Slavic written sources about the Bogomils are very limited in their number and type. Apart from the famous Cosmas’ Treatise against the Bogomils from the end of the tenth – beginning of the eleventh century, most of the testimonies represent full or abridged translations of existing Greek originals. Nevertheless, it might be presumed that the Slavic priests and monks (who have been the main editors of the juridical miscellanies) undertook some modification, adaptation and additions. Moreover, in spite of the poor data about the Bogomils and the scarcity of the Bogomils’ original works, the treatment of their dogmas, of their religious and social behavior finds its expectable place in the texts of Canon Law. The collected examples of anti-heretical texts prove the large spreading of this heresy, its substantial role in the Bulgarian, South Slavic and Balkan milieu and reveal the attitude of the medieval society towards them. These texts are gathered especially from manuscripts in depositories in Romania and Russia, where these texts were copied until the seventeenth century. Two very precious units from Bulgarian book holdings – MS slav. 1160 from the Library of the Church Historical and Archaeological Institute (fourteenth century) and MS slav. 1117 from the National Library (fifteenth century), both in Sofia, are among the most important sources on Bogomils in the medieval Slavic studies.
|Христина Тончева||(Пловдив) – Календарът в Аврамовия сборник||220–234||THE CALENDAR IN THE AVRAMOV SBORNIK|
HRISTINA TONCHEVA (PLOVDIV)
The Avramov Sbornik (MS 115 dating from 1674) is one of the finest manuscripts preserved in “Ivan Vazov” National Library, Plovdiv. A detailed Paschal Calendar in tabular form, which is uncommon for the Slavonic liturgical tradition, is recorded in this book. Different popular beliefs, predictions, recommendations about the consumption of appropriate food, as well as health-related prohibitions for every month are marked above most of the holidays.
It is this unique Calendar that is examined in the article.
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Красимир Станчев||(Рим) – Климентина Иванова. Bibliotheca Hagiographica Balcano-Slavica. С., Акад. изд. "Проф. Марин Дринов", 2008, 720 с.||235–238||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=125081|
|Мария Йовчева||(София) – Getov, D. A Catalogue of Greek Liturgical Manuscripts in the “Ivan Dujčev Centre for Slavo-Byzantine Studies” (= Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 279). Roma, 2007. 618 pp.||238–243||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=125068|
|Ирина Кузидова||(София) – Ангушева, А., Д. Атанасова, А. Бояджиев, Н. Гагова, М. Димитрова, М. Йовчева, А. Милтенова, Т. Славова, А. Стойкова, Л. Тасева. История на българската средновековна литература. С., Изд. "Изток-Запад", 2008. 775 с.||244–249||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=125073|
|Татяна Славова||(София) – Тотоманова, А.-М. Славянската версия на Хрониката на Георги Синкел. С., Университетско издателство „Св. Климент Охридски“, 2008. 684 с.||249–252||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=125067|
|Димитър Пеев||(София) – Иван Добрев. Два Царсамуилови надписа. Linz, Slavia Verlag, 2007. 523 с.||252–255||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=125074|
|Драгиша Бојовић||(Ниш) – Радослава Станкова. Сръбската книжнина през XIII в. (контекст и текст). С., Акад. изд. "Проф. Марин Дринов", 2007. 222 с.||256–258||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=125082|
|Съкратени названия на институции, библиотеки и архиви||259||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=125069|
|Габриела Георгиева||(София) – Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 2005 г.||260–307||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=125079|
Кн. 37-38 (2007)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Мария Йовчева||(София) – Българската редакция на служебния Миней през XIII в.||3–18||BULGARIAN REVISION OF THE MENAION IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY.|
The subject of study are the Menaia 1/4 and 1/5 in the collection of V. Grigorovič at the State Scientific Library in Odessa, dating from the second half of the thirteenth century. Their textological research in comparison with the early Russian Menaia, on the one hand, and with the South-Slavic copies from archaic protographs, on the other, leads to the conclusion that the two codices are an evidence of a complete renovation of this hymnographic book, performed through the thirteenth century. Some codicological, orthographic and linguistic marks of both manuscripts are reviewed, as well as the specific features of the calendar and the structure of the offices therein. The accumulated data suggest that the occurrence of this revision of the Menaion can be localized in one of the newly established literary centers of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom.
|Регина Койчева||(София) – Паметта като смислообразуващ фактор в покайната химнография на епископ Константин Преславски||19–25||MEMORY AS A VEHICLE TO CONSTRUCT MEANING|
IN THE REPENTANCE HYMNOGRAPHY OF CONSTANTINE,
BISHOP OF PRESLAV
REGINA KOYCHEVA (SOFIA)
The author of the article compares the content of two of the works by Constantine,
bishop of Preslav – his cycle of kanons for the Great Lent and the newly discovered
acrostic fragments of his funeral chants. The comparison is constructed on the basis of
the concept of Christian memory. For this purpose, a brief formulation of the Orthodox
views on this question is propounded. According to this formulation Christian memory
could be examined from two general aspects – church memory and individual memory.
The works analysed from this perspective contain two quite different manifestations of
memory. In the Great Lent Cycle church memory and individual memory interpenetrate
and time spans the whole human history, while in the acrostic fragments of the funeral
chants by Constantine of Preslav time is compressed to a single static moment – the
moment straight after death, enclosed in the intimate borders of the individual human
|Светлана Куюмджиева||(София) – Отново за ранните осмогласници: какво ни казват синайските гръцки ръкописи 1593 и 776||26–48||ONCE AGAIN ABOUT THE EARLY OKTOECHOI:|
WHAT DO THE SINAI GREEK MANUSCRIPTS 1593 AND 776 TELL US
SVETLANA KUJUMDZIEVA (SOFIA)
The two Sinai Greek manuscripts 1593 and 776 are identified by K. W. Clark as two parts of one book. It is argued in the article that they were written in the first half of the ninth century and represent the earliest known book of the type of the Oktoechos. Sinai 1593 is preserved from mode second on. It contains katismata and stichera which follow the succession of the modes in one and the same fixed thematic groups: anastasima, kataniktika, stavrosima, apostolika, etc. Sinai 1593 is the only manuscript of the type of the Oktoechos known in which the katismata precede the stichera. It is suggested that this could reflect an earlier liturgical practice. The groups are designated for both the resurrection and the common weekly services. The question of when and where the order of the groups was fixed is raised. The second manuscript, Sinai 776, contains beautitudes for the resurrection service and two cycles of kanons. The first cycle is combined for the Resurrection and for the common weekly services. The memories for the latter are given in a hierarchical order: apostles, prophets, martyrs, etc. The second cycle of kanons is for the weekly days services. The kanons of this cycle do not follow the eight mode system. The days of the week are not given and this is the only manuscript in which the kanons are not prescribed for the concrete day of the week and do not follow the succession of the eight modes. Also, there is no author’s attribution. These facts are considered as an evidence for an early date of the compilation of the manuscript. Yet, the date could not be earlier than the ninth century because there is a memory for St. Nicolas which entered the calendar as early as this century. It is suggested in conclusion that the two manuscripts studied represent a stage of the Oktoechos from the time of the two Slavic apostles SS. Cyril and Methodios. Next stage is this one of their pupil St. Clement of Ohrid and it is documented in manuscripts from the tenth century onwards. The manuscripts of the time of St. Clement show that all the kanons are already linked to every single day of the week, they follow the succession of the eight modes and bare an author’s attribution. In all probability the oldest Bulgarian Oktoechos was compiled during this stage, i.e. the stage of the time of St. Clement, after the arrival of the pupils of SS. Cyril and Methodios to Bulgaria.
|Анна-Мария Тотоманова||(София) – Какво представлява славянската версия на Хрониката на Георги Синкел?||49–68||WHAT IS THE SLAVIC VERSION OF THE CHRONICLE|
OF GEORGE SYNKELLOS?
ANNA-MARIA TOTOMANOVA (SOFIA)
The paper tackles upon the struture and content of the text identified by Istrin as a Slavic translation of the Chronicle of George Synkellos. The detailed comparison of the Slavic version with the Greek text of Synkellos did nоt confirm Istrin’s considerations. The Slavic version contains only a small part of Synkellоs’ Chronicle covering the years after the Resurrection of Christ up to the reign of Diocletianus and continues with the narrative of Theophanus Confessor up to the foundation of Constantinople. The first part of the Slavic chronicle, which covers the world history from the Creation up to the Resurrection, is based and structured according the chronological concepts of Sextus Julius Africanus, a Christian writer from the third century. Africanus’ Chronograph, though highly respected and used by the most popular Byzantine historians, has not been preserved in the Byzantine manuscript tradition. The latter means that the Slavic text contains the only relatively full version of Africanus Chronography.
|Мая Иванова||(София) – Соловецките преписи на Пространното житие на св. Константин-Кирил||69–90||THE SOLOVETSKIY MONASTERY COPIES OF THE LONG VITA|
OF ST. CONSTANTINE-CYRIL
MAYA IVANOVA (SOFIA)
When one studies the manuscript history of the Long Vita of St. Constantine-Cyril
special interest is evoked by the monastery collections in which we find copies of this vita.
The paper presents four complete Cyrillic copies of the Long Vita from the collection of the
Solovetskiy Monastery (now kept in fund 717 in the Russian National Library in Saint
Petersburg): Sol. 503/522 – in a Reading Menaion from the end of the 15th century; Sol.
501/520 – in a Reading Menaion from the 16th century (June 1562 – September 1569); Sol.
509/528 – in a Reading Menaion from the 16th century; Sol. 502/521 – in a Reading Menaion
from the 17th century (1647) and one compilation made up of the Long Vita and the Prologue
Vita of Cyril: Sol. 849/959 in a Collection of vitae and discourses from the 17th century. The
four Solovetskiy Monastery copies are representatives of the October copyist tradition, though
one of them is in a February Reading Menaion (Sol. 509/528), and all of them without
exception are united by a number of peculiarities characteristic of the group. With regard to
the lexical content, however, the Solovetskiy Monastery October tradition is uniform. No
special attention has been paid to this so far. If one assumes that the same text lies in the
basis of the four copies, from the 15th to the 17th centuries it was subjected to changes,
which gives us ground to distinguish three branches: 1. Sol. 501/520 is absolutely identical
with the preceding October pre-Makary and Makary copies and of all Solovetskiy Monastery
copies it is nearest to the “classical” October model; 2. Sol. 509/528 deviates from Sol. 501/
520, because of the corrections, which are visible in some places and which have been
brought into the February model; 3. Sol. 502/521 and Sol. 503/522 (the second stratum,
which gives ultimately its complete characteristic) coalesce. To make what has been said
clear I shall point out that lexical comparison takes place both within the framework of the
Solovetskiy Monastery copies and with a representative of the February Reading Menaion
tradition. The Solovetskiy Monastery compilation (Sol. 849/959) will not be discussed as a
separate copy, because it does not have the structure of a complete copy (after I became
familiar with its textological characteristics I decided to exclude it definitively from the
group of the complete Cyrillic copies).
The paper draws the conclusion that as has been shown by the Solovetskiy Monastery
copies, work on the manuscripts in the monasteries has not kept the tradition in its pure
|Марияна Цибранска - Костова||(София) – "Заповеди на светите отци" в Синайския евхологий и западноевропейските пенитенциали||91–113||“COMMANDMENTS OF THE HOLLY FATHERS” IN THE EUCHOLOGIUM|
SINAITICUM AND THE WESTERN PENITENTIALS
MARIYANA TSIBRANSKA-KOSTOVA (SOFIA)
The article summarizes the linguistic peculiarities of the oldest Slavic penitential known under the name Commandments of the Holy Fathers in the Glagolitic Euchologium Sinaiticum from the tenth-eleventh century in comparison with the new edition of its Latin prototype and some other Western Penitentials. Along with the Glagolitic copy and the most archaic Cyrillic one from the Ustjug Kormčaja (dating from the thirteenth-fourteenth century), the numerous transcripts of this text reveal its broad application and transmission in the South-Slavic linguistic environment. The preserved copies predominantly date from the fourteenth to the seventeenth century and contain only excerpts from the original corpus. The analysis is focused on some controversial readings that have already provoked the attention of the scholars. The apparatus of linguistic (especially lexical) discrepancies among different copies attests some significant features that enlighten the process of textual adoption. The manuscript tradition of the Commandments gives supplementary arguments for answering the questions about the time, place, and authorship of the Slavic translation and about the literary tradition this text belonged to.
|Елена Белякова||(Москва) – О составе Хлудовского номоканона (К истории сборника "Зинар")||114–131||ABOUT THE CONTENT OF XLUDOV’S NOMOKANON|
(TOWARDS THE HISTORY OF “ZINAR” COLLECTION)
ELENA BELJAKOVA (MOSCOW)
Manuscript 76 from Xludov’s collection in the State Historical Museum, Moscow,
known as “Xludov’s Nomokanon”, has two parts – a Bulgarian (written on paper) and a
Serbian (written on parchment). According to the watermarks the codex has been dated
to the second half of the fourteenth century. The object of study of this article is the
Bulgarian part which contains the so-called “Pseudo-Zonaras’ Nomokanon” (“Zonar”/
“Zinar”). This legal and historical document is a collection of texts incorporating both
church epitimia and secular punishments; it also regulates daily practices. Since the
codex is corrupted and many folia are missing, the initial content is defined on the bases
of comparison to other similar manuscripts. The author’s conclusion is that Xlud. 76
had invariable content which corresponds to a part of the Kormcaja from 1493. The
existence of the Greek original excludes the possibility of Slavic origin; yet, it is possible
that the texts were created especially for the inhabitants of the Balkans recently
converted to Christianity in order to facilitate their adaptation to the new religion. The
second (Serbian) part is an abridged collection of regulations based upon the Serbian
“St. Sabas’ Kormcaja.”
|Димитър Пеев||(София) – Църковно сказание - превод от превода||132–158||CRЬKЪVЬNOJE SЪKAZANIJE - |
A TRANSLATION FROM THE TRANSLATION
DIMITAR PEEV (SOFIA)
The translation given is the first attempt to interpret the Old Bulgarian version of
Patriarch Germanos’ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΗ into a contemporary language
(Bulgarian). The interpretation is based upon the Old Bulgarian text, but the Byzantine
original is also taken into consideration. The text is provided with exhaustive linguistic
and cultural comments.
|Вася Велинова||(София) – Хрониката на Константин Манасий в българската средновековна книжнина (рецепция на среднобългарския превод)||159–176||THE CRONICLE OF CONSTANTINE MANASSES|
IN THE MEDIEVAL BULGARIAN LITERATURE
(THE RECEPTION OF THE MIDDLE BULGARIAN TRANSLATION)
VASJA VELINOVA (SOFIA)
The article analyses some peculiarities of the Middle Bulgarian translation of the
Greek Chronicle of Constantine Manasses, in particular the short additions to the main
text not found in the Greek original. These “glosses” are systematised as an interpretation
of the Greek text in the following way:
– Explanations of Greek words, which were not translated into Bulgarian. The
most important samples are those which describe terms of Christian religion.
– Explanations of more complicated rhetoric topics used by the Greek author. This
kind of glosses reveals the level of mastering the educated Greek rhetoric style of
– Substitutions of Greek toponyms with Bulgarian.
Although the analysis of the glosses indicates some mistakes and inaccuracies of
the Bulgarian translator (or translators), these explanatory notes reveal the aim of the
Bulgarian men-of-letter to adapt the Greek text to the Bulgarian cultural society. The
complex examination of the manuscript tradition of the Chronicle leads to the conclusion
that these glosses were inserted in the main text simultaneously with the original
translation. This is the difference between the glosses and the other marginal notes
explaining other Greek words, which became incomprehensible in a later period.
|Елена Томова||(София) – Оболенската редакция на хронографски текст за св. Иларион Мъгленски||177–186||OBOLENSKY REDACTION OF THE VITA OF SAINT HILARION|
OF MAGLEN FOUND IN THE RUSSIAN CHRONICLES
ELENA TOMOVA (SOFIA)
This article is a part of a greater study “The cult to the Tarnovo saints St. Petka, St.
John of Rila, St. Hilarion of Maglen and St. Michael the Warrior in the Medieval Slavic
tradition”. The Prologue text about the translation of the relics of St. Hilarion of Maglen
and his Life written by Patriarch Euthymios of Tarnovo were widely spread in Bulgaria
and in the rest of the Orthodox commonwealth. From the late fourteenth to the first half
of the sixteenth century these literary works were used as Bulgarian sources for the
Medieval history of the Balkans and were included in the Russian chronicle from 1512.
Thus new Russian redactions appeared and were spread also in miscellanies of various
contents. The new redactions reflect the antiheretical tendencies and the reactions against
the Novgorod-Moscow heresy at the end of the fifteenth century.
|Маргарита Куюмджиева||(София) – Иконография на вечността. Някои бележки за образа на Ветхий денми в живописта от поствизантийската епоха||187–207||THE IMAGE OF GOD’S ETERNITY. SOME REMARKS ON THE ANCIENT OF DAYS IN POST-BYZANTINE PAINTING|
MARGARITA KUYUMDZIEVA (SOFIA)
This paper examines a group of images of the Ancient of Days that were painted in several Balkan churches during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The peculiarity of these images comes from the combination of the image and the unusual for it inscription “Sabaoth”. The author offers an interpretation of this combination, regarding it as a result of the liturgical basis of the image where the new epithet emphasises God's almighty power and eternity.
|Светла Петкова||(София) – Средновековните лековници. Специфика на културното изразяване||208–227||MEDIAEVAL MEDICAL MANUSCRIPTS:|
SPECIFICITY OF CULTURAL EXPRESSION
SVETLA PETKOVA (SOFIA)
Medical manuscripts from the Late Middle Ages are a phenomenon of both verbal
and written culture. Written and re-written in modern Bulgarian language, they represent
the development of the traditional medical knowledge and practice in Bulgaria
through a long period and provide evidence of the way verbal culture was spread. These
compiled manuscripts inherit and enhance the traditional verbal exchange of therapeutic
skills and reveal the influence of different cultural traditions. The earliest Slavic
example is in a Glagolitic codex from the twelfth century from Monastery “St. Catherine”
on Sinai. Books containing only medical prescriptions date from the seventeenth century
onwards and were widespread through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; nevertheless,
we can associate their content and function with the culture of the Middle
Ages. The cultural framework of this written tradition that encompasses its terminology,
as well as its phrasal and narrative expression is of particular interest for the investigation
of traditional culture.
|Кирил Ненов||(Пловдив) – Значението на израза 'РЕКШЕ ВИХТУНЬ' в Именника на българските князе||228–235||THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION ‘REKŠE VIXTUNЬ’ IN THE|
NAMELIST OF BULGARIAN RULERS
KIRIL NENO (PLOVDIV)
The article reviews all the hypotheses concerning the expression ‘rekše vixtunь’ and the etymology of ‘vixtunь’ . Their vulnerable aspects as well as their positive results are indicated. The opinions that ‘vixtunь’ is a Turkic expression, the name of a Bulgarian ruler or a translation of Dulo are thoroughly examined. The semantic role of the subordinating conjunction is determined and a new interpretation is offered.
|Татяна Илиева||(София) – Конференция по проблемите на църковнославянската лексикография||237–240||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=81392|
|Марина Йорданова||(София) – ХVІ Интердисциплинарен колегиум по старобългарска литература и култура||240–246||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=81372|
|Анета Димитрова||(София) – Научна конференция за описанието на богослужебните книги||246–249||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=81384|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Маргарет Димитрова||(София) – Иван Добрев. Прозрения в българската старина. С.: Slavia Verlag, 2007. 496 с.||251–259||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=81380|
|Мария Йовчева||(София) – Gottesdienstmenäum für den Monat Dezember auf der Grundlage der Handschrift Sin. 162 des staatlichen historischen Museums Moskau (GIM). Historisch-kritische Edition. Paderborn, 2006. 870 с.||260–268||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=81374|
|Елена Тончева||(София) – Кристина Япова. Църковност и музикално мислене.С примери от творчеството на Добри Христов. С., Институт за изкуствознание – БАН, 2006. 304+24 с.||268–270||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=81391|
|Елена Коцева||(София) – Искра Христова-Шомова. Книга Йов с тълкувания в славянски превод (по Владиславовия препис от 1456 г., ръкопис № 4/14 от сбирката на Рилския манастир). С., Изд. къща "Анубис", 2007. 495 с.||270–274||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=81371|
|Диляна Радославова||(София) – Марияна Цибранска-Костова. Етюди върху кирилската палеотипия, ХV–ХVІІІ век. С., Изд. Гутенберг, 2007. 202 с.||274–277||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=81383|
|Нели Костова||(София) – Донка Правдомирова. Дмитрий Лихачов в България. Биобиблиография. С., Изд. „За буквите – О писменехь“, 2006. 154+VIII с.||277–280||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=81388|
|Ива Трифонова||(София) – Многократните преводи в Южнославянското средновековие. Доклади от международната конференция София, 7–9 юли 2005 г. С., Изд. къща "ГорексПрес", 2006. 540 с.||281–285||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=81373|
|Съкратени названия на институции, библиотеки и архиви||286||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=81376|
|Габриела Георгиева||(София) – Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 2003–2004 г.||287–362||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=81381|
Кн. 35–36 (2006)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Valentina Izmirlieva||(New York) – From Babel to Christ and Beyond: The Number 72 in Christian Political Symbolism||3–21||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=45493|
|Анатолий Турилов||(Москва) – К уточнению объема и состава древнейшего славянского оригинального гимнографического корпуса в древнерусской рукописной традиции (На материале минейных служб)||22–37||TOWARDS THE DETERMINATION OF THE CONTENT OF THE CORPUS OF THE OLDEST ORIGINAL SLAVIC HIMNOGRAPHIC WRITINGS IN THE MEDIEVAL RUSSIAN MANUSCRIPT TRADITION|
ANATOLIJ A. TURILOV (MOSCOW)
The article analyzes the tradition which preserved the corpus of the Menaion himnographic texts created by the disciples of Cyril and Methodios and attempts to correlate medieval Russian and Bulgarian literature. The author’s investigations lengthen the list of the already known copies of Old-Bulgarian himnographic works. The conclusion is that in medieval Russian transcripts of original Slavic himnographic works created in the ninth and tenth centuries one can find the peculiarities of the eastern Bulgarian himnography from the middle of the tenth century and, more precisely, from the period before the Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria. The preserved South-Slavic copies dating from the twelfth to fifteenth century, however, reflect the himnographic repertoire created in Ohrid in the beginning of the eleventh century.
|Татяна Илиева||(София) – Екзегетическите текстове в старата българска литература от X–XI в.||38–74||EXEGETIC TEXTS IN MEDIEVAL BULGARIAN LITERATURE FROM THE TENTH–ELEVENTH CENTURY|
TATJANA ILIEVA (SOFIA)
This study presents an overview of the exegetic literature in Bulgaria during the tenth and eleventh centuries and the scholarly debates about it. The attempts to classify the exegetic genres according to their themes and function, provides a literary and historical analysis of some of the precise works, and comes to some more general conclusions (based on this broad review) about the literary life in Bulgaria during the reign of Tsar Symeon. The article presents a new hypothesis about the character of George Choiroboskos’ treatise on poetical figures O obrazěx” (Περὶ τρόπων ποιητικω̃ν) and about the Izbornik of 1073.
|Мая Петрова||(София) – Бележки върху преславските керамични „етикети“ към мощи на светци (Св. Мария/св. Марина Антиохийска)||75–96||NOTES ON THE CERAMIC “LABELS” DISCOVERED IN PRESLAV WHICH HAD ACCOMPANIED SAINTS’ RELICS (ST. MARIA/ST. MARINA OF ANTIOCH)|
MAYA PETROVA (SOFIA)
This article is an attempt to identify the martyrs mentioned in the small ceramic fragments discovered in Preslav that had once accompanied pieces of saints’ relics. Bearing in mind the strong connection between the translation of relics and the production of texts, the author examines the literary tradition of these saints in the oldest South-Slavic manuscripts searching for some traces of their veneration. One of the saints seems to be entirely missing from the Slavic tradition and appears quite rarely in Greek sources. Thus, it is suggested that the relics stored in Preslav belonged to St. Marina of Antioch (who in the tenth century was already popular on the Balkans), rather than to St. Maria of Antioch. Furthermore, with the exception of Maria of Antioch, all the saints named in the ceramic “labels” were patrons of churches or monasteries in and around Constantinople (for some of these churches and monasteries it is explicitly stated that they had possessed the relics of those saints). Since it is clear that all the pieces of the relics came to the Bulgarian capital together, it is more likely that they were brought there either as a result of some of the triumphal victories of Tsar Symeon (for instance, in 922 his army devastated the surroundings of Constantinople and destroyed the monasteries of Theotokos τη̃ς Πηγη̃ς) or as a special gift during the reign of his son, Tsar Peter, who married a Byzantine princess and made long-lasting piece with Byzantium.
|Нина Гагова||(София/Торун) – Деспот Стефан Лазаревич, Птолемей Филаделф и кариерата на придворния философ Константин Костенечки||97–124||STEPHEN LAZAREVIĆ, PTOLEMY PHILADELPHOS, AND THE CAREER OF THE COURT PHILOSOPHER CONSTANTINE OF KOSTENEC|
NINA GAGOVA (SOFIA/TORUŃ)
This text describes the biography and the career of Constantine of Kostenec according to the present state of the scholarly investigations and interprets his Skazanije iz’javlenno o pismenex as an important source for the literary life in Belgrade during the first quarter of the fifteenth century and for the active participation of the Serbian ruler Stephen Lazarević in it. The article pays special attention to Constantine’s position in the Serbian court and his conflict with the clergy because of their desire to control the production of books, the content of the texts, and the education of pupils. The author puts forward the hypothesis that the Skazanije could be regarded as a “project proposal” for the normalization of the Serbian orthography in order to guarantee the correct transmission of the meaning of the texts created in the frames of another project – the new translation of the Old Testament non-liturgical books, undertaken by Hilandar monks under the auspices of the Serbian despotes. All arguments supporting the existence of the “Old Testament project” of Stephen Lazarević are systematically presented. The suggestion is made that in Serbia the introduction of the Ressavian orthographic norm was connected to this particular initiative (in contrast, in Bulgaria the reforms in orthography and liturgy went hand in hand).
|Десислава М. Атанасова||(София) – Загребският препис на Житието на св. Анастасия Римска–Вдовица (22.XII)||125–133||THE ZAGREB COPY OF THE LIFE OF ST. ANASTASIA OF ROME / ANASTASIA THE WIDOW (22. XII.)|
DESISLAVA M. ATANASOVA (SOFIA)
The article discusses a fourteenth-century Serbian copy (MS III.c.24 from the Library of the Croatian Academy of Science and Art in Zagreb) of the Life of St. Anastasia – a Slavonic translation from Latin known until now only in its later Russian copies. The collation of the Serbian and the Russian copies of this text reveals that all three Slavic copies represent the same translation, although stemming from two different protographs (South Slavic and Russian). Thus, the presence of this text in a Serbian manuscript which according to it’s content goes back to the oldest South Slavic Reading Menaia, leads us to question the generally accepted opinion that the Life of St. Anastasia remained unknown in the Balkans and penetrated into Russia directly from the West (supposedly from Bohemia where, as it was stated, the original translation was made).
|Венета Савова||(София) – Службата за светите мъченици Сергий и Вакх в Синайския славянски празничен миней № 25||134–143||THE OFFICE FOR SS. SERGIOS AND BACCHOS|
IN THE SINAI SLAVIC FESTAL MENAION (MS SIN. SLAV. 25)
VENETA SAVOVA (SOFIA)
This article deals with the identification of the Office for 7th of October from MS
Sin. Slav. 25. The preliminary study of the text leads to the following conclusions: 1.
The original Greek text of the Office is unknown until now, as well as the Greek text of
the Canon and the other parts of the Office; 2. No other copy of the entire Office has
been found; some of its parts survived in a very few Slavic manuscripts, but they are not
situated at the same places as in the Sinai Festal Menaion. These arguments support the
hypothesis that the canon from the office for the 7th of October in MS Sin. Slav. 25 could
be an original Old Bulgarian text.
|Бистра Николова||(София) – Заветът на св. Иван Рилски. За митовете и реалиите||144–166||THE TESTAMENT OF ST. JOHN OF RILA. ABOUT THE MYTHS AND THE REALIA|
BISTRA NIKOLOVA (SOFIA)
The article deals with a written document known as the Testament of St. John of
Rila which autentisity has been an object of ongoing discussions. The aim of the author
is to comment whether this text could be regarded as a real legacy of St. John of Rila or
as a later forgery. With this regard the data of the colophon (which is supposed to be an
autentic fourteenth-century text and which speaks about a reliable later copy of the Testament) are analyzed. Outlined are some realia connected with the cult of the saint and the monastic organization of Rila monastery which are mentioned in the colophon,
but which could not be discovered in the documents dating from the tenth to the fourteenth century; yet, all these terms find their correspondence after the seventeenth century.
Along with this, some chronological arguments also reject the possibility that the colophon has been created at the end of the fourteenth or at the beginning of the fifteenth century. Some facts and some observations of the author suggest that the Testament itself as well
was not written, as it is stated, during the first half of the tenth century. Thus, putting
together the textual evidence and some events from the history of the Rila monastery in the nineteenth century, the author comes to the conclusion that the so-called Testament
of St. John of Rila is a later, most probably nineteenth-century forgery (the earliest preserved copies of the work also date from the nineteenth century).
|Десислава Найденова||(София) – Историческата достоверност на Лексикона „Суда“ като източник за законодателството на хан Крум||167–180||THE АUTHENTICITY OF THE SОUDA LEXICON AS A SOURCE FOR KHAN KRUM’S LAWS|
DESISLAVA NAYDENOVA (SOFIA)
The article deals with the evidence of the legislation activity of Khan Krum in the Sоuda Lexikon (Souidas). This information is not confirmed by any other sources, which makes its authenticity highly dubious. A few events related to the Bulgarian history were mentioned in the Lexikon. Their source is not known. Yet, the review of the source data reveals that the greater part of the references to the Bulgarians in Souda was based on events that had really happened. Refracted through the prism of history, however, events lose their reality. This may be due, on the one hand, to the sources used by the compiler himself; on the other hand, the cause may be the practice widespread in Byzantine literature to copy older writings or to add own information (in accordance with the personal position of the writer) with the aim to depict a particular episode as a moral model without much caring of whether the presented events corresponded to what had really happened. The comparison of the text of the Laws and the information in the Souda to the Ecloga, the Responses of Pope Nicholas I (Responsa Nicolai I papa ad consulta Bulgarorum) and the Court Law for the People (Zakon” sudnyi ljud’m”) – i.e. the sources which, together with the Mirrors of princes (Speculum regale), are viewed most often as reflections of Krum’s laws – shows that the regulations of oaths, stealing and complicity, the uprooting of vines and the support for the poor had no analogue in the observed monuments. Thus, they should rather be related to the points that appeared most often in the instructions to the rulers: justice, sobriety, charity and care for the subjects. All this leads to the conclusion that the Souda Lexikon had a legendary basis and could not be used as a reliable source about the legal system in Bulgaria after the Conversion.
|Кристина Япова||(София) – Между сетивото и разума (Някои опорни моменти от историята на идеята за “подходящата” църковна музика)||181–187||BETWEEN SENCE AND REASON: CERTAIN POINTS OF SUPPORT|
TO THE HISTORY OF THE IDEA OF THE “SUITABLE” CHURCH MUSIC
KRISTINA YAPOVA (SOFIA)
The idea of the “suitable” church music goes back to the time of St. Augustin’s
tradition. According to this tradition the church music is rationalized as a perception of
unity, goodness, and beauty. The Council of Trent decree of 1562 calls for the necessity and ability of the church music to educate and admonish the listeners. The turning point
in the history of the idea comes forward when the musical aesthetics as modern science
adopts the postulate for independent sensational sound reality and its valuation criteria
become that of the musical expressive methods. Precisely this analysis, however, is of very limited potential with regard to the church music. Thus the idea of the Logos nature of the music appears in the foreground carefully protected by the musical theology to this day.
|Георги Геров||(София) – За венценосните ктитори на Бачковския манастир||188–210||ABOUT THE CROWNED DONATORS OF BAČKOVO MONASTERY|
GEORGI GEROV (SOFIA)
The article deals with the donations of the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos and of the Bulgarian Tsar John Alexander to the Bačkovo Monastery. The author puts forward the hypothesis that the church “Holy Archangels” was build in 1114 by Alexios I Komnenos in commemoration of Gregory Pakourianos, the founder of the Bačkovo Monastery, in connection with the anti-heretical activities of the emperor against Paulicians and Bogomils in the region of Plovdiv. In 1344 Tsar John Alexander concurred some territories around Plovdiv and in the Rodopae mountain. In order to strengthen his power in the recently occupied lands, he made donations to the Bačkovo Monastery. Changes were made in the monastic ossuary and in the “Holy Archangels” church . The icon “Holy Archangels Michael and Gabriel” dedicated to the patrons of the church, now stored in the Department of Old Bulgarian Art (“The Crypt”) of the National Art Gallery, also dates back to this time.
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Ваня Мичева||(София) – Елка Мирчева. Германов сборник от 1358/1359 г. Изследване и издание на текста. С., Изд. "Валентин Траянов", 2006. 846 с.||211–215||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=45497|
|Ивона Карачорова||(София) – Ангелина Даскалова, Мария Райкова. Грамоти на българските царе. Увод. Текстове. Речник. Библиография. С., Акад. изд. „Марин Дринов“, 2005. 443 с.||216–218||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=45489|
|Илия Г. Илиев||(София) – Ангел Николов. Политическа мисъл в ранносредновековна България (средата на ІХ – края на Х век). С., Парадигма, 2006. 352 с.||219–220||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=45506|
|Ирина Кузидова||(София) – Преводите през XIV столетие на Балканите. Доклади от международната конференция София, 26–28 юни 2003. Под редакцията на Лора Тасева (отг. редактор), Мария Йовчева, Кристиан Фос, Татяна Пентковская. С., Изд. къща "ГорексПрес", 2004. 518 с.||220–226||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=45492|
|Андрей Бояджиев||(София) – Диалог и духовност. Т. 1. Сборник в чест на Румяна Златанова. Festschrift für Rumjana Zlatanova zum 60. Geburstag. Съст. Спартак Паскалевски. С., ТЕМТО, 2006. 460 с.||226–229||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=45504|
|Съкратени названия на библиотеки и архиви||230||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=45502|
|Габриела Георгиева||(София) – Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 2001–2002 г.||231–292||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=45501|
Кн. 33–34 (2005)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Библиография на публикациите на проф. д-р Климентина Иванова||5–12||http://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=211007|
|Георги Попов||(София) – Старобългарски Канон за Богоявление||13–63||AN OLD BULGARIAN CANON FOR THE FEAST OF THEOPHANY|
GEORGI POPOV (SOFIA)
The Old Bulgarian Canon for the feast of Theophany created according to the rhythmic-and-melodic model of the well-known iambic Canon for the feast of Theophany
by St. John of Damascus has a place of special importance among the hymnographic works of the disciples of SS. Cyril and Methodios discovered in the last decades. The present study considers fundamental problems concerning the origin, dissemination, composition, structure, and content of the Canon. This is also the first time the publishing of the oldest extant transcript of the Canon takes place. That transcript is a part of Festal Menaion 522 from the National Library in Sofia – a Middle Bulgarian manuscript from the thirteenth century.
|Мария Йовчева||(София) – Езикови свидетелства за произхода на Службата за Пренасяне на мощите на папа Климент Римски||64–77||LINGUISTIC EVIDENCES OF THE ORIGIN OF THE OFFICE FOR THE|
TRANSLATION OF THE RELICS OF POPE CLEMENT I OF ROME
MARIA JOVČEVA (SOFIA)
The subject of analysis in the article is the complete content of the Office for the Translation of the Relics of Pope Clement I of Rome reconstructed on the basis of the three extant copies, as each of them represents an incomplete version. Some stylistic and linguistic peculiarities of the Office are examined with respect to the specific literary and historical context of the occurrence of that hymnographic piece of work. The extracted data reveal that the text is characterised by chronologically ambiguous tokens. On the one hand, archaic lexemes and phrases are outlined evidencing continuity with the Cyrillo-Methodian written heritage and on the other, there are innovations of the Post-Moravian period of the development of the Old-Bulgarian literature. As long as in the scientific literature so far attempts have been made to prove the Russian origin of the Office, the article pays special attention to the lexical and morphologic bulgarisms in its text as well.
|Радослава Станкова||(София) – Типология на ранните южнославянски служби||78–94||TYPOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST SOUTH SLAVIC OFFICES|
RADOSLAVA STANKOVA (SOFIA)
The paper deals with some theoretical problems of the typology of the South Slavic
offices from the thirteenth to the middle of the fourteenth century as a literary genre.
Three types of structures are systematised which might be useful in the standard
description of hymnographic manuscripts.
|Красимир Станчев||(Рим) – Още веднъж за типологията и терминологията на служебните минеи (Наблюдения върху състава на ръкопис Vat. Slav. 26)||95–99||ONCE MORE ON THE TYPOLOGY AND TERMINOLOGY|
OF THE LITURGICAL MENAIA
(Observations on the Structure of MS Vat. Slav. 26)
KRASSIMIR STANTCHEV (ROME)
This work contributes to the clarification of the typology and the specification of the terminology related to Old Slavonic hymnographic books of the type “Menaion”. On the basis of MS Vat. Slav. 26, an attempt is made to explain the difference between extended Festal Menaion and abridged all-year-round Menaion.
|Ирена Шпадиjер||(Београд) – Hajcтapиjи преписи Теодосиjеве Службе светом Симеону Мироточивом||100–105||THE OLDEST TRANSCRIPTS OF THEODOSIOS’ OFFICE|
FOR ST. SYMEON MYROBLYTOS
IRENA ŠPADIJER (BELGRADE)
The first Office for St Symeon Myroblytos, the founder of the Nemanja dynasty
and first Serbian saint, is compiled by his son, St. Sava. It has a simple structure: it contains, as it was usual of the Typikon used at that time, one section read at vespers service and one canon for the saint read at the matins. Another Office for St. Symeon (according to the Jerusalem Typikon) was composed by the Hilandar monk Theodosios. It is not clear when exactly this second piece was written. Yet it is probable that less than a century passed between the compilation of Sava’s and Teodosios’ Offices. Thus it is possible that the new hymnographic piece dedicated to St. Symeon was created before the end of the thirteenth century.
The manuscript tradition of the Office is rich —more than thirty copies are known, the oldest of them dating from the fourteenth century. The article deals with the oldest
preserved transcripts, namely those from the fourteenth century— MS II 109 from the collection of the Trinity Monastery, Plevlja, dating from the 1350/1360; MS 126 from the Hilandar Monastery from the middle of the fourteenth century; MS 11, a Service
Menaion for February from the Archive of the Serbian Academy of Science and Arts from 1380s-1390s; and MS Cod. slave 21, a Menaion for February from the National Library in Paris from the last decade of the fourteenth century.
|Ђорђе Трифуновић||(Београд) – „Слава" са поменима jужнословенских и балканских светаца||106–112||A „SLAVA“ CONTAINING NAMES OF SOUTH SLAVIC|
AND BALKAN SAINTS
DJORDJE TRIFUNOVIĆ (BELGRADE)
The author offers new information about a miscellany (MS 17 from the Library of the Serbian Patriarchate in Belgrade) researched already during the nineteenth century.
The manuscript can be dated with certainty to 1711-1712 when Athanasios I was Serbian
Patriarch. On ff. 171r-172v it embodies a „Slava“ (Eulogy) composed by an unknown man of letters which contains the names of saints venerated by Eastern Orthodox Church
including some of the most popular among the Southern Slavs. The content of the „Slava“ is compared to some Menologia in the old Serbian manuscripts. The author comes to
the conclusion that the oldest layer of the text goes back to the second half of the sixteenth
century and completed prior to 1688.
|Мая Иванова||(София) – Пространното житие на св. Константин -Кирил в руските до-Макариеви чети-минеи||113–125||THE LIFE OF ST. CONSTANTINE CYRIL IN THE RUSSIAN|
PRE-MAKARIOS READING MENAIA
MAYA IVANOVA (SOFIA)
The present article deals with a small group of Russian copies of the Life of St. Constantine Cyril (abbreviated as LC) from the end of the fifteenth century incorporated
in the Reading Menaia for October. The veneration of St. Cyril on October 14th is regarded
as a fact and the issue of its origin has not been discussed. The author traces back the
way this feast date came into being and won recognition in the pre-Makarios Reading Menaia. The posing of this particular problem inevitably leads to the necessity to analyse
and compare the arrangement of the Russian pre-Makarios Reading Menaia which include the LC. The next step is the collation of the transcripts from the pre-Makarios Reading
Menaia with those included in the Reading Menaia after Metropolitan Makarios’ reform
(after the sixteenth century), for October and February respectively. The results of the
text-critical work reveal that there is no distinct boundary between the transcripts in the Reading Menaia for October and for February
|Славия Бърлиева, Александър Наумов||(София, Венеция) – Мощите на св. Кирил и тяхната прослава през вековете||126–144||THE RELICS OF ST CYRIL AND THEIR VENERATION|
THROUGHOUT THE CENTURIES
SLAVIA BARLIEVA (SOFIA), ALEKSANDER NAUMOW (VENICE)
The authors trace out and systematise different texts (liturgical, hagiographic,
historical and documentary) dedicated to the relics of St Cyril. The appearance of St Cyril’s
relics in the inventories of the treasury of St Vaclav’s chapel in the metropolitan church of
Prague is interpreted as a phenomenon of the realization of the national doctrine of King
Charles IV. A modern service dedicated to the rediscovery of St Cyril’s relics and their
translation to „San Clemente“ on 17th November 1963 (introduced in the liturgical practice
of Bulgarian Catholics in 1980) has been analysed and published for the first time.
|Вася Велинова||(София) – Тълкувания на Светата литургия в творби на Климент Охридски||145–153||COMMENTARIES TO THE HOLY LITURGY IN THE WORKS OF ST.CLEMENT OF OHRID|
VASJA VELINOVA (SOFIA)
The commentaries to the Holy Liturgy are an important part of Byzantine written
heritage. Unlike Byzantine literary tradition, the Bulgarian literature from the ninthtenth century produced a limited number of such texts. This paper aims to prove that the sermons of St. Clement of Ohrid could be used as a source in the explanation of the
Liturgy. On the basis of some of St. Clement’s sermons, the article provides a reconstruction of the concept of the Liturgy.
|Елена Велковска, Стефано Паренти||(Сиена, Рим) – Една молитва „за болни" в Синайския евхологий||154–166||ONE PRAYER „FOR THE SICK“ IN THE SLAVIC EUCHOLOGY OF SINAI|
ELENA VELKOVSKA (SIENA), STEFANO PARENTI (ROME)
The article deals with a prayer before going to sleep copied among the numerous prayers for sick persons in the Glagolitic Slavic Euchology of Sinai. The Greek parallel
to this text is identified for the first time; besides, the unusual choice of the Slavonic redactor to put it within the group of the prayers for the sick is analysed. The reason for this collocation is searched in the dialectics between liturgical worship and private prayer characteristic of the Studite movement of the eleventh century and in the interaction between cathedral and monastic books caused by it on „editorial“ level.
|Йоханнес Райнхарт||(Вена) – Древнеболгарский перевод Слова Иоанна Златоуста перед ссылкой (CPG 4397)||167–178||DIE ALTBULGARISCHE ÜBERSETZUNG DER HOMILIE DES|
JOHANNES CHRYSOSTOMUS VOR DER VERBANNUNG (CPG 4397)
JOHANNES REINHART (WIEN)
Die hier erstmals edierte und analysierte slavische Homilie vermehrt den Bestand von (pseudo-)chrysostomischen Übersetzungswerken in der altbulgarischen Literatur des 10. Jahrhunderts. Von dieser Homilie (CPG 4397) war bisher nur eine armenische Übersetzung bekannt. Der zweite, längere Teil des slavischen Textes ist vermutlich ebenfalls eine Übersetzung aus dem Griechischen. Künftige Forschungen werden zeigen, ob dieser Schluss auch in der griechischen handschriftlichen Tradition dieser Homilie vorkommt, oder ob wir es mit einem anderen Text zu tun haben. Da die slavische handschriftliche Bezeugung im Moment auf einen serbischen Textzeugen des 14. Jahrhunderts (HAZU IIIc22) und einen exzerpthaften ostslavischen Zeugen aus dem
12./13. Jahrhundert (RGB, f. 304, Nr. 12) beschränkt ist, wäre die Erweiterung der Textbasis wünschenswert.
|Христо Трендафилов||(Шумен) – К истокам поэтизации философии у славян||179–185||ON THE SOURCES OF POETISATION OF PHILOSOPHY BY THE SLAVS|
CHRISTO TRENDAFILOV (SHUMEN)
The paper examines the formation of the first well-known medieval Slavic
philosophy. Its origins can be found in the works of John the Exarch, a Bulgarian manof-
letters from the end of the ninth – beginning of the tenth centry. In the translation of
philosophical and theological terminology this author applied two approaches: analytic
and synthetic. These two approaches led to the poetisation of dialectic and found
expression in the frequent use of the concept „image“. Thus John the Exarch created a
stable tradition which survived until the twentieth century and could be traced in the
works of the philosophers from the so-called Russian religious Renaissance.
|Георги Петков||(Пловдив) – Неизвестни преписи от проложите жития на Кирил и Методий||186–198||UNKNOWN COPIES OF THE PROLOGUE LIVES|
OF ST. CYRIL AND ST. METHODIOS
GEORGI PETKOV (PLOVDIV)
This presentation offers some archeographic data on 11 newly-discovered copies of the Prologue Lives (Synaxarion notices) of St. Cyril and St. Methodios in Russian manuscripts from the Synod collection of the Russian State History Archives in St. Petersburg (collection 834, opus 2, opus 3, opus 4). The manuscripts are of the type Prologue and Verse Prolog and date from the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries. All codices were produced in Great Novgorod and the surrounding monasteries, as documented in the glosses and revealed by their language. The information on the manuscripts and the publication of the texts about St. Cyril and St. Methodios according to the earliest copies in this collection add to the picture of dissemination of these hagiographic accounts in the Russian literature of the Middle Ages.
|Румяна Павлова||(София) – Неотбелязани славянски творби в ръкописа Хлуд. 189||199–208||NICHT VERZEICHNETE SLAVISCHE WERKE|
IN DER HANDSCHRIFT CHLUD. 189
RUMJANA PAVLOVA (SOFIA)
Im Artikel werden Ergänzungen zur Handschrift aus der Chludovsammlung Nr. 189, sowie zur bulgarischen Handschrift Chlud. Nr. 191 – Synaxarion aus dem XIV. Jh., gemacht. In den bisherigen Untersuchungen sind drei slavische Texte in Chlud. 189
nicht verzeichnet: kurze Sinaxarvita für die Heiligen Brüder Kyrill ind Method am 25.
August, Kondak und Ikos aus der Akoluthie für Kyrill Philosoph am 14. Februar, und Kondak und Ikos über die ostslavischen Heiligen Boris-Roman und Gleb-David am 24. Juli. Die Autorin des Artikels gibt einige eigene Deutungen von Fakten in der Vita und im Kondak und Ikos aus der Akoluthie für die Heiligen Kyrill ind Method, sowie vom Kondak und Ikos aus der Akoluthie für Boris-Roman und Gleb-David. Es werden einige
Korrekturen und Schlußfolgerungen zum Buch Sinaxarion, zum Kalender der slavischen Heiligen gemacht, und Ungenauigkeiten zur Handschrift angegeben. Die nicht verzeichneten Kopien der drei slavischen Texte werden zum ersten Mal veröffentlicht.
|Елена Томова||(София) – Проложното житие на св. Михаил Воин (Предварителни текстологически наблюдения)||209–220||THE PROLOGUE LIFE OF ST MICHAEL THE WARRIOR|
(Preliminary Text-critical Observations)
ELENA TOMOVA (SOFIA)
The cult of St Michael the Warrior is a part of the thirteenth-fourteenth-century
hagiographic complex containing Prologue Lives, Offices and Enkomia for the so-called
Tarnovo saints – St Paraskeve (Petka) of Tarnovo, St John of Rila, St Hilarion of Maglen
and St Michael the Warrior. Typologically, the latter belongs to the group of the Christian warrior saints, such as St George the Great Martyr, St Theodore Stratelates, St Theodore Teron, etc. The core motif of the Life of St Michael the Warrior – saint’s victory over a
dragon – is wide-spread both in the folklore all over the world and in the literary tradition of
Orthodox Christians. The article offers a review of the text history of St Michael’s Prologue Life in Bulgarian,
Serbian, Russian, and Moldo-Wallachian manuscript traditions of the fourteenth-seventeenth centuries. Text-critical observations are made on the basis of 58 witnesses of the work (20 Bulgarian, 12 Serbian, 23 Russian, and 3 Moldavian) kept in archives in Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia, Romania, Croatia, and Slovenia. The results of the research presented refer
to the following: 1) the calendar date under which the text was copied; 2) the type of the
miscellanies it was included in; 3) the existence of Prologue verses attached to the Life; 4) the literary centres and literary traditions the copies’ origin is related to.
|Константинос Нихоритис||(Флорина) – Неизвестно стишно житие на св. Петка Епиватска-Търновска||221–224||UNKNOWN VERSE LIFE OF ST. PETKA OF TARNOVO|
KONSTANTINOS NICHORITIS (FLORINA)
A Festal Menaion from the manuscript collection of the Athonite monastery St. Dionysios (MS 801 from the sixteenth century) includes a Verse Life of St. Petka that has not been published so far. Some details of its content indicate that it is connected only to the saint’s Life written by Patriarch Euthymios. The author suggests that the Verse Life could be related to the activities of the last Bulgarian patriarch and interpreted as evidence supporting Euthymios’ authorship of the Tarnovo Office of St. Petka.
|Татjана Суботин - Голубовић||(Београд) – Празновање преноса моштиjу светога Николе (9/22. маj) према српским рукописима||225–234||THE FEAST TRANSLATION OF ST NICHOLAS' RELICS (9/22 MAY) IN SERBIAN MANUSCRIPTS |
TATJANA SUBOTIN-GOLUBOVIĆ (BELGRADE)
In this article the author publishes a newly-discovered Office for the feast Translation of St Nicholas' relics from the beginning of the sixteenth century. Its canon, different from the previously-known, contains an acrostic. Although it is not preserved in its integrity, the text of the acrostic reveals the Slavonic origin of the canon. The new¬ly-discovered office (which follows the Jerusalem Typikon) most probably appeared in the Serbian literary tradition at the time of the independence of the Serbian state through the mediation of Mount Athos.
|Ана Стойкова||(София) – Аджарска следа в Чудото на св. Георги със змея?||235–246||IS THERE „AN ADZAR CONNECTION“ IN THE MIRACLE OF ST GEORGE|
ABOUT THE DRAGON?
ANA STOYKOVA (SOFIA)
The only examined by now copy of a peculiar Slavic version of the popular story is known as „The text of Jagic" by the name of the scholar who published it and who interpreted it as a Serbian text from the end of the sixteenth century. The author of this article identifies the manuscript and particularly this version of St George’s miracle
about the dragon as a part of the literary heritage of the writers belonging to the Adzar literary school from the second half of the seventeenth century. The version has a probable
Russian origin. However, only its South Slavic copies contain the curious episode with
the lament of the king.
|Диляна Радославова||(София) – Култът към св. Иван Рилски, отразен в българските ръкописи от XVII в.||247–262||THE CULT TO ST JOHN OF RILA IN THE SEVENTEEN-CENTURY|
DILYANA RADOSLAVOVA (SOFIA)
The article offers a review of hagiographic and hymnographic works dedicated to
the saint in the seventeen-century Bulgarian manuscript tradition and studies the
dissemination of the texts and their versions. The author identifies an unknown
compilation of a service according to the Jerusalem Typikon and a new Kontakion for
the feast of the Translation of the St. John’s relics back to Rila monastery.
|Диана Атанасова||(София) – Св. Текла във и през огледалото на апостол Павел||263–274||ST. THECLA IN AND THROUGH THE MIRROR OF ST. PAUL|
DIANA ATANASOVA (SOFIA)
The article discusses a significant episode in the Martyrdom of St. Thecla describing
Thecla sitting next to the window and listening to the preaching of St. Paul the Apostle.
She could observe the people crowding and hear Paul’s voice, but she could not look at him. Anxious to see Paul’s face, Thecla left her home and followed Paul. In a recent
study Adelina Angusheva-Tihanova has already interpreted this part of St. Thecla’s
passion. In this article Apostle Paul is considered as a key figure for the understanding
of the whole episode. In his First Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 13-12) he uses a
catoptrical metaphor which could be used as an interpretative key which allows us to
think about the episode as an allegory of what was said by Paul in 1 Cor. 13:12. It is
interesting that the Passion of another early Christian martyr, St. Justina, contains the
same episode. The author suggests that Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 13-12 cast light on the
symbolic meaning of episodes about virgins sitting by the window as a symbol of the
spiritual change they were going through.
|Елисавета Мусакова||(София) – Йоан Кръстител побеждава змея||275–288||SAINT JOHN THE BAPTIST DEFEATS THE DRAGON|
ELISSAVETA MOUSSAKOVA (SOFIA)
The author offers a three-level interpretation of the illustrative initial in Codex
Assemanianus painted at the lecture for 24 June, the holiday commemorating the Birth
of St John the Baptist. The peculiarity of this initial comes from the combination of St John’s image as a young red-hair man and that of a dragon, placed respectively in the
bow and on the stem of the letter. As the event of Baptism is emblematic for the unique role of St John it is the obvious reason why an abbreviated version of its representation
was chosen to illustrate the text. This is the first, biblical level on which the common
viewer “reads” the images. On the second level of understanding they are seen in the light of the Christian celebration of the summer solstice and the solar symbolism of St
John elaborated by the Church writers, St Clement of Ohrid in particular. The final step
however is to reveal the basic idea which had to endure a transformation under the
spreading Christianity in the Balkan. Therefore on the third level the viewer is encouraged
to draw a parallel between St John, his folklore counterpart Enyo and their pagan ancestor
Apollo. It is thus demonstrated how even a small piece of medieval art is grasped by a
contemporary mind as a multi-cultural complex.
|Нина Гагова||(София) – Теофаничното видение от Томичовия псалтир и особеностите на исихастката тринитарна концепция в един текст на Йоан Кантакузин||289–304||THE THEOPHANY OF THE TOMIC PSALTER AND SOME PECULIARITIES|
OF THE HESYCHASTIC TRINITY DOCTRINE IN ONE TEXT
BY JOHN KANTAKOUZENOS
NINA GAGOVA (SOFIA)
This paper examines the well-known full-page miniature on f. 129r in Tomic Psalter (Moscow, GIM, Muz. 2752) commissioned by an unknown Bulgarian aristocrat (by Tsar John Alexander himself?) in 1360s or early 1370s. The composition of the images is analysed from the point of view of the hesychastic Trinity doctrine demonstrated in
John Kantakouzenos’ dialogue Contra Iudeam (Slavic translation from 1390s). An
interpretation of the main image of the composition as following the iconographic type Paternitas (Otechestvo) is proposed. It reveals hesychasts’ special stress on the „threehypostasis-
ness“ and „paternitas“ in the Holy Trinity (just like in the relation between the „monarchy“ of the Father and the „monarchy“ of the King). The placement of the
miniature in the middle of the Psalter (between psalms 76 and 77) expresses its polemical
essence and provides an evidence of the possible immediate reason that gave birth to
this commission. Such a composition could be contemplated in the circle of the former emperor following eleventh-century models (and patterns?). They appeared after the
Great Schism. Most likely Southern Slavs got acquainted with these models in some of
the common Byzantine-Slavic cultural centres (such as Constantinople, Mount Athos,
|Анатолий Турилов||(Москва) – К истории тырновского „царского" скриптория XIV в.||305–328||TOWARDS THE HISTORY OF TARNOVO „TSARS’“ SCRIPTORIUM|
IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY
ANATOLIJ A. TURILOV (MOSCOW)
In connection with his work on the Inventory of the Slavic manuscript from the fourteenth century which are now stored in museums and libraries in the former Soviet
Union countries the author identifies a number of manuscripts by their scribes or
scriptoria. Analysing the way of writing of the letters, the used graphemae, the
orthographic norms, and the decoration of some individual codices, the author increases the number of the books known to be written by the Tarnovo men of letters hyeromonk
Laurentios, priest Philip and his collaborator. These observations allow us to draw some
conclusions about their literary production created duting 1330s and 1340s, about ththeir literary production created duting 1330s and 1340s, about the character of the texts copied in Tarnovo scriptoria and about the history of the way of writing typical of the epoch (the so-called Alexandrian or „priest Gerasimos’s“ script).
|Иван Добрев||(София) – Проговорилото мълчание||329–340||SILENCE THAT TALKS|
IVAN DOBREV (SOFIA)
No matter what the literary criticism asserts, it appears fairly plausible that the
Bulgarian symbolists have much in common not only with the French or Russian
modernists (as so far assumed), but also (and to a greater extent!) with the medieval
Bulgarian and Byzantine mystics practicing quietude. For our symbolists – just like the medieval hesychasts five centuries before them – preferred the apophatic way of expression: besides assigning special function to the negative lexical forms, they also
conveyed any action, or state, through passive or reflexive verbs mainly; hardly ever did logical and grammatical subjects coincide. The stylistic correspondences were undoubtedly underlain by certain ideological similarities. And even if the symbolists
confessed that they lacked the Divine Grace, to contemplate perfection as well as to long for turning back to the primordial state was not less characteristic of them than of
|Ирина Кузидова-Караджинова||(София) – Южнославянска антология със сентенции Панарет||341–355||A SOUTH SLAVIC ANTHOLOGY OF WISE SENTENCES PANARET|
IRINA KUZIDOVA (SOFIA)
The translated Gnomologion Panaret is not very popular sacro-profane collection
of wise sentences. With the exception of the copy in MS 159 from the Museum of the
Serbain Orthodox Church (fifteenth century), mentioned by M. N. Speranskij, the
anthology is known also by the evidence in MS III/111 from Odessa State Scientific Library (dating from 1456) – the so-called „Predeli“ collection by Vladislav the
Grammarian. The study of Panaret reveals an identical translation, but a different structure
in both copies (because of the loss of folia). The anthology probably springs from the above-mentioned compilation of symmetrical excerpts from the Proverbs, the Wisdom of Sirach and from „Mellisa“ by Pseudo-Maximos, but the title refers only to the biblical
books. The translation of „Mellisa“ in Panaret is without reference to the Russian „Mellisa“, but it reveals lexical and grammatical similarities with a Serbian copy of an
excerpt from Pseudo-Maximos (again in MS 159 from the Museum of the Serbain
Orthodox Church) which is related to the Bulgarian „Mellisa“ (in Cod. Paris. 26). The
anthology appears together with similar kind of texts (another gnomological or
erotapokritical works) in some encyclopaedic codices. The appearance of the collection could be related to the cultural circle in Resava as a result of the intensive literary work during the reign of Stephan Lazarevic. The Gnomologion Panaret is known only during
the fifteenth century. It could be viewed as one more example of the interrelation between Bulgarian and Serbian literatures at that period.
|Маргарет Димитрова, Елисавета Мусакова, Андрей Бояджиев||(София) – Мануиловият апостол||356–379||THE MANUIL APOSTOLOS|
MARGARET DIMITROVA, ELISSAVETA MOUSSAKOVA,
ANDREJ BOJADZHIEV (SOFIA)
The paper discusses the decoration, codicological and palaeographic features,
orthography, language, content, and textual peculiarities of the Manuil Apostolos, a full lectionary, six fragments of which are kept under six signatures in three libraries in Russia and Bulgaria. The analysis concerns all the fragments but is mostly concentrated
on the two of them kept in SS. Cyril and Methodius National Library, nos. 499 and 500
which have been examined de visu. The characteristics of the decoration, orthography,
and text show interplay of more archaic and more innovative features, for instance there
are both archaic lexical readings and Preslavisms. The Apostolos is closer to the Slepche Apostolos and Matica Srpska Apostolos. The Manuil Apostolos is likely to have been written in an eastern (or northeastern) Bulgarian scriptorium in the second half of the
|Димитринка Димитрова - Маринова||(София) – Поучението към жените и момите в ръкописната традиция от втората половина на XVIII в.||380–393||LA PRÉDICATION AUX FEMMES ET AUX JEUNES FILLES DANS|
LA TRADITION MANUSCRITE DE LA SECONDE MOITIÉ DU XVIIIe SIÈCLE
DIMITRINKA DIMITROVA-MARINOVA (SOFIA)
L’article présente une étude de la tradition écrite du recueil dit „féminin“ de Joseph le Barbu, composé en 1756; une précision la date de la copie dans le recueil d’Odessa
(ОГНБ 38 (67)), écrit au plus tard en 1757; une étude textologique des copies de l’oeuvre
finale: Prédication aux jeunes femmes et aux filles; une caractéristique des rédactions
les plus importantes; une publication du texte du manuscrit 917 de la collection de l’Institut et archives de l’histoire religieuse, rédigé par Nicéphore de Rila en 1757. La
copie publiée présente la rédaction connue sous le plus grand nombre de copies.
|Томислав Jовановић||(Београд) – Завет патриjарха Рувима у препису збирке манастира Никољца||394–404||THE TESTAMENT OF PATRIARCH REUBEN ACCORDING TO A TRANSCRIPT|
FROM THE MANUSCRIPT COLLECTION OF NIKOLJAC MONASTERY
TOMISLAV JOVANOVIĆ (BELGRADE)
MS 83 (15) from the collection of Nikoljac Monastery dating from 1425/1435 contains an unknown transcript of the Testament of Patriarch Reuben. This text is usually
considered as a part of the well-known apocryphal Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs,
but here it is presented as an individual work. The article publishes the text of Nikoljac
manuscript with variant readings according to the only other known copy from Krušedol Monastery dated to 1430/1440. The author defines the Nikoljac manuscript where the Testament is incorporated as a miscellany of mixed content which includes also a Historical Palaea and provides its analytical description.
|Нина Вутова||(София) – Филиграноложка датировка на ръкопис № 904 от колекцията на Атинската национална библиотека||405–409||FILIGRANOLOGICAL DATING OF MS 904 FROM THE MANUSCRIPT|
COLLECTION OF THE NATIONAL LIBRARY IN ATHENS
NINA VUTOVA (SOFIA)
The article offers a precise dating of MS 904 from the National Library in Athens based on the analysis of the watermarks on its paper. Attention is paid to the variety of watermarks in the manuscript (11 altogether), each accompanied by short data about the history of its use and its graphic copies.
|Елена Узунова||(София) – Познанията за природата според извънтекстовите добавки в български ръкописи||410–415||KNOWLEDGE ABOUT NATURE REFLECTED IN THE MARGINAL NOTES|
IN BULGARIAN MANUSCRIPT TRADITION
ELENA UZUNOVA (SOFIA)
The comets, solar eclipse and earthquake were the natural phenomena which most often attracted the attention of the medieval men of letters and in all probability were
recorded in a relatively accurate and regular fashion. The article offers some observations
on the colophons and marginal notes containing evidence of knowledge in the sphere of natural sciences (astronomy and geophysics) from the seventeenth – nineteenth centuries.
|Татяна Славова||(София) – За някои езически реалии в Ефремовската кормчая||416–426||PAGAN REALIA IN EPHRAIM’S COPY OF SYNTAGMA OF 14 TITLES|
TATYANA SLAVOVA (SOFIA)
The article studies the official Church-law Collection in Bulgaria in the beginning of the tenth century entitled Sintagma Canonicos (Syntagma of 14 titles without commentaries) and more precisely its earliest copy – the one of the twelfth century – containing the note of the Russian copyist Ephraim (GIM, Moscow, Syn 227). Although the Old Bulgarian protograph has not reached our times it can be argued that separate texts of Ephraim’s copy provide information on concepts and realia related to everyday life in medieval Bulgaria. The etymological and cultural analysis focuses on several lexemes such as „сига, лек, къщник, лисктвеник, козлогласование” considered relics from ancient pagan rituals concerning playing dice, mime performances, as well as ritual entertainment. A connection has been sought with Bulgarian folklore which has preserved until nowadays some similar rituals, as for example mummery games.
|Искра Христова - Шомова||(София) – Паримиите за Петровден в служебните минеи||427–444||THE LECTIONS FOR SS. PETER AND PAUL’S DAY IN MENAIA|
ISKRA CHRISTOVA (SOFIA)
The texts of the lections for SS. Peter and Paul’s day (1Pet 1: 3-9, 1Pet 1: 13-19, 1Pet 2: 11-24) in seven thirteenth- to seventeenth-century Menaia are juxtaposed with the texts of the same lections in the Grigorovi_ Parimejnik and with the same texts in six twelfth- to sixteenth-century Apostoloi. In two of the apostoloi the places of these lections are specially marked. The results of the comparison show that: 1) The texts of the lections in Menaia, dating from the fifteenth century onwards is revised. The revised version appears without variations, with the exception of omitted phrases. 2) This revised text follows the Athonite revision of the book of Apostolos, but not strictly. There are some places, which follow the earlier translation, and some other places which are specific only for the revised lections in the Menaia.
|Лора Тасева||(София) – Единство и многообразие на преводаческите норми през XIV в. (По материал от два южнославянски превода на триодните синаксари)||445–457||UNIFORMITY AND VARIETY IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY|
(Based on the Material from Two South Slavic Translations
of Synaxaria of the Triodion)
LORA TASEVA (SOFIA)
The article examines two South Slavic translations of the Synaxaria for the Triodion
dating from the fourteenth century. The first is translation A, ascribed to a Middle Bulgarian man of letters, Zakcheus the Philosopher, and related to the Athonite reform
of liturgical books. The second is translation C. Its localisation has been determined
generally as the territory of contemporary West Bulgaria, Macedonia or South Serbia.
The comparison of the two translations has shown that, though being oriented to precise
presentation of the formal models of the original, they reproduce the instant linguistic
models at a different extent. The reproduction differs in approaches and means used. In
this aspect translation C exhibits greater independence from the text translated. The two
translations are based on different earlier literary traditions. While translation C, as well as the Tarnovo redaction of translation A, implement the established language norms of
the Old and Middle Bulgarian literature (e.g. keeping the Greek borrowings), the Athonite
text of Zakcheus restricts their usage by replacing them with neologism loanwords. The
Old Bulgarian lexical heritage does not have tantamount presence in the two translations.
The Athonite and Tarnovo versions stick closer to the lexical inventory of the Preslav
epoch, while translation C resorts more frequently to the Cyrillo-Methodian vocabulary.
|Roland Marti||(Saarbrücken) – Tetra-Evangelist?||458–468||TETRA-EVANGELIST?|
ROLAND MARTI (SAARBRÜCKEN)
„В началото бе книгата“: dies gilt zweifellos für die Kulturgeschichte der Slaven. Das Buch als wichtigste materielle Grundlage für die Verbreitung des Christentums war denn auch eine Vorbedingung für die kyrillo-methodianische Mission. Und von zentraler Bedeutung war das Buch des Christentums schlechthin: das Evangelium. Das läßt sich an den Viten von Konstantin-Kyrill und Method deutlich ablesen… Diese Textstelle liefert gleichzeitig ein Argument in der Diskussion darüber, welcher Typus des Evangeliums zuerst übersetzt wurde: das Tetra-Evangelium oder das Aprakos-Evangelium. Sie spricht zugunsten des Aprakos-Evangeliums , was auch heute noch die weithin akzeptierte Ansicht ist. Diese Diskussion, die (abgesehen von der oben zitierten Textstelle) nur textologisch geführt werden könnte, interessiert hier aber nicht; vielmehr geht es im folgenden um Terminologisches im Zusammenhang mit dem Evangelium.
|Надежда Синдик||(Београд) – Бугарски антропоними и топоними у дечанским поменицима бр. 109 и бр. 154 (Прилог проучавању српско-бугарских веза XVII-XIX в.)||469–474||BULGARIAN ANTHROPONYMS AND TOPONYMS|
IN THE COMMEMORATIVE LISTS OF NAMES (POMENIKS) OF DECANI
MONASTERY G 109 AND G 154
(Contribution to the Research of Serbian-Bulgarian Relations during
the Seventeenth to the Nineteenth Century)
NADEZHDA SINDIK (BELGRADE)
This work for the first time provides historical material from Decani pomeniks
G 109 and G 154 which contains anthroponyms and toponyms from the Western Bulgarian
lands. This material is related to the registration of the commemorations of dead people (most often on the fortieth day after the death) and of the names of living people
(read in the hope of obtaining good health) during the liturgy. The commemoration lists of names were carried on by Decani monks during the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries. Commemorations were paid in money and in nature that specially shows
the social status and wealth of the registered people. The donations were often not so
small, especially from the Bulgarian pilgrims (hadzhii) and wealthy people (chorbadzhii).
The material confirms vivid Serbo-Bulgarian relations during the Middle Ages and the
Turkish period. Therefore this work is one more supplement to the study of these important
historical relations which were not specially commented on this occasion.
|Боряна Велчева||(София) – Към историята на българските адвербиални форми||475–477||TOWARDS THE HISTORY OF BULGARIAN ADVERBIAL FORMS|
BORYANA VELČEVA (SOFIA)
The article provides Middle Bulgarian examples of adverbs composed by a preposition and a noun. In some cases their later lexicalisation led to their secondary usage
with a preposition and to a new lexicalisation. Similar combinations could be found in
the damaskini written in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
|Анна-Мария Тотоманова||(София) – Размисли върху родопския вокализъм и общата съдба на българските диалекти||478–484||REFLECTIONS ON THE VOCALISM IN RODOPA DIALECTS AND THE|
COMMON DEVELOPMENT OF BULGARIAN DIALECTS
ANNA-MARIJA TOTOMANOVA (SOFIA)
The article tries to explain the development of the palatal correlation in Bulgarian taking the point from the current situation in Rodopa dialects where the transformation of the vowels received from OCS “ь”and „ент” in “e” together with the change of the continuant of „ят” has recently begun. The author presumes that the significant delay in developing new palatals before „ят” (yat alternation) in this region depends on the fact that these dialects developed palatal correlation before the back continuants of the front vowels „ь” and „ят”. The phenomenon took place centuries ago and the transformation of yers in Rodopa region coincided with the transformation of nasal vowels. As a result very stable consonant and vocal systems were formed. The existence of palatal correlation postponed the palatalisation before „ят”. Only atpresent when the back vowels replacing “ь” and „ент” started changing in “e” after the palatalconsonants yat alternation began.
|Димитър Пеев||(София) – Глоса за българите в славянския текст на Юдейската война от Йосиф Флавий||485–493||A GLOSS CONCERNING BULGARIANS IN THE SLAVONIC VERSION OF|
FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS’ JEWISH WAR
DIMITAR PEEV (SOFIA)
The article concerns a gloss in Slavonic version of Flavius Josephus’ Jewish War (f. 403v). The former academic tradition considers
the gloss to be included in main text on Slavic ground. Eventual paths of origin of this fragment are examined. Analysis of the context of similar glosses in Byzantine tradition
and in Archivski Chronograph (a part of which is the translation of Jewish War) is
made. The conclusion formulated is that the only possible context where such a gloss might appear could be that of Mediaeval Byzantine Chronicles.
|Kyrill Pavlikianov||(Sofia) – Byzantine and Early Post-Byzantine Documentary Evidence for the City of Melenikon in the Archive of the Athonite Monastery of Vatopedi||494–505||BYZANTINE AND EARLY POST-BYZANTINE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR THE CITY OF MELENIKON IN THE ARCHIVE OF THE ATHONITE MONASTERY OF VATOPEDI|
KYRILL PAVLIKIANOV (SOFIA)
The purpose of the present article is to provide to the scholarly community dealing with the documentary heritage of the Late Middle Ages new knowledge about some documents pertaining to the city of Melenikon , and mainly to its monastery of Our Lady Spelaiotissa. They are kept in the archive of the Athonite foundation of Vatopedi, which is very rich in late Byzantine and early post-Byzantine acts . The Byzantine documents, i.e. the acts dated up to the year 1500, are expected to be soon published in Paris, as the next volume of the well-known series Archives de l’Athos.
|Съкращения на названията на библиотеки и архиви||506||http://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=211027|
|Габриела Георгиева||Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 1999-2000 г.||507–556||http://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=211018|
Кн. 32 (2001)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Георги Попов||– Службата за славянския първоучител Методий в Хлудовия миней 156||3–20||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=238715|
|Мария Йовчева||– Старобългарската служба за първомъченик Стефан и Стефан I папа Римски||21–44||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=238717|
|Румяна Павлова||– Култът към източно славянските светци и православните южни славяни||45–62||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=238718|
|Франсис Томсън||– Погрешно ли е приписвано на Григорий Цамблак мъчението на св. Йоан Нови||63–74||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=238716|
|Аделина Ангушева - Тиханова||– Григорий Цамблак чете византийската литература (Историята на Йоан Кантакузин, изображенията на проказата и чудесата-наказание)||75–82||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=238723|
|Valentina Izmirlieva||– Naming the Nameless: Included Name-Catalogues across Medieval Slavic Genres||83–98||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=238719|
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Анисава Милтенова||– „Устроение на [светите] слова“ в старобългарската литература||99–110||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=238721|
|Ивона Карачорова||– За състава на Радомировия псалтир||111–120||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=238709|
|Радослава Станкова, Марина Йорданова||– Научна конференция в памет на акад. Петър Динеков||121–124||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=238714|
|Ивона Карачорова||– Научна конференция по проблемите на псалтирните преводи||124–125||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=238712|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Ростислав Станков||– Старобългарски речник. Т. 1. (А-Н). Отг. ред. чл.-кор. проф. Дора Иванова Мирчева. Изд. „В. Траянов“. С., 1999. XCI+1027 с.||126–132||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=238722|
|Румяна Златанова||– Horace G. Lunt, Moshe Taube. The Slavonic Book of Esther. Jext, Lexicon, Linguistic Analysis, Problems of Translation. Harvard University Press for the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. Cambridge, Mass., 1998. VII+311 p.||132–135||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=238720|
|Красимира Костова||– Саввина книга.Древнеславянская рукопись XI, XI-XII и конца XIII века. Часть первая. Рукопись. Текст. Комментарии. Исследование. Издание подготовили О. А. Князевская, Л. А. Коробенко, Е. П. Дограмаджиева. Москва, 1999. 703 с.||135–137||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=238710|
|Маргарет Димитрова||– Medieval Slavic Manuscripts and SGML: Problems and Perspectives. Ed. by Anisava Miltenova and David Birnbaum. Sofia, Academic Publishing House, 2000. 372 p.||137–140||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=238711|
|Габриела Георгиева||– Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 1995-1998 г.||141–220||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=238713|
Кн. 31 (1999)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Георги Попов||– ХВАЛНА ПIАНИIА КОНСТАНТИНОВА (Богоявленски предпразнични стихири на Константин Преславски в руски миней от XII–XIII в.)||3–23||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=112372|
|Климентина Иванова||– Неизвестна сръбска служба за св. Ахил Лариски (Преспански)||24–40||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=112378|
|Stephan Nikolov||– Building the Tower of Babel (MIchael III, Photius and Basil I and the Byzantine Approval for the Use of the Slavic Liturgy and Alphabet in the Late Ninth Century)||41–53||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=112377|
|Татяна Славова||– Най-ранният славянски ръкопис на Мойсеевото Петокнижие||54–65||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=112370|
|Мая Петрова||– Славянски сборници от материчен тип: Състав, произход и особености||66–83||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=112380|
|Мая Иванова||– Михаил Войн в огледалото на Богородица||84–88||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=112367|
|Ралица Лозанова||– Бележки върху миниатюрата „Видението на пророк Исая и пророк Иезекиил“ от Томичовия псалтир||89–104||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=112366|
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Ангелина Минчева||– НЕДѢЛIА ЦВѢТНАIА – ВРЬБЬНИЦА||105–115||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=112371|
|Стефан Смядовски||– Един античен мотив за смъртта и следите му в Източното и Западното средновековие||116–119||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=112363|
|Найда Иванова||– Абагар (1651) на Филип Станиславов в южнославянски контекст||120–126||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=112375|
|Радослава Трифонова||– Международен симпозиум „Осем века Хилендар. История, духовен живот, литература, изкуство и архитектура“||127–132||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=112373|
|Марина Йорданова||– Международна конференция „Григорий Цамблак – исихаст, писател, църковен деятел“||132–134||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=112369|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Славия Бърлиева||– Martin Eggers. Das Erzbistum des Method. Lage, Wirkung und Nachleben der kyrillomethodianischen Mission. Slavistische Beiträge, Bd. 339. München, Verlag Otto Sagner, 1996. 176 S.||135–144||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=112368|
|Габриела Георгиева||– Медиевистика и културна антропология. Сборник в чест на 40-годишната творческа дейност на проф. Донка Петканова. София, Мнемозина, 1998. 526 с.||145–150||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=112362|
|Маргарита Младенова||– Славия Бърлиева. Агиографските творби за св. Кирил и Методий в Legenda Aurea на Яков Ворагински. – В: Кирило-Методиевски студии. Кн. 11. София, Академично издателство „Марин Дринов“, 1998, 7–120||150–152||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=112365|
|Маргарет Димитрова||– Antonja Zaradija - Kiš. Knjiga o Jobu u hrvatskoglagoljskoj književnosti. Znanstvena biblioteka Hrvatskoga filološkoga društva, 28. Zagreb, Matica hrvatska, 1997. 231 p.||152–154||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=112364|
|Стефан Николов||– Alexander M. Schenker. The Dawn of Slavic. An Introduction to Slavic Philology. Yale University Press: New Heaven and London, 1995. 239 p.||155–156||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=112379|
|Габриела Георгиева||– Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 1991–1994 г.||157–215||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=112374|
Кн. 30 (1998)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Славия Бърлиева||– Латинско стихотворение от XII в. – още един кирило-методиевски извор||3–15||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=161575|
|Елена Велковска||– Эксплицитное и имплицитное в отношении ранневизантийской проповеди к античной реторике||16–21||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=161567|
|Виторио Пери||– Три кирило-методиевски бележки||22–31||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=161566|
|Майя Йонова||– Фолклорна основа и исторически идентификации на един епизод в разказа за Езоп||32–37||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=161572|
|Петър Петров||– Св. Кирил и Методий, равноапостолни славянски просветители, и св. Патрик, апостол на ирландците (За фреската в Мъглижкия манастир)||38–44||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=161573|
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|***||Опис на ръкописните и старопечатните книги от библиотеката на проф. Кирил Мирчев||45–75||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=161571|
|Андрей Бояджиев||– Колко листа са запазени от Аргировия триод?||76–81||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=161568|
|Боряна Христова||– Неизвестен ръкопис на йеромонах Даниил Етрополски||82–86||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=161565|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Екатерина Дограмаджиева||– Стефан Смядовски. Българска кирилска епиграфика, IX–XV век. Studia Classica. T. 1. София, 1993. 243 с||87–89||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=161570|
|Цветана Ралева||– Румяна Павлова. Петър Черноризец, старобългарски писател от Х век. – В: Кирило-Методиевски студии. Кн. 9. София, БАН, 1994. 446 с||89–93||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=161563|
|Анисава Милтенова||– Ана Стойкова. Физиологът в южнославянските литератури. София, БАН, 1994. 131 с||93–96||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=161569|
|Аделина Ангушева - Тиханова||– Maurice L. Hébert. Hesyhasm, Word-Weaving, and Slavic Hagiography: The Literary School of Patriarch Euthymius. Sagners Slavistische Sammlung, 18. Munich, Verlag Otto Sagner, 1992. 533 p||97–98||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=161576|
|Вася Велинова||– Angeliki Delikari. Der Hl. Klemens und die Frage des Bistums von Velitza. Identifizierung Bischofliste (bis 1767) und Titularbischöfe. Thessaloniki, SS Cyril and Methodius Center for Cultural Studies, 1997. 162 p||98–100||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=161574|
|Донка Илинова||– Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 1989 и 1990 г||101–124||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=161564|
Кн. 28-29 (1994)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Божидар Райков||– Със Стефан Кожухаров на Света гора||1–9||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142342|
|Георги Попов||– Следи от разпространението на Наумовия канон за св. апостол Андрей||10–22||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142351|
|Иван Божилов||– КНѦЖЕНИѤ СЛОВѢНЬСКО или ΣΚΛΑΒΟΑΡΧΟΝΤΙΑ||23–28||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142326|
|Клео Протохристова||– Огледалото на Средновековието (Проблеми на катоптричната метафора в средновековната литература)||29–37||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142345|
|Светла Гюрова||– Философия и история на една средновековна норма||38–44||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142347|
|Лидия Денкова||– Смирение и гордост – авторското самосъзнание на старобългарския книжовник||45–51||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142343|
|Донка Петканова||– Схващания за името на човека във фолклора и в средновековната литература||52–55||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142335|
|Радослава Трифонова||– Българската традиция при формирането на общия южнославянски книжовен фонд и неговото усвояване в сръбските земи през XI–XIII в. (Тезиси)||56–61||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142331|
|Екатерина Дограмаджиева||– Участие на Евангелието в изграждането на Синайския евхологий||62–65||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142337|
|Ангелина Минчева||– Има ли в старобългарски прилагателно НЕДОВОЛЬНЪ||66–69||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142340|
|Боряна Велчева||– За езика на разказа „Чудото с българина“||70–73||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142341|
|Ана Стойкова||– Чудеса на св. Георги в един миней от XVI в.||74–77||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142352|
|Емилия Гергова||– Пространното житие на св. Йоаким Осоговски – структурно-типологически наблюдения||78–85||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142348|
|Нина Георгиева||– Житието на св. Симеон Сръбски от Стефан Първовенчани и някои проблеми на ранната православнохристиянска агиография||86–92||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142336|
|Климентина Иванова||– Малки бележки върху ръкописи от библиотеката на Зографския манастир||93–100||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142346|
|Боряна Христова||– Ръкописите от XIV век в библиотеката на Зографския манастир||101–109||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142339|
|Светлина Николова||– За най-стария български средновековен ръкопис на Стария завет||110–118||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142329|
|Елена Томова||– Сборник BSS.III.26 от библиотеката на Светия синод в Букурещ||119–124||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142328|
|Красимир Станчев||– Слова на св. Климент Охридски в неизвестни и в неизползувани преписи||125–130||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142334|
|Анисава Милтенова||– Цикъл разкази за злите жени в сборниците със смесено съдържание||131–136||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142344|
|Стефан Смядовски||– Изображение – надпис – йерархия (Епиграфско-агиоложки бележки)||137–142||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142338|
|Елка Бакалова||– Литургична поезия и църковна стенопис (Текст от Октоиха в Боянската църква)||143–152||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142332|
|Лиляна Мавродинова||– Новите разкрития и датировката на първоначалната живопис в църквата „Св. Димитър“ във Велико Търново||153–165||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142327|
|Аксиния Джурова||– Още веднъж за образците на славянската тератология (Евангелие Сава 248 от Гръцката патриаршия в Ерусалим и Радомировият псалтир)||166–175||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142333|
|Елена Тончева||– Полиелейните припели на Филотей в славяноезичната песенност през ХV в.||176–187||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142330|
|Донка Илинова||– Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 1988 г.||188–203||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=142350|
Кн. 27 (1994)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Тотю Тотев||– Някои наблюдения във връзка с типологизацията на преславските кръстокуполни църкви||3–11||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=277941|
|Надежда Романкова||– Проблемы авторского стиля в произведениях Климента Охридского (Опыт машинного анализа)||12-50||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=277939|
|Виктор В. Бычков||– Эстетика византийского исихазма||51–68||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=277936|
|Ана Стойкова||– Гръцкият Физиолог и неговите южнославянски преводи||69–77||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=277935|
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Мария Дерменджиева||– Румънските жития на св. Петка Епиватска||78–112||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=277943|
|Елена Томова||– Международен симпозиум по случай 1080 години от смъртта на Наум Охридски||113–118||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=277938|
|Димитринка Димитрова-Маринова||– Из проблематиката на симпозиума „Богомилството и средновековната европейска култура“||118–121||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=277942|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Петър Динеков||– Красимир Станчев, Георги Попов. Климент Охридски. Живот и творчество. София, Университетско издателство „Св. Климент Охридски“, 1988. 219 с.||122–125||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=277945|
|Красимир Станчев||– Майя Йонова. Белетристиката в системата на старата българска литература. София, Университетско издателство „Св. Климент Охридски“, 1992. 268 с.||125–127||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=277940|
|Донка Илинова||– Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 1987 г.||128–148||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=277944|
Кн. 25-26 (1991)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Татяна Янакиева||– Библиография на трудовете на акад. Петър Динеков (1980–1989)||4–21||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55283|
|Ангелина Минчева||– За периодизацията на средновековния български литературен език||22–28||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55279|
|Валентина Измирлиева||– Една гледна точка към понятието „жанр“ в старобългаристиката||29–37||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55281|
|Людмила Боева||– Своеобразие древнерусских жанров||38–46||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55292|
|Надежда Драгова||– Воинското сказание в старобългарската литература от Симеоновата епоха (IX–X в.)||47–57||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55276|
|Михаил Бъчваров||– Иоанн Экзарх и болгарская философская культура||58–65||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55289|
|Красимир Станчев||– Словата на Йоан Екзарх Български||66–72||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55288|
|Румяна Павлова||– За творчеството на Петър Черноризец||73–84||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55272|
|Донка Петканова||– Средновековната литература като извор за балканския фолклор||85–89||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55286|
|Екатерина Дограмаджиева||– Две характеризиращи черти в месецослова на Савина книга||90–94||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55290|
|Боряна Велчева||– Новооткрит лекарственик, написан с глаголица||95–97||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55273|
|Стефан Смядовски||– Георги Полаша (?) в Пространното житие на Константин-Кирил Философ||98–101||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55293|
|Иван Божилов||– ΟΡΟΣ ΤΩΝ ΒΟΥΛΓΑΡΩΝ||102–109||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55282|
|Иван Добрев||– За една приписка в Битолския триод||110–114||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55268|
|Светлина Николова||– За българския текст на повестта „Стефанит и Ихнилат“||115–123||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55280|
|Климентина Иванова||– Новоизводните търновски сборници и въпросът за ролята на патриарх Евтимий в техния превод||124–134||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55267|
|Анисава Милтенова||– Цикълът от историко-апокалиптични творби в Драголовия сборник – произход, източници, композиция||135–144||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55266|
|Ана Стойкова||– За един компилативен препис на южнославянския „Физиолог“||145–149||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55270|
|Елена Коцева||– Добродетелите на владетеля според житието на Стефан Лазаревич от Константин Костенечки||150–154||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55291|
|Нина Георгиева||– Едно необичайно иконографско решение при изобразяването на владетеля в Житието на деспот Стефан Лазаревич от Константин Костенечки||155–166||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55285|
|Сергей Райчинов||– Източноправославният свят и османското владичество (Философско-исторически и културологически проблеми)||167–172||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55284|
|Елка Бакалова||– Житиеписно повествование и изобразителна интерпретация||173–187||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55269|
|Стефан Кожухаров||– Художник сред влъхвите (Към проблема ‘текст – изображение’ във връзка с иконографията на новозаветната Троица)||188–193||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55278|
|Лиляна Мавродинова||– Новооткрити средновековни стенописи в църквата „Св. Георги“ в Колуша, Кюстендил (Предварителни бележки)||194–210||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55277|
|Божидар Райков||– Малки приноси към историята на българската литература от епохата на прехода||211–217||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55275|
|Елена Томова||– Кирилски ръкописи с български сюжети в полски книгохранилища||218–225||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55287|
|Славия Бърлиева||– Гръцките ръкописи в Рилския манастир||226–232||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55271|
|Аксиния Джурова, Елена Велковска, Иван Генов||– Византийската филология в България през ХХ в.||233–245||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=55294|
Кн. 23-24 (1990)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Ангелина Минчева||– Бележки към четенето на акростиховата похвала на Константин Преславски Гранеса добра Константинова||3–7|
|Виктор В. Бычков||– Житие Константина как один из основных источников философско-эстетической мысли средневековых славян||8–12|
|Валентина Измирлиева||– Жанрови трансформации в агиографската проза на Патриарх Евтимий. Връзката увод – жанрова концепция||13–33|
|Иван Буюклиев||– Изоколните структури в средновековните български текстове и квантитетният стих в чешкия и словашкия език. Опит за сравнение||34–46|
|Искра Христова||– Отношението паратактичност – хипотактичност в средновековния текст||47–56|
|Василий Пуцко||– Некоторые эпизоды из Жития преподобного Феодосия Печерского||57–62|
|Мария Шнитер, Илияна Кръпова||– За някои текстове от византийския и славянския евхологий през периода X–XVI в.||63–76|
|Илиана Чекова||– Летописное повествование о княгине Ольге под 6453 г. в свете русской народной сказки. Опыт определения жанровой природы.||77–98|
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Мариана Димитрова||– Из историята на триодните панегирици. Сборник Тиханов 540||99–124|
|Даринка Караджова, Елена Узунова||– Славянски ръкописи в Историческия музей на Шумен||125–186|
|Валентина Измирлиева||– Трети международен семинар по славянска палеография||187–190|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Анисава Милтенова||– Цветана Чолова. Естественонаучните знания в средновековна България. София, БАН, 1988. 401 с.||191–195|
|Славия Бърлиева||Květa Reichertová, Emilie Bláhová, Vlasta Dvořaková, Václav Huňáček. Sázava, památnik staroslověnské kultury v Čechách. Praha, Odeon, 1988. 451 p.||195–197|
|Данчо Господинов||Георги Чавръков. Средища на българската книжовност (IX–XVIII в.)||198–199|
|Донка Илинова||Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 1986 г.||200–217|
Кн. 22 (1990)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Тотю Тотев||– Старобългарските манастири в светлината на археологическите разкопки и проучвания||3–13||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=126837|
|Иван Добрев||– Текстологични проблеми на Климентовото творчество||14–33||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=126828|
|Христо Трендафилов||– Речта на философа в староруската Повесть временных лет и полемичните традиции на Константин-Кирил||34–46||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=126838|
|Майя Йонова||– Басенно-новелистичният цикъл „Стефанит и Ихнилат“ и неговите типологически паралели||47–52||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=126836|
|Димитър Ефендулов||– „Гранеса добра“ на Константин Преславски в отношение към химничната поезия||53–63||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=126832|
|Светла Гюрова||– Словото за Светите места в Бдинския сборник (Текстологично проучване)||64–88||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=126835|
|1000 ГОДИНИ ОТ ПОКРЪСТВАНЕТО НА РУСКИЯ НАРОД|
|Еп. Нестор||– Йоакимовският летопис за българското участие в християнизацията на Киевска Русия||89–107||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=126834|
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Таня Лалева||– Така нареченото четвърто слово на Атанасий Александрийски срещу арианите в превод на Константин Преславски||108–162||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=126826|
|Гунар Сване||– Славянски ръкописи в Кралската библиотека в Копенхаген||163–171||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=126831|
|***||Професор Боню Ангелов||172–173||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=126829|
|Божидар Райков||– Десет години Българска археографска комисия||173–176||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=126827|
|Елена Узунова||– Научен симпозиум в чест на 80-годишнината от рождението на академик Иван Дуйчев||176–189||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=126833|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Ана Стойкова, Славия Бърлиева||– Gerhard Podskalsky. Christentum un theologische Literatur in der Kiever Rus' (988–1237). München, Beck, 1982. XIII, 361 p.||181–185||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=126825|
|Мария Шнитер||– Божидар Райков, Христо Кодов, Боряна Христова. Славянски ръкописи в Рилския манастир. Том I. София, 1986л 129 с.||186–188||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=126830|
Кн. 21 (1987)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Донка Петканова||– Апокрифни въпроси и отговори||3–25||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=205262|
|Пейо Димитров||– Петър Черноризец||26–49||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=205263|
|Виктор В. Бычков||– Эстетические представления в „Шестодневе“ Иоанна Екзарха||50–66||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=205270|
|Имре Боба||– Константин Багянородни за Μεγάλη Μοραβία||67–79||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=205268|
|Нина Георгиева||– Житието на Стефан Дечански от Григорий Цамблак като отражение на следкосовския етап от развитието на култа към светеца||80–93||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=205266|
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Константин Тотев||– Темата за Йоан Кръстител в литературата и изкуството на Българското средновековие||94–100||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=205264|
|Мария Шнитер||– За някои форми на взаимодействие между официална и народна литература и култура през Късното спедновековие||101–107||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=205260|
|Димитринка Димитрова||– Кирило-методиевската литературоведска проблематика на Втория международен конгрес по българистика||108–109||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=205258|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Милияна Каймакамова||– Васил Гюзелев. Училища, скриптории, библиотеки и знания в България (XIII–XIV в.). София, Народна просвета, 1985. 265 с.||110–114||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=205259|
|Николай Дилевски||– Петър Атанасов. Българо-руски литературни връзки през XVII и XVIII в. София, Наука и изкуство, 1986. 166 с.||114–119||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=205261|
|Донка Илинова||– Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през второто шестмесечие на 1985 г.||120–136||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=205267|
Кн. 20 (1987)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Петър Динеков||– Търновската книжовна школа (История, основни черти, значение)||3–19||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=75469|
|Климентина Иванова||– Неизвестна редакция на триодния панегирик в състава на триода||20–39||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=75470|
|Виктор В. Бычков||– Заметки к древнерусской философии искусства||40–56||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=75460|
|Пейо Димитров||– Поученията на Климент Охридски||57–86||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=75465|
|Павел Георгиев||– Кой е Тудор черноризец Доксов? (Към въпроса за българската патронимия през средновековието)||87–94||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=75461|
|Татьяна В. Буланина||– Первое в славянских литературах определение искусства ритора и трех родов красноречия||95–111||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=75464|
|Людмила Боева||– О жанре „Слова о полку Игореве“||112–119||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=75457|
|Тотю Тотев||– Родов манастир на владетелите в Преслав||120–128||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=75459|
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Славия Бърлиева||– Пространното гръцко житие на Наум Охридски||129–144||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=75466|
|Елена Велковска||– Употребата на термина τύπος у Мелитон Сардски (Опит за изясняване на значението му)||145–149||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=75468|
|Нина Георгиева||– Старобългаристичната литературоведска проблематика в работата на Втория международен конгрес по българистика||150–156||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=75463|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Ангелина Минчева||– Към въпроса за езиково-правописната характеристика на старите славянски ръкописи в описите||157–162||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=75462|
|Красимир Станчев||– Кирило-Методиевски студии, кн. 2: Г. Попов. Триодни произведения на Константин Преславски (С., 1985)||162–165||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=75458|
|Донка Илинова||– Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през първото шестмесечие на 1985 г.||166–180||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=75467|
Кн. 19 (1986)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Стефан Смядовски||– Из текстоложката проблематика на старобългарските и среднобългарските надписи||3–28||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=151122|
|Екхард Вайер, Хайнц Миклас||– Преводачески похвати в Богословието на Йоан Екзарх в сравнение с по-късни паралелни преводи||29–59||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=151125|
|Виктор В. Бычков||– Теория образа в византийской культуре VIII-IX веков||60–74||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=151123|
|Елена Велковска||– Трактатът на Георги Хировоск „За тропите“, неговият славянски превод и византийската риторическа традиция||75–83||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=151126|
|Лила Мончева||– Средновековният тип книжовна дейност и практиката на старобългарските писатели||84–89||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=151130|
|Майя Йонова||– Жанрови проблеми и особености на старобългарската белетристика||90–100||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=151115|
|Николай И. Кравцов||– „Слово о полку Игореве“ и фольклор и литература славянских народов||101–106||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=151129|
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Донка Петканова||– „Премъдростите“ на Кирил Философ||107–113||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=151114|
|Анисава Милтенова||– Сборник със смесено съдържание, дело на етрополския книжовник йеромонах Даниил||114–125||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=151127|
|***||Академик Иван Дуйчев||126||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=151116|
|Славия Бърлиева, Ивона Карачорова||– Международна научна конференция, посветена на 1100-годишнината от смъртта на славянския първоучител Методий||127–131||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=151117|
|Вася Иванова||– Четвърти международен летен колоквиум по старобългаристика||131–135||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=151128|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Трифон Банков||– Кирило-Методиевски студии. Кн. I. С., БАН, 1984. 192 с||136–138||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=151118|
|Славия Бърлиева||– Paraenesis. Die altbulgarische Übersetzung von Werken Ephraims des Syrers. 1. Band, herausgegeben von Georg Bojkovski. U.W. Weiher – Freiburg i. Br., 1984. XVIII, 291 S||138–140||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=151119|
|Елена Велковска||– Культура Византии IV – первая половина VII в. М., Наука, 1984. 725 с||140–144||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=151121|
|Донка Илинова||– Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 1984 г.||145–161||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=151124|
Кн. 18 (1985)
|ПРОФ. БОНЮ СТ. АНГЕЛОВ НА 70 ГОДИНИ|
|Анисава Милтенова||– Научното дело на проф. Боню Ст. Ангелов||3–8||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=124189|
|Ана Стойкова||– Библиография на публикациите на проф. Боню Ст. Ангелов||9–20||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=124173|
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Петър Динеков||– Рилският манастир в изследванията на проф. Йордан Иванов||21–29||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=124175|
|Иван Дуйчев||– Художествени произведения като извори за исторически събития||30–36||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=124182|
|Светла Матхаузерова||– Первая славянская теория перевода||37–41||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=124188|
|Виктор В. Бычков||– Эстетические аспекты в трудах Дионисия Александрийского||42–46||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=124185|
|Донка Петканова||– Гадателните книги и фолклорът||47–57||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=124184|
|Игорь И. Калиганов||– Несколько соображений о методике изучения болгаро-сербско-русских средневековых литературных связей||58–73||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=124171|
|Анатолий А. Алексеев||– Цитаты из Песни песней в славянской письменности (Цитаты и текстология)||74–92||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=124170|
|Климентина Иванова||– Похвално слово за първомъченик Стефан от Григорий Цамблак||93–106||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=124183|
|Светлина Николова||– Опит за класификация на описанията на славянските ръкописи||107–116||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=124187|
|Куйо Куев||– Съдбата на Мануиловия изборен апостол||117–119||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=124186|
|Василий Пуцко||– Огласительные слова Кирилла Иерусалимского (Москва, ГИМ, Син. 478) – памятник книжного искусства XI в||120–138||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=124174|
|Красимир Станчев||– За една приписка във Ватиканския препис на Манасиевата хроника||139–142||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=124169|
|Божидар Райков||– Панегирикът на Мардарий Рилски от 1483 г||143–149||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=124167|
|Стефан Кожухаров||– Тах Андрей - един незабелязан химнописец от XVI в||150–160||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=124190|
|Елена Коцева||– Два ръкописа от библиотеката на Бачковския манастир||161–166||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=124180|
|Боян Джонов||– Един отзвук на „Беседа против богомилите“ в Германия||167–171||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=124177|
|Елена Томова||– Нови проложни стихове за Иван Рилски, Иларион Мъгленски и Петка Търновска в руската ръкописна традиция||172–177||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=124172|
|Трифон Банков||– Историята в българската писмена култура от IX – X в. и старобългарските епиграфски паметници||178–183||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=124179|
|Димитринка Димитрова||– Космогоничната легенда за Тивериадското море и старобългарската апокрифна традиция||184–192||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=124176|
|Илия Тодоров||– Неизвестен препис на Паисиевата история в Хилендарския манастир||193–203||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=124178|
|Клео Протохристова||– Над предела на епохите||204–208||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=124168|
Кн. 17 (1985)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Петър Динеков||– Личността на първоучителя Методий.||3–29|
|Маргарита Младенова||– Върху едно мнение относно местоположението на Методиевия диоцез.||30–38|
|Казимир Попконстантинов||– Разпространение на старобългарската писменост през IX – XI в. (По епиграфски данни).||39–69|
|Тотю Тотев||– Дворцовият манастир в Плиска.||70–84|
|Виолина Андреева||– Старобългарската изповедна молитва от Синайския требник и нейното старонемско съответствие – Сант-Емерамската молитва (Сравнително-стилистичен анализ).||85–97|
|Пеньо Ст. Пенев||– Основни проблеми около появата на първия старобългарски превод на апостола и неговата по-нататъшна съдба (Преглед на изследванията).||98–116|
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Лиляна Грашева||– Най-ранното изследване за Константин Преславски (Из архива на В. М. Ундолски).||117–130|
|Анастасия Икономова||– „Сказание за буквите“ и неговото проникване в старата руска литература||131–132|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Боян Джонов||– Alfons Zettler. Cyrill und Method im Reichenauer Verbrüderungsbuch. - Frühmittelalterliche Studien. Jahrbuch des Instituts für Mittelalterforschung der Universität Münster. 17. Band. Berlin–New York, 1983, 280–298.||133–135|
|Божидар Пейчев||– Имената на Методий, Кирил и учениците му в „Книгата на побратимените монаси от Райхенау“.||136–140|
|Екатерина Дограмаджиева||– B. Fučić. Glagoljski natpisi. – Djela Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti, kn. 57. Zagreb, 1982. 420 p.||140–141|
|Татяна Янакиева||– Нов принос в кирило-методиевската библиография.||142–144|
|Ани Данчева - Василева||– Ив. Божилов. Цар Симеон Велики (893–927): Златният век на средновековна България.||144–149|
|Донка Илинова||– Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 1983 г.||150–160|
Кн. 16 (1984)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Иван Добрев||– Погрешно мнение за Охридския апостол.||3–17|
|Виктор В. Бычков||– К вопросу о древнерусской эстетике (Методологические заметки).||18–25|
|Петър Динеков||– Проф. Петър Мутафчиев и проблемите на старобългарската литература||26–32|
|Иван В. Лёвочкин||– Изборник Святослава (Симеона) в русской дореволюционной и советской науке (1817–1982 гг.).||33–40|
|Панделе Олтяну||– Физиологът от стилистическо гледище (С данни и от неизвестни среднобългарски и румънски преписи).||41–55|
|Илия Тодоров||– Летописният разказ на поп Методи Драгинов.||56–79|
|Светла Гюрова||– Петър Богдан Бакшев и неговите описания на България и Румъния (Из историята на българския барок).||80–96|
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Аврора Трифонова||– Слова на Григорий Цамблак в ленинградските книгохранилища||97–120|
|Васил П. Василев||– Преправката на „Слóво о десéтых словь Моϋсеовѣх“ в Новия троянски дамаскин||121–128|
|Анисава Милтенова||– Проблеми на средновековните славянски литератури в рамките на Деветия международен славистичен конгрес.||129–133|
|Мариана Димитрова||– Втори семинар по славянска палеография и дипломатика и Международна научна конференция “Украсата на балканската ръкописна книга до XVIII в.“||134–137|
|Ана Стойкова||– Симпозиум за изворите за живота и делото на Кирил и Методий.||137–141|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Николай Дилевски||– Людмила Боева. Развитие жанров в русской и болгарской литературах XVII и XVIII вв. С., БАН, 1983. 172 с.||142–146|
|Донка Илинова||– Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 1982 г.||147–161|
Кн. 15 (1984)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Божидар Райков||– Книжовни връзки между Търново и Рилския манастир през Средновековието||3–21|
|Донка Петканова||– Културни връзки на българите със Западна Европа през Средновековието (IX–XVII в.)||22–50|
|Милияна Каймакамова||– „Български апокрифен летопис“ и значението му за българското летописание||51–59|
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Боню Ст. Ангелов||– Летописни съчинения в старобългарската литература||60–73|
|Стефан Кожухаров||– Приносът на Димитър Кантакузин в развитието на химнографския цикъл за Иван Рилски (Служба за 1. VII)||74–105|
|Казимир Попконстантинов, Величка Константинова||– Към въпроса за черноризец Тудор и неговата приписка||106–118|
|Ара Маргос||– Някои бележки по четенето на противобогомилския надпис от средновековната църква при с. Гиген||119–125|
|Красимир Станчев||– Един неизвестен фрагмент от апокрифен сборник и някои проблеми на апокрифната литература||126–143|
|Елена Коцева||– Славянски ръкописи в библиотеката на Пловдивската митрополия||144–160|
|Лиляна Грашева||– Старобългарската литература в изследванията на Енгелс Зиков (По случай 50 години от рождението му)||161–164|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Александър Наумов||– Красимир Станчев. Поетика на старобългарската литература (Основни принципи и проблеми). С., 1982. 200 с.||165–168|
|Людмила Боева||– Новая популярная серия „Памятники литературы древней Руси“||168–172|
Кн. 14 (1983)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Иван Добрев||– Кои старобългарски текстове са най-близо до Кирило-Методиевия евангелски превод||3–9||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=173768|
|Климентина Иванова||– Литературни наблюдения върху две похвални слова от Евтимий Търновски||10–36||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=173770|
|Елена Чешко||– Редакция и особенности перевода Псалтыри Томича||37–58||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=173767|
|Иван Буюклиев||– Наблюдения върху превода на Манасиевата хроника||59–64||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=173781|
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Боню Ст. Ангелов||– Летописни съчинения в старобългарската литература||65–85||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=173773|
|Джордже Трифунович||– Сръбска средновековна „слава“ на балкански и южнославянски светци||86–90||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=173772|
|Игорь И. Калиганов||– О некоторых рукописях из собрания Е. В. Барсова||91–104||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=173774|
|Даринка Караджова||– Неизвестният български книжовник Сава Загорец||105–114||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=173779|
|Димитринка Димитрова||– Из проблематиката на Третия летен колоквиум по старобългаристика||115–118||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=173769|
|Нина Атанасова||– Средновековната ръкописна книга – обект на международен научен интерес||118–122||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=173775|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Божидар Райков||– Ценен археографски труд||123–124||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=173771|
|Аксиния Джурова||– В. Лихачева. Искусство Византии IV-XV веков. Ленинград, 1981||125–127||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=173777|
|Елисавета Тодорова||– Йордан Иванов. Избрани произведения. Т. I. С., 1982||128–129||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=173776|
|Донка Илинова||– Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през второто шестмесечие на 1981 г.||130–138||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=173780|
Кн. 13 (1983)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Петър Динеков||– Ръкописната книга в историята на културата||3–11||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=254355|
|Донка Петканова||– Значението на числата в старобългарската литература||12–28||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=254363|
|Иван Добрев||– Бил ли е Климент Охридски епископ на Драговища||29–41||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=254351|
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Боню Ст. Ангелов||– Летописни съчинения в старобългарската литература||42–73||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=254354|
|Лиляна Мавродинова||– Украсата на Синайския псалтир||74–90||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=254357|
|Ханна Ожеховска||– Български „Физиолог“ от сбирката на В. Копитар в Народната и университетска библиотека в Любляна (Cod. Kop. 29)||91–143||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=254353|
|Даринка Караджова||– Славянски ръкописи в Окръжната библиотека във Велико Търново||144–159||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=254360|
|***||Проф. Христо Кодов||160||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=254362|
|Георги Петков||– Проф. Пеньо Русев||161–163||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=254358|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Лила Мончева, Пейо Димитров||– Монографичен очерк за митрополит Киприан||164–166||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=254359|
|Елена Томова||– Л. Боева. Вопросы древнерусской литературы. С., Наука и изкуство, 1981||166–169||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=254361|
|Донка Илинова||– Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през първото шестмесечие на 1981 г.||170–184||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=254356|
Кн. 12 (1982)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Петър Динеков||– Някои въпроси около Преславската книжовна школа||3–13|
|Пеньо Русев||– Похвалното слово за Константин и Елена от Евтимий Търновски||14–29|
|Климентина Иванова||– Похвалното слово за Йоан Поливотски от Евтимий Търновски||30–53|
|Аврора Илиева||– „Слово за преподобните отци в Сирна събота“ от Григорий Цамблак в руската ръкописна традиция||54–63|
|Елена Велковска||– Бележки върху библейските цитати в Похвалното слово за Кирил от Климент Охридски||64–69|
|Димитринка Димитрова||– Към въпроса за историята на текста на апокрифа „Слово за Адам и Ева“||70–81|
|Петър Атанасов||– Руските старопечатни книги в Рилския манастир||82–99|
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Светлина Николова||– Кирило-Методиевските традиции във Влахия, Молдова и Трансилвания||100–114|
|Трифон Банков||– Един неизвестен ръкописен сборник от 1840 г.||115–120|
|***||Академик Емил Георгиев||121-122|
|Димитринка Димитрова||– Международен симпозиум „Преславска книжовна школа“||122–125|
|Сергей Райчинов||– Научна сесия в Рилския манастир||125–127|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Елена Коцева||– Куйо Куев. Иван-Александровият сборник от 1348 г.||128–131|
|Донка Илинова||– Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 1980 г.||132–154|
Кн. 11 (1982)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Божидар Райков||– Професор Христо Кодов||3–7||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=14508|
|Красимир Станчев||– Евтимиевата школа в контекста на европейското духовно развитие||8–18||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=14513|
|Иван Добрев||– Нови вести за прабългарите в панегиричната литература||19–34||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=14512|
|Анисава Милтенова||– Текстологически наблюдения върху два апокрифа (Апокрифен цикъл за кръстното дърво, приписван на Григорий Богослов, и апокрифа за Адам и Ева)||35–55||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=14503|
|Димитринка Димитрова||– Някои наблюдения върху литературните особености на апокрифа „Слово за Адам и Ева“||56–66||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=14506|
|Сергей Райчинов||– Софийският книжовен център и Рилският манастир през XVI в.||67–79||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=14510|
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Невяна Дончева - Панайотова||– Книжовното и илюстраторското дело на даскал Недялко и сина му даскал Филип от втората половина на XVII в.||80–100||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=14511|
|Матея Матеич||– Икономическото и културното състояние на Хилендарския манастир по времето на Паисий (1745–1773)||191–105||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=14505|
|Анисава Милтенова, Димитринка Димитрова||– Старобългарската литературоведска проблематика в рамките на Първия международен конгрес по българистика||106–110||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=14507|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Елена Томова||– Ново изследване на руско-южнославянските литературни връзки||111–113||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=14504|
|Елисавета Тодорова||– Българско средновековие. Българо-съветски сборник в чест на 70-годишнината на проф. Ив. Дуйчев. С., Наука и изкуство, 1980||113–116||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=14509|
Кн. 10 (1981)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Климентина Иванова||– Византийските източници на Похвалата за Константин и Елена от Евтимий Търновски||3–15|
|Иван Добрев||– Агиографската реформа на Симеон Метафраст и съставът на Супрасълския сборник||16–38|
|Тацуя Мориясу||– Хазарская миссия Константина (Ее значение в ЖК)||39–51|
|Иван Буюклиев||– Манасиевата хроника и средновековното езиково и литературно съзнание||52–58|
|Ролан Марти||– Стилистические особенности апологии Храбра||59–70|
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Илия Тодоров||– Из ръкописната сбирка на манастира Путна||71–87|
|Зое Хауптова||– Похвала царю Симеону, ее автор и визнатийские образцы||88–94|
|Алда Джамбелука Коссова||– Върху ръкописната традиция на „Азбучна молитва“ (В отговор на проф. Куйо М. Куев)||95–99|
|Донка Петканова||– Възпоминание за проф. Александър Милев||100–102|
|Татяна Мострова||– Втори международен колоквиум по старобългаристика||102–107|
|Сергей Райчинов||– Международен симпозиум за Търновската школа||107–109|
|Александър Наумов||– Научна славистична сесия в Гданск||109–110|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Имре Тот||– Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai. An Early Slavonic Psalter from Rus. Cambridge, 1978||111–114|
|Анисава Милтенова||– Светлина Николова. Патеричните разкази в българската средновековна литература. С., 1980||114–117|
Кн. 9 (1981)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Ангелина Минчева||– За текста на Македонския кирилски лист и неговия автор||3–19||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=10668|
|Иван Добрев||– Съдържа ли Македонският кирилски лист откъс от произведение на Константин-Кирил Философ за преводаческото изкуство?||20–32||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=10671|
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Красимир Станчев, Аксиния Джурова||– Археографски бележки от Националната библиотека в Атина||33–75||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=10673|
|Румяна Павлова||– Към въпроса за книжовното наследство на Петър Черноризец||76–81||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=10669|
|Матея Матеич||– Хилендарски препис на „Слово за Сретение“ от Йоан Екзарх||82–97||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=10669|
|Анисава Милтенова||– Апокрифът за борбата на архангел Михаил със Сатанаил в две редакции||98–113||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=10667|
|Боряна Христова||– Първи семинар по славянска палеография||114–117||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=10674|
|Татяна Мострова||– Международна прослава на Йоан Екзарх Български||117–121||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=10666|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Георги Данчев||– Петър Динеков. Похвала на старата бълтарска литература. С., 1979||122–125||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=10662|
|Ана Стойкова||– Куйо М. Куев. Съдбата на старобългарските ръкописи през вековете. С., 1979||125–126||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=10663|
|Георги Петков||– Ново изследване за Димитър Кантакузин||127–129||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=10670|
|Донка Илинова||– Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 1979 г.||130–147||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=10665|
Кн. 8 (1980)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Красимир Станчев||– Структура на художествения образ в старобългарската агиография||3–12|
|Климентина Иванова||– Житието на Петка Търновска от Патриарх Евтимий. Източници и текстологически бележки||13–36|
|Александър Наумов||– По въпросите на най-старата славянска поезия||37–45|
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Иван В. Левочкин||– Изборник Святослава и его славянский протограф||46–49|
|Георги Петков||– Из ръкописната сбирка на манастира Драгомирна (Румъния)||50–67|
|Анисава Милтенова||– Ръкописната сбирка на Свищовското читалище||68–104|
|Аксиния Джурова||– Ръкописи, документи и карти за българската история от Ватикана||105–108|
|Красимир Станчев||– Литературоведската проблематика на Първата комплексна конференция по българистика||108–112|
|Елисавета Тодорова||– Първа българо-съветска среща на медиевисти-балканисти||112–114|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Донка Петканова||– Aurelio de Santos Otero. Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der altslavischen Apokryphen. Berlin-New York, 1978||115–118|
|Сергей Райчинов||– Принос в проучването на старите славянски литератури||118–121|
|Людмила Боева||– Памяти профессора Малышева (Дмитрий Жуков. Владимир Иванович. Повесть. Новый мир, 1978, 7)||121–124|
Кн. 7 (1980)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Петър Динеков||– Личността на Евтимий Търновски||3–21|
|Анисава Милтенова||– Към литературната история и типология на сборниците със смесено съдържание||22–36|
|Сергей Райчинов||– Българската литература през XVI в.||37–53|
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Боню Ст. Ангелов||– Търновският книжовник Дионисий Дивний||54–62|
|Юрий Бегунов||– Алексей Жемчужин о Григории Цамблаке||63–71|
|Маньо Стоянов||– Исидор Сливенски – български книжовник от края на XVIII в.||72–89|
|Боряна Христова||– Боянският псалтир от XIII в.||90–94|
|Анастасия Икономова||– Новооткрит ръкопис на Йосиф Брадати||95–99|
|Татяна Мострова||– Международен колоквиум по старобългаристика||100–103|
|Вячеслав Ботев||– Научно събрание в Софийския университет „Климент Охридски“, посветено на 1110-годишнината от смъртта на Константин-Кирил философ||103–104|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Георги Михайлов||– Веселин Бешевлиев. Първобългарски надписи. С., 1979||105–108|
|Боню Ст. Ангелов||– Донка Петканова-Тотева. Апокрифна литература и фолклор. С., 1978||108–111|
|Аксиния Джурова||– Ново изследване върху византийските миниатюри||111–114|
|Донка Илинова||– Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 1978 г.||115–123|
Кн. 6 (1980)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Красимир Станчев||– Нормативност на средновековната естетика и поетика||3–10|
|Игорь И. Калиганов||– Житие Георгия Нового в русской литературе XVI в.||11–24|
|Иван Буюклиев||– Манасиевата хроника и проблемите на българския книжовен език през Средновековието||25–49|
|Боню Ст. Ангелов||– Неизвестни ръкописи на Мардарий Рилски||50–68|
|Иван Добрев||– Палеографски бележки върху царското титулуване и някои царски отличия през епохата на Второто българско царство||69–80|
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Георги Данчев||– Неизвестен сборник със смесено съдържание от първата половина на XIX в.||81–91|
|Мирослав Зафиров||– Един неизвестен ръкопис на Владислав Граматик||92–98|
|Татяна Мострова||– Международен симпозиум за Супрасълския сборник||99–101|
|Милена Рождественская||– Конференция по русско-болгарским литературным связям (Ленинград)||102–103|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Пейо Димитров||– Равносметка на проучванията върху XIII в.||104–107|
|Иван Венедиков||– Формирането на старобългарската култура||107–111|
|Елена Томова||– Въпроси на старобългарската литература в една нова книга||111–113|
|Донка Илинова||– Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 1977 г.||114–124|
Кн. 5 (1979)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Петър Динеков||– Симеоновият (Светославовият) Изборник 1073 г. в развитието на българската литература||3–9||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=183923|
|Боню Ст. Ангелов||– За три съчинения в Симеоновите сборници||10–37||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=183929|
|Куйо М. Куев||– Археографски бележки за разпространението на Симеоновия (Светославовия) сборник в старите славянски литератури||38–56||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=183925|
|Климентина Иванова||– За Хилендарския препис на първия Симеонов сборник||57–96||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=183931|
|Боряна Велчева||– Изборникът от 1076 г. като източник на данни за историята на българския език||97–100||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=183922|
|Иван Добрев||– Редът на зодиакалните знаци в Изборника от 1073 г.||101–106||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=183924|
|Лиляна Жекова||– Правописът на двамата преписвачи в Изборника от 1076 г.||107–109||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=183932|
|Анисава Милтенова||– Конференция за Симеоновите сборници||110–111||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=183926|
|Иван Харалампиев||– Научна сесия за Константин-Кирил Философ||111–114||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=183933|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Иван Дуйчев||– Към изучаването на Изборника от 1073 г.||115–122||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=183921|
|Катя Михайлова||– Интересно изследване за апокрифите||122–124||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=183930|
|Донка Илинова||– Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура - 1976 г.||125–130||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=183927|
Кн. 4 (1978)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Георги Попов||– Някои текстологични наблюдения върху Битолския триод и други триодни ръкописи||3–20|
|Гуннар Сване||– Константин Костенечкий и его биография сербского деспота Стефана Лазаревича||21–38|
|Боню Ст. Ангелов||– За автора на „Слово за мироносиците“||39–46|
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Дора Иванова - Мирчева||– Среднобългарска преработка на Похвалата на Йоан Екзарх за Йоан Богослов||47–54|
|Климентина Иванова||– Словото за Преображение от Йоан Екзарх (текстологични бележки)||55–73|
|Светлина Николова||– Една неизвестна сбирка от славянски ръкописи в Румъния||74–100|
|Красимир Станчев, Трифон Банков||– Славянските ръкописи в Музея на Възраждането – Варна||101–114|
|Петър Динеков||– Дмитрий Сергеевич Лихачов [на 70 години]||115–117|
|Божидар Райков||– Разностранен изследовател на старата българска книжнина [Христо Кодов на 75 години]||117–119|
|Анисава Милтенова||– Втори международен симпозиум Търновска книжовна школа||119–122|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Красимир Станчев||– „Великое наследие“ от Д. С. Лихачов||123–125|
|Васил Василев||– Ценно издание на преходен старобългарско-среднобългарски паметник||126–128|
Кн. 3 (1978)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Екатерина Дограмаджиева, Иван Кочев||– Кирил Мирчев (1902–1975)||3–12|
|Донка Петканова - Тотева||– Апокрифна художествена проза (Видова класификация и характеристика)||13– 33|
|Энгельс Зыков||– О литературном наследии Константина Преславского||34–47|
|Боню Ст. Ангелов||– Към въпроса за книжовното дело на презвитер Григорий Мних||48–55|
|Хайнц Миклас||– Поглед върху Филиповата „Диоптра“||56–61|
|Красимир Станчев||– Концепцията на Псевдо-Дионисий Ареопагит за образното познание и нейното разпространение в Средновековна България||62–76|
|Невяна Дончева - Панайотова||– По въпроса за родството между митрополит Киприан и Григорий Цамблак||77–85|
|Георги Попов||– За едно споменаване на триезичници в Битолския триод||86–90|
|НАУЧНИ СЪОБЩЕНИЯ И МАТЕРИАЛИ|
|Климентина Иванова||– Няколко наблюдения върху книжовното наследство на Климент Охридски||91–106|
|Светлина Николова||– Славянските ръкописи в Румъния||107–112|
|Боряна Краева||– Рилският книжовник Монах Спиридон||113–121|
|Людмила Боева||– Международен симпозиум на русистите в София||122–124|
|Анисава Милтенова||– Обсъдени научни трудове||124–125|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Христо Кодов||– Ново славистично списание (Cyrillomethodianum. Recherches sur l'histoire des relations helléno-slaves. Thessalonique, 1971)||126–131|
|Емилия Кочева||– Новооткрит превод на Епифаниевата хомилия за слизането в ада (Дора Иванова-Мирчева, Живка Икономова. Хомилията на Епифаний за слизането в ада (неизвестен старобългарски превод). С., БАН, 1975)||131–133|