Кн. 61-62 (2020)
|СТУДИИ И СТАТИИ|
|Дмитрий Буланин||(Санкт Петербург) – Три версии толкований Никиты Ираклийского к словам Григория Богослова||11-37||THREE VERSIONS OF THE COMMENTARIES BY NICETAS OF HERACLEA TO THE HOMILIES OF GREGORY THE THEOLOGIAN|
Dmitrii M. Bulanin
This article compares three Slavonic versions of one and the same theological composition translated from the Greek: the commentaries by Nicetas of Heraclea, the prominent Byzantine exegete of the eleventh century, on the collection of sixteen homilies by Gregory the Theologian. The Slavonic text of the commentaries is known in three versions.
Version (1) is abridged and the oldest of the three. It is considered an Old Russian translation and has entered the „Second Slavonic Edition“ of Gregory the Theologian’s collection of sixteen homilies. Version (2) is an extended version, produced by South Slavic writers in the fourteenth century, which appeared in the „Third South Slavonic Edition“ of Gregory’s collection. Version (3) is included in the „Third East Slavonic Edition.“ Its first half, related to Homilies 1–8, is almost identical to the corresponding part of version (2), while its second half (homilies 9–16) contains original Russian commentaries based on the old abridged translation, i.e. version (1), although the content has been considerably altered and expanded.
All examples used to compare the three Slavonic versions are taken from Nicetas’ commentaries on one homily dedicated to Gregory of Nyssa. The article significantly corrects our traditional understanding of Gregory the Theologian’s Slavonic reception by proposing, for example, that version (2) is independent from version (1). The author draws his conclusions not only from comparing the texts themselves, but from analyzing the different functions assigned to each version, which, in the final analysis determined the textual discrepancies among them.
|Viacheslav V. Lytvynenko||(Prague) – Translation Errors in the Slavonic Version of Athanasius’ Orations against the Arians||38-58||TRANSLATION ERRORS IN THE SLAVONIC VERSION|
OF ATHANASIUS’ ORATIONS AGAINST THE ARIANS*
Viacheslav V. Lytvynenko
This study seeks to shed light on errors made when translating into Slavonic from oral recitations of Greek texts and, more broadly, to contribute to a discussion about the typology of errors in Slavonic translations. It offers a catalogue of 99 translation errors in the Slavonic version of the Orations against the Arians. More often than not these errors appear to be the result of mishearing, creating the impression that the translator was working from recitations rather than from a written source. Establishing the real nature of these errors requires a closer study of each individual case as well as an analysis of their pattern of recurrence in all four Orations.
|Татяна Вилкул||(Киев) – Хроника Георгия Амартола в Книге Иаков Жидовин||59-75||THE CHRONICLE OF GEORGE HAMARTOLOS IN THE BOOK OF YAKOV ZHIDOVIN |
The Book of Jacob the Jew (Yakov Zhidovin) is an early Slavonic translation of the Byzantine text Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati (634 or 640). The writers of Old Rus’ valued this polemical tract highly and borrowed from it liberally, as evidenced by such works as Sermon on Law and Grace (mid eleventh century), Tale of Bygone Years (early twelfth century), and Tikhonravov’s Chronograph (known in a single manuscript of the sixteenth century). Several parts of the Slavonic Book of Jacob display in turn an affinity with the Slavonic translation of George Hamartolos’ Chronicle, which has influenced the entire Old Russian historiographic tradition. Textual relations between the Slavonic Hamartolos and the Book of Jacob could be explained in two ways. According to the first scenario, the Slavonic translator of Doctrina Jacobi used the Chronicle directly; according to the second scenario, the borrowings were interpolated either by a later editor of the Book of Yakov or in only one branch of the manuscript tradition. The first hypothesis suggests that Hamartolos’ Chronicle might have already been known in Kiev prior to the year 1050.
|Андрей Бояджиев||(София) – Средновековният славянски текст на Acta Thomae Minora||76-138||THE MEDIEVAL SLAVONIC TEXT OF ACTA THOMAE MINORA|
This article offers an edition and a preliminary study of the Slavonic text of Acta Thomae Minora (BHG 1833). As the study reveals, both the Greek and Slavonic versions of the text belong to the so-called open textual traditions. For that reason, we publish the Greek and the Slavonic texts in a parallel edition. The Slavonic witnesses are closer to the Greek copies C and N than to copy M. From the two Slavonic copies, T follows the Greek tradition more closely. The witness Und. 543 represents a compilation that is distinct from all other copies and should be studied and edited separately. The two Slavonic witnesses published here, T and Л, represent two independent translations from Greek. They originated, in all probability, during the Old Bulgarian period, in the tenth or eleventh century. Later, in the thirteenth or fourteenth century, both versions were reedited, introducing new linguistic features.
|Елисавета Мусакова||(София) – Текст и визуален език в Радомировия псалтир||139-160||TEXT AND VISUAL LANGUAGE IN THE RADOMIR PSALTER|
In the Radomir Psalter script and illumination act together to make a powerful visual and psychological impact on the viewer. In analyzing their modus operandi, the paper focuses on the paleographical features and the most striking imagery in the decoration, involving representations of human hands, snakes/dragons and birds. This selection of motifs has its focal point in the large-scale composition on f. 167r, showing a heraldic couple of monstrous birds (or flying dragons), intertwined with a couple of snakes/dragons. Assuming the double function of a headpiece and tailpiece, it marks the end of the Psalter where djak Radomir left his colophon and the beginning of the added “Story about Saul Chasing David.” The latter, still not properly studied, is considered an original Slavonic literary work. Its highly emotional content, when juxtaposed to the scribe’s note asking ‘readers’ to commemorate his father, suggests a very personal reason behind the creation of this manuscript. The study of the ornaments reveals encoded apocalyptic – and respectively soteriological – notions uniting in a single verbal and visual complex the devotional character of the book of psalms and a private prayer for mercy and salvation. In a broader socio-historical perspective, the manuscript’s illumination suggests that the book was created at a time when thirteenth-century Bulgarian society feared yet again the coming of the ‘last days’. In that respect, the author raises the open question to what extent the spread of the visual language so characteristic for the illumination of thirteenth-fourteenth century South- and East Slavonic manuscripts and usually termed ‘teratological style’ or ‘teratological ornament’ might have been prompted by such a collective sensibility.
|Станка Петрова||(София) – Седалните за първите три месеца в Братко вия миней (НБС Рс. 647). Въпросът за възникването на ноемврийската част от ръкописа||161-196||KATHISMATA FOR THE FIRST THREE MONTHS IN THE BRATKOV MENAION (NBS, MS. 647):|
CONSIDERING THE ORIGIN OF THE PART FOR NOVEMBER
This article analyzes the content and textological peculiarities of the kathismata in the Bratkov Menaion, Ms. from the National Library of Serbia (NBS), No. 647. Specifically, it compares the kathismata from the first (thirteenth-century) part of the codex, dedicated to the months of September and October, with those for the month of November. For the comparative analysis, the author also considers the corresponding kathismata from the earliest extant East-Slavic general and South-Slavic festal menaions (the Novgorod Menaion from the second half of the thirteenth century, the twelfth-century menaions from the Synod Collection of GIM, Menaion F. n. I.72 of RNB from the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth century, the Skopje Menaion NBKM 522 from the thirteenth century, and others). The analysis reveals that the November part of the Bratkov Menaion has a peculiar composition. It has preserved an older textual layer that testifies to the earlier origin of this part of the manuscript compared to the part for September and October.
|Искра Христова - Шомова||(София) – Загребският пролог като пред-|
ставител на втората южнославянска редакция на Простия пролог
|197-224||THE ZAGREB SYNAXARION (ZAGREBSKI PROLOG) |
AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SECOND SOUTH SLAVIC REDACTION OF THE SYNAXARION (PROST PROLOG)
South Slavic manuscripts of the Synaxarium (Prost Prolog) had already been divided into two groups by Vladimir Mošin, but it was Lyudmila Prokopenko who registered the existence of two different textual South Slavic redactions. So far, the Second South Slavic redaction has not been studied in detail.
This article is an attempt to characterize it on the base of the Zagreb Synaxarium (Zagrebski Prolog). Eight texts from the Zagreb Synaxarium are published and compared to the corresponding texts in the Sofiyski Prolog and the Lesnovski Prolog. For four of these texts parallels are provided also from the manuscript Wuk 37 (Berlin Staatsbibliothek), another exemplar of the second South Slavic redaction. In all cases, the comparison reveals considerable differences between the redactions. Sometimes there is exchange of synonyms, in other cases the same idea is expressed by two different phrases, so it seems that there are two different translations from similar sources. Occasionally, the text in the second redaction is much longer than the text in the first redaction, the second including episodes missing from the first. A question arises: Are we dealing with two redactions or with two different translations? The author is inclined to support the idea that these are two redactions based on the same primary text. Тwo reasons support this hypothesis. First, some parts of the texts are identical in the two groups of manuscripts. Second, there are mistakes common for all South Slavic manuscripts of both redactions. This means that the South Slavic manuscripts are secondary to the East Slavic ones and that all South Slavic manuscripts come from one Old Russian manuscript that already featured the corresponding errors.
|Лора Тасева||(София) – Поетичният език на календарните стихове като|
предизвикателство за българските и сръбските средновековни пре-
|225-277||THE POETIC LANGUAGE OF CALENDAR VERSES |
AS A CHALLENGE TO MEDIEVAL BULGARIAN
AND SERBIAN TRANSLATORS
This article focuses on two Byzantine cycles of commemorative verses for saints and their feasts, adopted in translation for medieval South Slavic use. The author analyzes several fourteenth-century translations: one Bulgarian and one Serbian version of the calendar distichs by Christopher of Mytilene, and a Serbian translation of the tetrastichs on Gospel topics by Theodore Prodromos. The texts are compared with respect to the way they render stylistically marked linguistic peculiarities of the original. The analysis concludes that medieval Slavic translators, more often than not, understood the poetic nature of the original texts and strove to recreate it. They often preserved repetitions, antitheses and syntactical parallelisms but rarely reproduced compound words. The approach to formal peculiarities of the Byzantine original differs from translator to translator, revealing important characteristics of individual translation styles.
|Марияна Цибранска||(София) – Ръкопис ЦИАИ 1160 и значението|
му за каноничното право на Балканите през XIV в.: ексцерптите от
правилата на Трулския събор
|278-306||MS. CHAI 1160 AND ITS IMPORTANCE FOR CANON LAW IN THE BALKANS DURING THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY: EXCERPTS FROM THE CANONS OF TRULLO|
This article explores the significance of the earliest extant collection of ecclesiastical legislation (1360s-1380s) in Bulgaria for the history of Byzantine Canon Law, and its reception in the Second Bulgarian Kingdom. Ms. 1160 of the Bulgarian Church-Historical and Archival Institute (CHAI) is one of the five Slavic exemplars of the fourteenth-century Byzantine prototype, conventionally known in Slavic studies as Pseudo-Zonaras, which is similar but not identical to the provincial Byzantine Nomocanon of Cotelerius. The content of the manuscript is richer than the textual core of the Nomocanon and includes texts with legal regulations for monks that are unknown in any other available copy. These unique texts highlight the codex’s currency in the fourteenth century, when monasticism was on the rise and its influence affected all aspects of social life. In that context, the note by the principal scribe of the manuscript, the monk-priest Simeon, was most likely placed after a text about the role of asceticism in order to emphasize the hesychast tendencies of the time when solitary ascetic life was of utmost value.
The article examines closely the translation of one of these additional texts in the manuscript: a block of sixteen rules from the Council in Trullo, whose content is related to the general program of the collection. The linguistic analysis presented in this article reveals that it is an independent translation that does not correspond to the translation of the same rules in the Slavonic Kormchaia books, although it follows the general translation principles of the Nomocanon corpus.
The article proposes that the main goal for compiling and translating Byzantine Canon Law texts in codex CHAI 1160 was to restore the Byzantine legal tradition after its decline during the years of Latin domination and to offer a comprehensive overview of current disciplinary penitential practices. It is hard to establish the precise historical context that engendered this translation, although its general orientation points toward the Palaiologan era in the first quarter of the fourteenth century when texts of Byzantine canonical and secular law were reintegrated.
An edition of the sixteen canons of the Council in Trullo according to CHAI 1160 is published as an appendix.
|Георги Парпулов||(Пловдив) – Три чудотворни икони в Зографския|
|307-313||THREE WONDER-WORKING ICONS AT THE ZOGRAPHOU MONASTERY|
The library of Zographou, the Bulgarian monastery on Mount Athos, holds nearly four hundred Slavonic manuscripts. The one currently numbered 263 was copied in AD 1785 and describes, among other things, the miracles worked by three icons which are still venerated at the monastery today. Two of these icons depict St George, the third one shows the Virgin and Child. The eighteenth-century tales about them are published below.
|Татяна Славова||(София) – Проф. Боряна Велчева (1932–2020)||314-320||/issues/61/314-Slavova.pdf|
|***||Публикации на проф. д.и.н. Боряна Велчева (1959–2020)||321-333||/issues/61/321-Publikacii.pdf|
|КРИТИКА И РЕЦЕНЗИИ|
|Мария Йовчева||(София) – Александр Наумов. Идея – образ – текст. Исследования по церковнославянской литературе. Ответ¬ственные редакторы М. Живова, К. Станчев, С. Темчинас. Москва: Индрик, 2020. 248 с. (Серия „Slavia Christiana: язык – текст – образ“). ISBN 978-5-91674-575-7||334-350||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=913320|
|Малгожата Сковронек||(Лодз) – Вѣнецъ хваленїѧ. Studia ofiarowane profesorowi Aleksandrowi Naumowowi na jubileusz 70-lecia. Pod red. Marzanny Kuczyńskiej. Białystok: Fundacja “Oikonomos”, 2019. 301 pp. (Latopisy Akademii Supraskiej, 10). ISSN 2082-9299||351-359||/issues/61/351-Skowronek.pdf|
|Красимир Станчев||(Рим) – Славия Бърлиева. Cyrillo-Methodiana & Varia Mediaevalia. Паметници на кирило-методиевската традиция. София: Българска академия на науките – Кирило-Методиевски научен център, 2019. 392 с. ISBN 978-954-9787-40-5||359-364||/issues/61/359-Stantchev.pdf|
|Красимир Станчев||(Рим) – Бойка Мирчева. Успение Кирилово в южнославянската православна традиция. София: Българска академия на науките – Кирило-Методиевски научен център, 2019. 244 с. (Кирило-Методиевски студии, 28. Кирило-Методиевски извори, 3) ISBN 978-954-9787-39-9||365-367||/issues/61/365-Stantchev-Mirch.pdf|
|Олга Младенова||(Калгари) – Диляна Радославова. Българската книжнина от XVII в.: центрове, книжовници, репертоар. София: Издателски център „Боян Пенев“, 2020. 296 с., ил. (Studia mediaevalia Slavica et Byzantina, 6). ISSN 1314-4170||368-371||/issues/61/368-Mladenova.pdf|
|Аделина Германова||(София) – Публикации по старобългарска литература и култура, излезли в България през 2019 г.||372-423||https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=913385|