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|