 |
“Made in Russia“. A Survey of the Translations Allegedly Made in Kievan Russia
Francis J. Thomson, University of Antwerp
Millennium Russiae Christianae. Tausend Jahre Christliches Rußland 988-1988 Vorträge des Symposiums anläßlich der Tausendjahrfeier der Christianisierung Rußlands in Münster vom 5. bis 9. Juli 1988 Herausgegeben von Gerhard Birkfellner Böhlau Verlag, Köln-Weimar-Wien 1993 Scans in .pdf format (16.5 Mb) kindly provided by Assen Tschilingirov |
|
History repeats itself; historians repeat each other. Philip Guedalla. |
2. The Lack of a Scientific Basis 300
4. The Disregard of Two Established Historical Facts 303
A. The Presence of East Slavs in the Byzantine Empire — B. The Absence of Quotations from Untranslated Greek Works in Original Kievan Literature
Schedule of Allegedly Early Russian Translations 309
A. Bible 309
3. Hesychius of Jerusalem, Commentanus brevis in Psalmos
4. Nicetas of Heracleia, Catena in Psalmos
6. Catena in Canticum canticorum
7. Theophylact of Ochrid, Enarrationes in evangelia
8. Pseudo-Oecumenicus of Tricca, Catena in Pauli epistolas
9. Andrew of Caesarea, In divi Joannis apostoli et evangelistae Apocalypsm commentarius
C. Theology 314
10. Pseudo-Basil of Caesarea, Commentarius in ordinem sacerdotalem
11. Ephraem the Syrian, Paraeneses
12. Pseudo-Gennadius of Constantinople, Centuria
13. Michael Syncellus, Libellus de fide orthodoxa
14. Nicetas of Heracleia, Scholia in orationes Gregorii Nazianzeni
15. Peter of Antioch, Epistola ad Dominicum Gradensem
16. Theodore Studites, Magna catechesis
17. Theodore Studites, Parva catechesis
D. Liturgy 318
21. Nicon of the Black Mount, Pandectes de interpretationibus mandatorum divinorum
E. Law 323
a. Canon Law
b. Civil Law
24. Libri legales, quibus omnes orthodoxos principes decet omnia constituere
F. Hagiography 326
25. Athanasius of Alexandria, Vita et conversatio S. P. N. Antonii
26. Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita S. P. N. Sabae
27. Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita S. P. N. Euthymii
28. Theodore Daphnopates, Vita et conversatio S. P. N. et confessons Theodori praepositi Studitarum
29. Gregory the Monk, Vita S. Basilii iunioris ascetae Constantinopolitani
30. Nicephorus of St. Sophia, Vita S. Andreae Sali
31. Peter the Hieromonk, Vita S. Nephontis episcopi Constantinianae in Aegypto
33. Vita S. Macarii Romani, qui inventus est iuxta paradisum
34. Vita et miracula S. Nicolai Sionitae
35. Sermo panegyricus de translation reliquiarum S. Nicolai Barim
36. Vita S. Stephani episcopi Suroziae
37. Miraculum S. Demetrii Thessalonicensis de duabus virginibus
G. Apocrypha 333
40. Vita (sive Assumptio) Mosis
43. Narratio de Salomone et Centauro
45. Aphroditian, Narratio de iis, quae Christo nato in Persia acciderunt
46. De epistula Abgari ad Jesum
47. Pseudo-Methodius of Olympus, Apocalypsis
H. Gnomologia 337
I. History 338
50. George Hamartolus, Chronicon breve
51. George Syncellus, Chronographia
52. Josephus, De bello judaico
54. John Malalas, Chronographia
55. Nicephorus of Constantinople, Chronographia brevis
J. Geography 344
56. Cosmas Indicopleustes, Topographia Christiana
57. Narratio de structura templi Sanctae Sophiae
L. Popular Tales 346
Postscript 350
67. John of Constantia, Vita S. Epiphanii Constantiae in Cypro episcopi
68. Agapetus Diaconus, Expositio capitum admonitorium per partiores adomata
69. John of Negra, Vita et disputatio cum Herbano Judaeo S. Gregentii episcopi Tepharensis
Claims that individual Greek works had been translated into Slavonic in Kievan Russia were occasionally made by scholars in the nineteenth century [1], but it was only in 1897 that the first attempt to compile a catalogue of such translations was made: A. I. Sobolevsky drew up a list of twenty translations which, he alleged, had been made in pre-Mongol Russia [2]. By the time he published the second edition of the list in 1910, the number had risen to thirty-six [3]. The criterion for the ascription of these translations to Kievan Russia was the presence of lexical Russisms, principally of three categories: realia, e. g. political offices (посадникъ), money (рѣзана); foreign borrowings, e. g. плоугъ, as opposed to S. Slav рало, and words with different meanings, e. g. скотъ, which to both South and East Slavs meant cattle but only to the latter money as well. To these categories must be added words, e. g. хвостъ, and phrases, e. g. в то чина, not found in S. Slav texts [4]. This criterion is allegedly justified by the fact that whereas the orthography and morphology of S. Slav translations could be altered by E. Slav scribes,
1. E. g. with regard to Aphroditan’s Narratio de Us, quae Christo nato in Persia acciderunt by P. Lavrovskij: Opisanie semi rukopisej Imperatorskoj Sankt-Peterburgskoj Publičnoj Biblioteki. ČIOI 27 (1S58), pp. 1-90, p. 42; with regard to pseudo-Oecumenicus' Catena in Pauli epistolas by Anonymous (probably I. Porfir’ev): Svedenija o drevnich perevodach tvorenij sv. otcev na slavjano-russkij jazyk (X-XV V.). Pravoslarnyj sobesednik 3 (1859), pp. 235-269, 352-385, p. 359.
2. A. Sobolevskij: Osobennosti russkich perevodov do-mongol’skogo perioda. Trudy devjatogo Archeologičeskogo S"ezda v Vil'ne 1893 II. Moskva 1987, pp. 53-61.
3. A. Sobolevskij: Materialy i issledovanija v oblasti slavjanskoj filologii i archeologii. SORJa 88, iii (1910), pp. i-iv, .1-286, pp. 162-177. Since the Vita Barlaam et Joasaph was listed in 1897 but omitted in 1910, the total number is 37, not 36.
4. Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (see note 2), pp. 54-55, Materialy (see note 3), pp. 165-166. For a summary of his views, see N. Meščerskij: Istočniki i sostav drevnej slavjano-russkoj perevodnoj piśmennosti IX-XV vekov. Leningrad 1978, pp. 19-21.
290
as far as the lexical material is concerned, with few exceptions it remained inviolate. [5]
In 1922 in the most comprehensive description of the reasons for ascribing translations to Kievan Russia [6], V. M. Istrin stated that one has to agree with this assertion [7] and it has remained the sole accepted criterion, the suggestions that orthography [8] or syntax [9] may help having been rightly contested. It was upon this basis, despite the fact that he had to admit that:
as yet the criteria which would permit a work or translation to be a definitely included among Russian or South Slav ones have not been established, [10]
5. Sobolevskij, Osobennosti, pp. 53-54, and idem, Materialy, p. 163 (the wording is identical).
6. V. Istrin: Книгы временьнъıı-а и ѡбразнъıı-а Геѡргиı-а мниха. Chronika Georgija Amartola v drevnem slavjanorusskom perevode. Tekst, issledovanie i slovar’ I-III. Petrograd 1920— Leningrad 1930, II, pp. 268-309.
7. Ibid., p. 295. It is a pity that he forgot his own wise words with regard to the 13-4th century translation of the tale about Prester John:
The presence of Russian words in a copy of the 15th century is not in itself evidence for the Russian origin of the work: they are completely comprehensible in a 15th-century copy.
See V. Istrin: К istorii zaimstvovannych slov i perevodnych povestej. Po povodu stat’i Sobolevskogo. LIFO 13 (1905), pp. 175-186, p. 182.
8. Istrin himself advanced orthography as another criterion, Knigy II (see note 6), pp. 274-278, but the unreliability of it has been pointed out by M. Weingart: Bizantské kroniky v literatuře církevněslovanské. Přehled a rozbor filologický I—II, ii, Bratislava 1922-1923 (= Spisy Filosofické Fakulty University Komenského v Bratislavě 2 and 4, i-ii), II, ii, p. 510; P. Lavrov, Review of Istrin, Knigy, Slavia 4 (1925-26), pp. 461-484, 657-683, p. 671; N. Durnovo: Vvedenie v istonju russkogo jazyka I, Brno 1927 (= Spisy Filosofické Fakulty Masarykovy University v Brně 20), reprinted Moscow 1969, p. 104.
9. H. Bräuer: Zur Frage der altrussischen Übersetzungsliteratur. (Der Wert syntaktischer Beobachtungen für die Bestimmung der alt russischen Übersetzungsliteratur). Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 27 (1958-59), pp. 322-347, pp. 330-346 argued that in final clauses S. Slav Slavonic used the indicative, but Old Russian the subjunctive. This has been shown to be simplistic as the indicative is found in obviously E. Slav texts such as birchbark documents and chronicles, see N. Meščerskij: О sintaksise slavjano-russkich perevodnych proizvedenij. Teorija i kritika perevoda, ed. B. Larin, Leningrad 1962. pp. 83-103, pp. 98-101, and idem: Problemy izučenija slavjano-russkoj perevoanoj literatury XI—XV vekov. TODRL 20 (1964), pp. 180-231, pp. 192-198.
10. Durnovo, Vvedenie (see note 8), pp. 103. This remains as true today as in 1927, see the remarks of R. Pavlova: Voprosy izučenija drevnebolgarskogo literaturnogo jazyka v Kievskoj Rusi v načal’ny period ее christianizacii. Die slavischen Sprachen 19 (1989), pp. 89-99, p. 93.
297
that in 1927 N. N. Durnovo drew up a list of thirty-seven translations [11] which in his opinion had undoubtedly or very probably [12] been translated in Kievan Russia. That the accepted criterion was anything but reliable is revealed by a comparison of Sobolevsky’s and Durnovo’s lists: they agree upon only twenty-six (55,3 %) and disagree about twenty-one (44,7 %).
Despite this, for E. Slav literary historians it has become a part of received truth, a veritable apodeictic axiom, that many translations were made in Kievan Russia. Typical is the recent formulation of it by B. A. Uspensky:
Having begun at the time oi Yaroslav the Wise, translation activity very soon takes on extensive and diverse forms. A large corpus of texts is translated from Greek, very rich in content and genres: theological, apocryphal, hagiographic, historical, natural scientific, narrative and other literature. [13]
Only seldom has the axiom received whole-hearted acceptance by a S. Slav scholar, e. g. B. S. Angelov [14]. The lists of such translations given in manuals of Russian literature [15] simply reflect an uncritical acceptance of Sobolevsky’s, Istrin’s [16] and Durnovo’s lists, a fact only recently admitted by О. V. Tvorogov, who commented:
11. Durnovo, Vvedenie (see note 8), pp. 105-111.
12. Ibid., p. 105, n. 31.
13. B. Uspenskij: Istorija russkogo literaturnogo jazyka (XI-XVII vv.). München (= Sagners Slavistische Sammlung 12), p. 30. It would be to idle to give a list of similar repetitious assertions, but see, for example, A. Fedorov: Vvedenie v teoriju perevoda. (Lingvističeskie problemy). Moskva 19582, p. 41; M. Speranskij: Iz istorii russko-slavjanskich literaturnych svjazei. Sbornik statej. Moskva 1969, p. 29; A. Robinson: Slavjanskie literatury sredi srednevekovych literatur mira (starsij period). Slavjanskie literatury. X Mezdunarodnyj s"ezd slavistov. Sofija, sentjabr' 1988 g. Doklady sovetskoj delegacii. Moskva 1988, pp. 3-19, p. 11-12. According to Meščerskij: Problemy (see note 9), p. 188, such activity was carried on not only in Kiev but also in Novgorod, Smolensk, Vladimir and Galič. He unfortunately omits to give any evidence for this assertion.
14. B. Angelov: Iz istorijata na rusko-bălgarskite literaturni vrăzki. Sofija 1972, pp. 65-67.
15. See, for example, A. Orlov in „Istorija russkoj literatury“, ed. P. Lebedev-Poljanskij, I, Leningrad 1941, pp. 58-59; V. Kuskov: Istorija drevnerusskoj literatury. Kurs lekcij. Moskva 1966, pp. 72-83; D. Tschizewskij: Vergleichende Geschichte der slavischen Literaturen, I. Berlin 1968 (= Sammlung Göschen 1222/1222a), p. 55; O. Tvorogov in „Istorija russkoj literatury X-XVII vekov“, ed. D. Lichačev, Moskva 1980, pp. 43-59.
16. Besides the account given in his „Knigy“ (see above note 6), Istrin gave a brief list in his „Očerk istorii drevnerusskoj literatury domoskovskogo perioda (11-13 vv.).“ Petrograd 1922, pp. 3-4, 110-111.
298
judgements about the translated literature of the XI—XIV centuries are usually [17] based on the list of translated works which, having become traditional, is passed on from book to book, a list neither checked nor more precisely defined since it was formulated by A. L Sobolevsky or by Istrin. [18]
Far-reaching conclusions affecting the entire conception of mediaeval Slav culture have been drawn from the uncritical acceptance of the East Slav origin of translations. With regard to theological literature, the alleged East Slav provenance of a whole series of Biblical commentaries and catenae led A. Alekseyev not merely to call the twelfth century the epoch of East Slav Biblical translations [19] but to claim that the very occupation with this genre of translated literature, most complicated and demanding in the technical sense, bears witness to the high cultural requirements of East Slav society [20]. Moreover, since this allegedly East Slav corpus translationum contains a large proportion of the historical, geographical, philosophical, scientific and literary works translated into Slavonic, it follows that these works cannot have been translated in Bulgaria, from which N. K. Gudzy drew the logical conclusions, firstly, that early Bulgarian literature is characterized by its almost exclusively ecclesiastico-religious content [21] and, secondly, that Kievan Russia was not satisfied with only this strictly ecclesiastico-religious literature; [22] in other words Bulgaria only made a modest start upon the reception of Byzantine culture and it was the East Slavs who continued the process, thus creating a culture far superior to that of the other Orthodox Slavs [23]. It is thus
17. He unfortunately does not specify where they are not.
18. O. Tvorogov: Svoe i čužoe: perevodnye i original’nye pamjatniki v drevnerusskich sbornikach XII—XIV vekov. Russkaja literatura 3 (1988), pp. 135-145, p. 135.
19. A. Alekseev: К istorii russkoj perevodčeskoj školy XII v. TODRL 41 (1988), pp. 154-196, p. 189.
20. Ibidem.
21. N. Gudzij: Literatura Kievskoj Rusi i drevnejšie inoslavjanskie literatury. Issledovanija po slavjanskomu literaturovedeniju i fol'kloristike. Doklady sovetskich učenych na IX Meždunarodnom s"ezde slavistov. Moskva 1960, pp. 7-60, p. 32.
22. Ibid., p. 37, cf. idem: U istokov velikoj slavjanskoj literatury. Russkaja literatura 3 (1958), pp. 40-56,
23. A theory which led Gudzij, Literatura, p. 42, to make the extravagant claim that nothing is known of the existence of an early Bulgarian chronicle, but that if one had in fact existed, it must ipso facto have been inferior in quality to the Russian chronicle. For a similar expression of the axiomatic assumption that Kievan literature possesses greater originality than early Bulgarian see E. Zykov: Zametki о russko-bolgarskich literaturnych svjazjach staršej pory (X-XI vv.). Russko-bolgarskie fol'klornye i literaturnye svjazi I-II, ed. V. Bazanov et al, Leningrad 1976,1, pp. 9-31, pp. 10-11.
299
clear that the provenance of these translations is not of purely academic interest.
In actual fact the sole generally accepted lexical criterion for the ascription of these translations to Kievan Russia is fundamentally flawed from the very outset for at least four obvious reasons: it is based upon 1. a false assumption, 2. a lack of a scientific basis, 3. an unknown factor and 4. the disregard of two established historical facts.
1. The False Assumption.
A mere glance at the textual apparatus of any critical edition of an early Slavonic translation will reveal that scribes did not hesitate to alter the lexical material of their exemplars, either because a word was less well known, or because the text was adapted to specifically East Slav circumstances. Examples of both kinds of alteration can be found in the earliest E. Slav codices, e. g. in the 1076 florilegium: in the excerpt taken from John Chrysostom’s Homilia ix de poenitentia [24] the rendering of βασιλεῖ by цѣсарьмь has been altered to кнѧзьмь, [25] while in the excerpt from Peter the Hieromonk’s Vita S. Nephontis episcopi Constantinianae in Aegypto [26] the rendering of καμψάκιοιν by ковчежьць has been systematically altered to ларь. [27] To multiply the examples is pointless [28] and even advocates of the theory that many translations were made in Kievan Russia admit
24. Izbornik 1076 goda, ed. S. Kotkov, Moskva 1965, pp. 668-676.
25. Ibid., p. 674. On this see F. Thomson: The True Origin of Two Homilies ascribed to Ephraem Syrus Allegedly Preserved in Slavonic. ΑΝΤΙΔΩΡΟΝ. Hommage à Maurits Geerard pour célébrer l'achèvement de la Clavis Pat rum Graecorum I. Wetteren 1984, pp. 13-26, p. 20.
26. Izbornik, ed. Kotkov, pp. 687-700.
27. Ibid., pp. 691, 692, 693, 694. On this see N. Meščerskij: К voprosu ob istočnikach Izbornika 1076 goda. TODRL 27 (1972), pp. 321-328, p. 327, and idem: Istočniki (see note 4), p. 25 (where by printer’s error καμψάκιον has become λαμψάκιον), who uses the term the Kievization of the language.
28. The 16-th century codex Egorov 612 with John the Exarch’s translation of John of Damascus’ De fide orthodoxa provides a good example of a consistent endeavour to modernize the language of a lengthy translation, see the remarks of L. Sadnik: Des hl. Johannes von Damaskus Ἔκθεσις ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὀρθοδόξου τίστεως in der Übersetzung des Exarchen Johannes I-IV. Wiesbaden 1967 — Freiburg im Br. 1984 (= Monumenta linguae slavicae dialecti veteris. Fontes et dissertationes 5, 14, 16, 17), I. p. XXIV. Among his many alterations is that of the alleged Moravism рачити, thus не рачи becomes не восхотѣ. The term is not merely no Moravism, it is still in use in Bulgarian dialects, see „Rečnik na redki, ostareli i dialektni dumi v literaturata ni ot XIX i XX vek“, ed. Stefan Ilčev, Sofija 1974, p. 427.
300
the unreliability of the criterion. Thus N. A. Meshchersky concedes:
The lexical criterion thus also turns out to be vulnerable in the sense of (providing) incontrovertible proof and must hence be used with the greatest circumspection for determining the place where early works were translated. [29]
The complete lack of circumspection with which Sobolevsky applied his criterion is illustrated by the fact that whereas in 1897 he cited eight translations which he considered had been made by a S. Slav and later revised by an E. Slav [30], in 1910 without giving any reason he listed five of these as E. Slav translations [31].
2. The Lack of a Scientific Basis
No judgment about the lexicon of a translation is valid unless it is based on a critical edition which takes into account the complete codicological and textological tradition. All too often the claim of an East Slav origin has been made after the examination of only part, viz. the E. Slav part, of the evidence. A classical example of this is afforded by the case of Nicon of the Black Mount’s Pandectes de interpretation!bus mandatorum divinorum, which was formerly only known in E. Slav codices, but an early S. Slav codex of which has now been traced which does not contain the E. Slavisms [32]. Durnovo’s warning that:
a method based only on the lexical peculiarities of Russian copies of a translated work cannot be considered adequately reliable until .... the possibility has been excluded that the Russian words cited as proof of the Russian origin of the translation were inserted into the text of a S. Slav translation by Russian scribes or editors [33]
has gone largely unheeded.
29. Meščerskij: Istočniki (see note 4), p. 25.
30. Viz. Nicetas of Heracleia’s Scholia in orationes Gregorii Nazianzeni, the Melissa, Theodore Daphnopates’ Vita et conversatio S. P. N. et confessoris Theodori praepositi Studitarum, the Narratio de structura templi S. Sophia, George Hamartolus’ Chronicon breve, George of Alexandria’s Vita S. Joannis Chrysostomi, Menander’s Sententiae and the translation of the gospels and epistles, see Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (note 4), pp. 60-61.
31. Viz. Nicetas of Heracleia’s Scholia, the Melissa, Theodore Daphnopates’ Vita, the Narratio and Menander’s Sententiae, see Sobolevskij, Materialy (note 3), pp. 169-170, 170, 172-132, 173, 176.
32. See below note 169.
33. Durnovo: Vvedenie (see note 8), p. 104.
301
3. The Unknown Factor
By definition a Russism [34] viz. East Slavism, is a word foreign to native South Slavic vocabulary, and hence in order to ascertain whether a particular lexeme was foreign to South Slav vocabulary, not merely in the “canon“ of Old Slavonic literature, but down to the mid-13th century, it would be necessary to fulfil the precondition of establishing the entire range of South Slav vocabulary down to that time. Istrin defined his criterion of an East Slavism: it was a word not listed in F. Miklosich’s dictionary [35], based mainly on S. Slav material, and listed only in Russian works in I. I. Sreznevsky’s dictionary [36], based on E. Slav material [37]. He admitted, however, that
it is still impossible to draw an unconditional and absolute conclusion from this [38].
In view of the criticism of the entirely unsatisfactory basis which this afforded, he was later forced to modify this admission still further:
.... the Dictionaries of Miklosich and Sreznevsky, of which at the present time researchers are forced to make exclusive use, are most inadequate and conclusions based on the presence of lexical material in them cannot always be correct [39].
Sobolevsky’s idea that words reflecting Russian realia can be considered East Slavisms [40] is superficially attractive, but ignores the obvious fact that whereas initially certain words may have been foreign to native South Slavic vocabulary, because of mutual contacts they could well have entered that vocabulary as borrowings. It is thus clear that isolated East Slavisms are no proof of origin: only the
34. This is the term used in all the relevant literature, but to avoid misunderstanding — as well as sterile logomachy — the broader term East Slavism is adopted here. For similar reasons the terms Bulgarism, Macedonism and Serbism are dropped in favour of South Slavism.
35. F. von Miklosich: Lexicon palaeoslovenico-graeco-latinum emendatum auctum. Vienna 1866.
36. I. Sreznevskij: Materialy dlja slovarja drevne-russkogo jazyka po piśmennym pamjatnikam. I—III and supplement. St. Petersburg 1893-1912.
37. Istrin: Knigy II (see note 6), p. 296. For his list of East Slavisms see ibid., pp. 298-305.
38. Ibid., II, p. 296. 39. Ibid., III, p. X. 40. See above.
302
text as a whole can serve as the basis for any conclusions [41].
The fact that there are as yet no reliable criteria for determining incontrovertible East Slavisms is illustrated by the lexical evidence adduced by Sobolevsky in favour of the alleged East Slav provenance of the works on his list. Of the works listed in both 1897 and 1910 in three cases the number of „East Slavisms“ has remained the same [42], while in two cases it has increased [43]. However, in all the other cases it has decreased because he has rightly eliminated at least 22 words from his corpus of East Slavisms [44]. In fact at least another 20 words can be eliminated merely by reference to the Czechoslovak Academy’s Lexicon linguae palaeo-slovenicae [45], and reference to other sources would eliminate even more [46].
41. See Durnovo’s strictures against those who fail to do so: Vvedenie (note 8), p. 104.
42. Viz. seven in the case of the Vita s. Macarii Romani, although only six of the words are the same in both lists; five in the case of the Physiologus, and three in the case of the Sermo panegyncus de translation reliquiarum S. Nicolai Barim, cf. Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (see note 2), pp. 59, 59, 58 and idem, Materialy (see note 3), pp. 175, 173, 172.
43. Viz. from 11 to 20, in the case of the tale of Ahiqar, cf. Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (see note 2), p. 59, and idem, Materialy (note 3), p. 175, and from 12 to 13 in the case of Theodore Daphnopates Vita S. Theodori, cf. Osobennosti, p. 60, and Materialy, p. 173.
44. Viz. батогъ, брндъкъ, быстръ, връста, господарь, грамота, грамотица, клюдити, комара, крȣчина, крѣсити, лȣгъ, лъıскарь, охабитисѧ, позоровати, пȣчина, пѣшьць, реть, тѧбло, ȣрокъ, шило, шишка, as well as the phrases наȣчити грамотѣ, ночесь, оба полы, обрати на нице. With regard to наȣчитисѧ грамотѣ and ȣрок, he in places omits them, in others retains them.
45. Lexicon linguae palaeoslovenicae, Praha 1966 (to date [1989] vols. I-IV fasc 42 have appeared), viz. бронı-а, cf. I, p. 145 (брънѩ); гладити, cf. I, p. 400; голка, cf. I, p. 405 (глъкъ); гобино, cf. I, p. 410; доспѣти, cf. I, p. 512; корыто, cf. II p 54; лаı-ати (in the sense to rant), cf. II, p. 165; мȣха, cf. II, p. 237; нѣмець, cf. II, p. 452; обѣдати, cf. II, p. 501; огородникъ, cf. II, p. 514 (оградьникъ); острогъ, cf. II, p. 573; полѣно, cf. III, p. 147; порȣчитисı-а, cf. III, p. 180 пропасть, cf. III, p. 362; пѣстȣнъ, cf. III, p. 528; рȣда, cf. III, p. 652; свадьба, cf. IV (fasc. 36), p. 24; солъ, cf. IV (fasc. 40), p. 287 (сълъ).
46. E. g. the word капь as a measure of weight is not an East Slavism, see I. Dobrev: Iz bălgarskata istoričeska leksikologija. Bălgarski ezik 33 (1983), pp. 136-141, pp. 137-138, neither is the word тавлѣı-а, see J. Reinhart: Vostočnoslavjanskoe vlijanie v drevneserbskoj kormčej. Venskie doklady к IX Meždunarodnomu s"ezdu slavistov v Kieve, Vienna 1983, offprint pp. 1-80, PP· 49-50. (In spite of the indication that this study is an offprint, it is not, as the Viennese Contributions never appeared). Even Miklosich's evidence makes some alleged East Slavisms dubious, e.g. зобати, see Niklosich, Lexicon, p. 232. If вражениѥ is part of S. Slav vocabulary, see the Czech Lexicon linguae palaeoslovenicae, I, p. 219 why should ворожити be considered (apart from the orthography, of course) an East Slavism? H. Lunt and M. Taube: Early East Slav Translations from Hebrew? Russian Linguistics 12 (1988), pp. 147-188, p. 147, n. 3, comment drily: his criteria for defining works as East Slavic frequently show unfamiliarity with OCS vocabulary ana medieval South Slav texts.
303
4. The Disregard of Two Established Historical Facts
A. The Presence of East Slavs in the Byzantine Empire
Even if it has been reliably established that a particular translation teems with indubitable East Slavisms, this is not proof that it was translated in Kievan Russia, only that it was translated by an East Slav. The presence of East Slav monks in the Byzantine Empire, principally on Athos and in Constantinople [47], is well attested and it is an a priori logical assumption that both their access to Greek works and knowledge of Greek were greater than in the case of their compatriots at home; indeed the complete ignorance on the part of Kievan writers of all Byzantine literature other than that which had been translated is convincing evidence that they did not know Greek [48]. That there was some knowledge available of demotic, e. g. among merchants, need not be doubted. There must also have been interpreters in the chancellery of the Greek metropolitans of Kiev, not all of whom knew Slavonic. Thus Metropolitan Nicephorus I (1104-1121) begins his Homilia in Quinquagesima with the lament:
With many homilies, my beloved and cherished children in Christ, should my tongue address you and imbue your good and fertile land — I mean your souls — with His water; but I have not been given the gift of tongues, as the blessed Paul calls it, with which I could fulfil the charge entrusted to me, and thus I stand voiceless in your midst and am much silent. Since a homily is required today because the days of the holy Lenten fast are approaching, I have deemed it meet to deliver the homily in writing. [49]
47. It is possible that some were at other centres, e. g. Jerusalem, Sinai, Olympus and Thessalonica, but there is no evidence for the Kievan period. The various theories cannot be examined here.
48. See F. Thomson: The Implications of the Absence of Quotations of Untranslated Greek Works in Original Early Russian Literature, Together with a Critique of a Distorted Picture of Eaurly Bulgarian Culture. Slavica Gandensia 15 (1988), pp. 6391, especially pp. 68-70. The sole possible — but not proven — exception is Hilarion of Kiev, see idem: Quotations of Patristic and Byzantine Works by Early Russian Authors as an Indication of the Cultural Level of Kievan Russia. Slavica Gandensia 10 (1983), pp. 65-102, pp. 65-66, 73.
49. Ed. Makarij (Bulgakov): Istorija russkoj cerkvi II. St. Peterburs 18893, pp. 349-353, p. 349. The ascription to Nicephorus I has gone unchallenged, but recently it has been pointed out that Nicephorus II (fl. 1183-1201) cannot be entirely excluded, see G. Podskalsky: Christentum und theologische Literatur in der Kiever Ruś (988-1237). München 1982, p. 93.
304
However, in the situation of Greek triglossia, for the perusal of Christian literature it was a knowledge of koine and, in the case of some of the early fathers, e. g. Gregory of Nazianzus [50], attic that was required. It is known that the metropolitans arrived in Kiev with Bulgarian clerics [51] and the translation activity performed in the chancellery need not have been undertaken by E. Slavs. It is significant that the ONE AND ONLY translation of which it is recorded that it was made in Kievan Russia was made by a Greek monk in the Kievan Caves monastery, viz. Theodosius [52], who in the mid-twelfth century translated Pope Leo I’s Epistola ad Flavianum episcopum Constantinopolitanum contra Eutychis perfidiam et haeresim [53] and who may well have known Slavonic before he went to Kiev [54]. In this light, if East Slavs did undertake translation work, then, as has been correctly pointed out:
ihr Wirken ist in der Regel mit Bildungs- und Begegnungsstätten außerhalb des russischen Sprachgebietes mehr verbunden als mit den Klöstern und Residenzstätten ihrer Heimat. [55]
50. There is a large literature on his language and style; for a succinct account see G. Kennedy: Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors. Princetown 1983 ( = A History of Rhetoric, 3), pp. 215-239. V
51. A certain Gregory arrived with Metropolitan George in 1062. The literature on him is prone to unsubstantiated hypothesizing, see F. Thomson: The Bulgarian Contribution to the Reception of Byzantine Culture in Kievan Ruś: the Myths and the Enigma. Harvard Ukrainian Studies 12-13 (1988-89), pp. 214-261, p. 217, n.18.
52. His identification with Abbot Theodosius II of the Caves Monastery (c. 1148-1156) is possible but uncertain; on him see most recently Podskalsky, Christentum (see note 49), pp. 179-184.
53. Ed. O. Bodjanskii: Slavjanorusskie sočinenija v pergamentnom sbornike I. N. Carskogo. ČIOI 20 (1848), pp. i-xxxv, 1,60, pp. 4-18. It was not translated from the Latin original but from the early Greek translation.
54. Sobolevskij Material? (see note 3), p. 162, n. 1, points out that the translation contains South Slavisms, e. g. того цѣща, ed. Bodnjanskij, Sočinenija (see note 53), p. 4. It also contains Graecisms, including the rare идеı-а, ed. ibid., p. 5, still unrecorded in any dictionary of Slavonic.
55. Griechischkenntnisse im alten Rußland. Serta Slavica in memoriam Aloisii Schmaus, München 1971, pp. 250-260, p. 259. For claims that specific works were translated by E. Slavs living in the South see nos. 6, 7, 18, 19, 23 and 24 on the list. Similar claims have been made about specific codices, e. g. the eleventh-century SHM New Jerusalem Monastery of the Resurrection 30 p, which contains Antiochus Pandectes, see P. Kopko: Issledovanie о jazyke Pandektov Antiocha XI veka. IORJa 20, iii (1915), pp. 139-216; 20, iv (1915), pp. 1-92, p. 88. In fact the place where this codex was copied remains uncertain, see J. Popovski: Die Pandekten des Antiochus Monachus. Slavische Übersetzung und Überlieferung Amsterdam 1989, p. 67.
305
What then is to be made of the entry in the Primary Chronicle under 1037 which has traditionally been interpreted to mean that Prince Yaroslav I of Kiev (1010—1054) established a school of translators in that year? It states that Yaroslav [56]:
собра писцѣ многы и прекладаше а ѿ Грекъ на Словѣньское писмо b и списаша c книгы многы и списка d ими e же поȣчащесѧ f вѣрнии людье g наслаждаютсѧ оученыı-а.
а. К прекладаша RA прелагаше —
b. НК на Словеньскыи ı-азыкъ и (К omits) писмѧ —
с. А списаше —
d. RA omit —
е. Н. ми, later altered to н<и>ми —
f. НК пооучаютьсѧ —
g. HK add и.
The traditional translation of this passage is some variant of:
he assembled many scribes and they (or he) translated from Greek into Slavonic and they wrote (or copied) many books through which believing people are instructed and enjoy instruction. [57]
H. G. Lunt, however, recently pointed out that any such rendering is an unwarranted, arbitrary translation of a passage which is hopelessly corrupt [58]. The hesitation between the singular and the plural forms of the verb are of no great significance since the use of the singular would be causative [59]. There remain, however,
56. The Primary Chronicle exists in the two basic variants of the Laurence codex (L) of 1377, ed. PSRL I, i-iii (1926-1928), and the Hypatius codex (H) of the 15th century, ed PSRL 2 (1908). The latter has many scribal errors, often corrected by the 16th-century Khlebnikov codex (K). Two later copies of the Laurence version, the Radziwiłł (or Königsberg) (R) and Moscow Theological Academy (A) codices, the dating of which is either late 15th or 16th century, contain a text with many later readings. The two basic principles for establishing the original text are thus a. the agreement of L with H/K; b. the agreement of H/K with RA (in which case L has the later reading). The text given here is that in L, ed PSRL I, i, col. 151; for H see ed. PSRL 2, coll. 149-140. Orthographic variants are not given.
57. See, for example, the translations suggested in
Povest' vremennych let I—II, ed. V. Adrianova-Peretc, Leningrad 1950, I, p. 302;
A Source Book for Russian History from Early Times to 1917, I, ed. G. Vernadsky, New Haven 1972, p. 27;
Monumenta Poloniae historica I, ed. A. Bielowski, Lemberg 1864, p. 700;
L. Léger: La Chronique dite de Nestor (Nestorova ili pervonačal’naja letopiś). Paris 1884 (= Publications de l’Ecole des langues orientales vivantes, IIе serie 13), p. 128;
R. Trautmann: Die altrussische Nestorchronik Povest’ vremennych let in Übersetzung herausgegeben. Leipzig 1931 (= Slavisch-baltische Quellen und Forschungen 8), p. 109.
58. H. Lunt: On Interpreting the Russian Primary Chronicle; the Year 1073. Slavic and East European Journal 32 (1988), pp. 251-264, p. 258,
59. The same entry for 1037 states that he placed the books which had been written in the Church of Saint Sophia юже созда самъ, ed. PSRL I, col. 153. Clearly he did not built it with his own hands. — Zykov, Zametki (see note 23), p. 12, n. 11, not merely suggests that Yaroslav played an active part in this translation activity, he compares him to Symeon of Bulgaria: an expression of wishful thinking rather than a valid parallel. - B. Panzer: Wie verständigten sich Waräger, Slawen und Byzantiner? Die slawischen Sprachen 19 (1989), pp. 73-87, p. 79, claims that Yaroslav nicht nur übersetzen und schreiben ließ, sondern dies auch selbst tat. Why he reached this conclusion we are, alas, not told.
306
three major problems:
a. the meaning of прекладаше caused difficulties as early as in the late 15th century, as is clear from the alteration to прелагаше, which obviously means he translated. However, in the only passage in which the verb прѣкладати appears in the chronicle it clearly does not mean translate [60]. If it does mean here to translate, then it is a hapax legomenon [61], the root meaning being to transfer;
b. the meaning of ѿ Грекъ is either from the Greeks, viz. from Greece [62], or by the Greeks; at all events it cannot mean from Greek;
c. на Словѣньское писмо cannot mean into Slavonic, as is shown by the later attempt in HK to make sense by altering it. As it stands it can only mean in Slavonic writing, which it has been suggested could indicate a transliteration from Glagolitic into Cyrillic [63].
In the light of the above Lunt suggests the translation:
60. Under 1097, ed. PSRL, I, i, col. 264. The meaning is obscure and HK have прикладаше, ed. PSRL, 2, col. 238. Which form is the original is uncertain.
61. The renderings by modern scholars are clearly influenced by Czech překládat and Polish przekładać. Ukrainian prekladaty in the sence of translate is a late form modelled on Polish and is not attested in the Slovnyk staroukrajinskoji movy XIV-XV st. I-II, ed L. Humećka and I. Kernyćkyj, Kiev 1977-1978. The idea that прекладаше is a West Slavism, thus J. Arrignon, L’oevre religieuse de Iaroslav le Sage. 988-1988, un Millenaire. La Christianisation de la Russie ancienne, Paris 1989, pp. 98-108, p. 103, raises the question: why would the chronicler borrow a West Slavism for a common concept (and, having borrowed it, use it only once)?
62. It is used at least twice in this sense in the Primary Chronicle, see PSRL, I, i, coll. 67, 121.
63. Thus Lunt, Interpreting (see note 58), p. 260, n. 28. Lunt, ibid., pp. 257-258, further considers that сниска, which he considers a singular aorist meaning he sought out, to be hopelessly corrupt and refers to the solution proposed by A. Šachmatov: Povest’ vremennych let I, Letopiś zanjatij Archeografičeskoj Kommissii za 1916 god, 29 (1917), pp. i-lxxx, 1-403, p. 192, who posited that (a) сни must be read with ими to give съ ними which (b) comes after прекладаше, while (c) ска is the ending of Грекъ, itself (d) corrupt, viz. Грьчьска to give (e) прекладаше съ ними отъ Грьчьска, QED! Šachmatov does admit, however, ibid., p. 192, n. 14, that this is guesswork. In fact ими makes very good sense as the first word of the next phrase. Сниска is an aorist, which does not, as Lunt, Interpreting, p. 257, thinks, mean he sought out, but he obtained and makes sense when an object them is supplied, cf. Trautmann, Nestorchronik (see note 57), p. 109: (Auch schrieb man viele Bucher ab) und er erwatb sie.
307
He assembled many scribes and transported books from the Greek lands and had them copied in Slavonic writing and they wrote (or copied) many books [64]
to which should be added:
and thus he obtained them, and by them faithful people in being taught enjoy instruction.
This is a conjecture which is as justified a rendering as the traditional one. Clearly a passage which can, as it stands, be interpreted to mean either that works were translated from Greek into Slavonic in Kiev, or that Glagolitic codices were sent from the Greek lands (which in Yaroslav’s day included subjugated Bulgaria) to Kiev where they were transliterated into Cyrillic [65], is, in the final analysis, meaningless and hence proof of nothing.
B. The Absence of Quotations from Untranslated Greek Works in Original Kievan Literature.
An examination of original Kievan literature has revealed that, with the possible exception of Metropolitan Hilarion, East Slav writers reveal no acquaintance with Greek works other than in Slavonic translation [66]. If it is posited that many translations were made in Kievan Russia, it logically follows that (a) Greek works were available there; (b) some East Slavs knew and read koine and attic; (c) unless it were argued that every single Greek work available was translated, which would not only be an absurd proposition, but would contradict claims made for the translations themselves [67], a selection was made among the available works of those which were to be translated. Why then is there no trace of a knowledge of those works available but not selected for translation?
64. H. Lunt, Interpreting (see note 58), p. 261, n. 30.
65. O. Krönsteiner: Zur Literatursprache der Kiewer Ruś. Die slawischen Sprachen 15 (1988), pp. 7-14, pp. 11-12, and idem: Die Kontinuität der Mission von Virgil bis Wladimir. Die slawischen Sprachen 16 (1988), pp. 67-78, p. 77, goes further and argues that the scribes too were Bulgarians since at this time the Greek lands included Bulgaria. That some may have been Bulgarians has often been suggested, e. g. by Istrin, Očerk (note 16), p. 3; Gudzy, Literatura (note 21), p. 36.
66. See Thomson, Implications (note 48), passim and Quotations (note 48), passim.
67. To give but one example: it has been claimed that the Catena in Canticum canticorum, so far untraced in Greek, was compiled by an East Slav using Greek works by Philo of Carpasia, Gregory of Nyssa, Hippolytus of Rome and Procopius of Gaza, none of which was translated in its entirely. See below n. 96.
308
It has been claimed that Kievan authors quoted Greek works not in the original but in translation because
in the tenth to thirteenth centuries Church Slavonic fulfilled among the Slavs the functions of a literary and a sacred language and hence Church Slavonic sources enjoyed among the Slavs the same authority as Latin sources in Western Europe, where at this time the rule that "graecum est, non legitur" still predominated absolutely. [68]
This is to ignore the problem: it is not a question of acquaintance with translated works, but with untranslated ones. Both Bulgarian and (or so it is alleged) Kievan bookmen knew Greek and had access to Greek works; moreover, unlike the Latins, they were not suspicious of the Greeks’ orthodoxy [69]. Why then the all-pervasive presence of quotations and passages from untranslated Greek works in early Bulgarian original literature and the total absence thereof in original Kievan literature?
On the evidence so far adduced, not one of the seventy translations listed below in the corpus of allegedly Kievan Russian translations — and the list makes no pretence at being exhaustive — has been unequivocally shown to have been translated there. Repetitious assertions to the contrary illustrate not merely Philip Guedalla’s witticism quoted as the epigraph to this survey but also, alas, Matthew Prior’s famous couplet:
Till their dreams at length deceive 'em,
And, oft repeating, they believe 'em. [70]
68. A. Alekseev: К istorii (see note 19), p. 189. The hyperbolic generalization about the West is based upon ignorance of Western scholarship. A good antidote would be the perusal of W. Berschin: Griechisch-lateinisches Mittelalter. Von Hieronymus zu Nikolaus von Kues. Bern 1980, or the revised English version: Greek Letters and the Latin Middle Ages. From Jerome to Nicholas of Cusa. Washington 1988.
69. Such Latin suspicions long antedate the schism of 1054. For example, the Libri Carolini of c. 790/2 in attaAing Byzantine iconodulia state that the evidence of Greek fathers can only be accepted in dogmatic questions if catholici fuerunt et a catholicis aeque in nostram linguam translate sunt, ed. PG 97 (1851), coll. 989-1248, col. 1082.
70. Alma, or The Progress of the Mind (canto 3).
309
Schedule of Allegedly Early Russian Translations [71]
A. Bible
1. Esther
The earliest translation [72] is not of the Septuagint text but of the Hebrew Masoretic text and it has been argued that it was translated from Hebrew either in Kievan times [73] or in the 14th century [74]. In fact there is no convincing proof that it was translated from Hebrew [75] and it is more likely that it was done from an untraced Greek version, not in Kievan Russia [76], but by a South Slav [77].
2. Song of Solomon
A translation from Hebrew and not Greek has been traced to one 16th c. East
71. For reasons of space bibliographical data have been kept to a minimum, e. g. only one edition has been cited.
72. Ed. N. Meščerskij: Izdanie teksta drevnerusskogo perevoda „Knigi Esfir’“. Dissertationes slavicae 13 (1978), pp. 131-164, pp. 132-164. Earliest codex: 14-5th c. East Slav LSL Trinity Sergius 2.
73. E. g. N. Meščerskij: К voprosu ob izučenii perevodnoj piśmennosti Kievskogo perioda. Učenye zapisii Karelo-Finskogo pedagogičeskogo instituta 2, i (1956), pp. 198-219, also idem, Problemy (see note 9), p. 183, and Istočniki (see note 4), p. 47; A. Alekseev: Perevody s drevneevrejskich originalov v drevnej Rusi. Russian Linguistics 11 (1987), pp. 1-20, pp. 11-12; Podskalsky: Christentum (see note 49), p. 79; Durnovo, Vvedenie (see note 8), p. 109, et ai.
74. E. Evseev: Kniga proroka Daniila у perevode židovstvujuščich. ČIOI 202 (1902), pp. 127-164, pp. 131-132. The association of the translation with the Judaizers by many, e. g. I. Roždestvenskij: Kniga Esfir' v tekstach evrejskom-masoretskom, grečeskom, drevnelatinskom i slavianskom. St. Petersburg 1885, pp. 203-204, or with the Jewish convert Theodore who in the 15th century translated the Psalms, e. g. N. Tichonravov: Sočinenija N. S. Tichonravova. I. Moskva 1898, pp. 32, 227, is in the view of the manuscript tradition anachronistic.
75. Proponents who allege Hebraisms forget that Greek translations of Biblical texts teem with them.
76. As maintained by A. Sobolevskij: Perevodnaja literatura Moskovskoj Rusi XIV-XVII vekov. Bibliografičeskie materialy. SORJa 74, i (1903), pp. i-viii, 1-460, pp. 433-436, and idem, Materialy (see note 3), p. 174.
77. M. Altbauer and M. Taube: The Slavonic Book of Esther: When, Where and from What Language Was It Translated? Harvard Ukrainian Studies 8 (1984), pp. 304-320, pp. 319-320. The criticism of their findings by Alekseev, Perevody (see note 73), pp. 3-9, has been adequately refuted by Lunt, Translations (see note 46), pp. 151-156.
310
Slav codex [78], but the claim that it dates to the Kievan period [79] is unsupported by the linguistic evidence and there is no reason to suppose that it antedates the 15th century [80].
B. Biblical Commentaries
3. Hesychius of Jerusalem, Commentanus brevis in Psalmos [81]
The idea that this translation [82] was made at Kiev in the eleventh century [83] is aberrant: there can be no doubt of its 10th-century Bulgarian origin [84].
4. Nicetas of Heracleia, Catena in Psalmos
The claim that this translation [85] is of East Slav origin [86] is belied by the archaeographic
78. Viz. LSL Museum 8222, ed. A. Alekseev: „Pesń Pesnej po russkomu spisku XVI veka v perevode s drevneevrejskogo originala. Palestinskij sbornik 27 (1981), pp. 63-79, pp. 76-78.
79. Ibid., pp. 70-75, and idem, Perevody (see note 73), p. 7.
80. See M. Taube: On Two Related Slavic Translations of the Song of Songs. Slavica Hierosolymitana 7 (1985), pp. 203-210. H. Lunt: The OCS Song of Songs: One Translation or Two? Die Welt der Slaven 30 (1985), pp. 279-318, pp. 309-310, would date it as late as c. 1500.
81. In Slavonic, as in part of the Greek textual tradition, it is falsely ascribed to Athanasius of Alexandria, a false ascription still for no apparent reason being repeated, e. g. Svodnyj katalog slavjano-russkich rukopisnych knig, chranjaščichsja V SSSR. XI-XIII vv., ed. S. Schmidt, Moscow 1984, p. 86.
82. Ed. V. Jagić. Словѣньскаı-а псалътырь. Psalterium Bononiense. Interpretationem veteram slavicam cum aliis codicibus collatam, ... edidit V. Jagić. Accedunt XIX specimina codicum, Vienna 1907, pp. 11-741. The earliest codices are East Slav of the 11th century, e. g. SPL F.p.1.23.
83. Thus Anonymous, Svedenija (see note 1), p. 355. The claim was apparently made because the earliest codices of the 11th century are East Slav, see n. 82. Cf. nn. 102, 105, 111.
84. See most recently N. Šivarov: Drevni iztočni komentari na Psaltira i starobălgarskite im prevodi. Godišnik na Duchovnata akcudemija "Sv. Kliment Ochridski“ 54 (1978-79, publ. 1986), pp. 5-79, pp. 59-65.
85. Unedited as a whole; the preface and commentary on psalm I are found in early printed Muscovite psalteries, e. g. Moscow 1642, ff. 27-48; 1645, ff. 1-22 (second foliation). The earliest codex is 14th c. Bulgarian LSL Moscow Theological Academy 8, which, as well as later codices, e. g. 16th с. E. Slav SPL Dormition Monastery of Cyril of Beloozero 6/131, only contains the commentary on psalms I-LIV. No complete codex seems to have been traced.
86. Thus Alekseev, К istorii (see note 19), p. 188.
311
evidence [87] and there can be no doubt of its South Slav origin [88].
5. Catena in Ecclesiasten
This is the translation of a hitherto untranslated Greek catena, one of whose sources was Olympiodorus of Alexandria’s Commentani in Ecclesiasten. As yet no complete codex has been traced, although excerpts are found in codices going back to the 13th century [89]. The claim that in may be of East Slav origin [90] is based merely on a few East Slavisms [91], hardly surprising in East Slav codices, and ignores the fact that there is also archaeographic evidence for a Bulgarian origin [92]. Clearly no conclusion may be reached until all the excerpts have been collected and studied.
87. See note 85.
88. Leonid (Kavelin): Svedenie о nekotorych slavjanskich rukopisjach, postupivšich iz knigochranilišca Svjato-Troickoj Lavry v biblioteku Troickoj Duchovnoj Seminarii v 1747 godu. II. ČIOI 127 (1883), pp. 1-112, p. 19, specifies that it was translated in Macedonia, but gives no supporting evidence.
89. Two excerpts, the source of which is Olympiodorus’ Commentarii, are found in the 13th с. E. Slav codex SPL Q.p.1.18 (Tolstoj II.6), ed. H. Wątróbska: The Izbornik of the XHIth Century (Cod. Leningrad, GPB, Q.p.1.18). Nijmegen 1989 (= Polata Knigopisnaja 19-20), pp. 152-153, 174; cf. the original ed. PG 93 (1860), coll. 477-628, coll. 596, 561. The same codex contains at least one other excerpt whose source has not been traced, ed. Wątróbska, ibid., p. 161. This latter excerpt is quoted by Klement Smoljatič in his Epistola ad Thomam Smolenscensem, hence the catena must have been available in Kievan Russia in the twelfth century. The largest collection of excerpts so far traced in one codex is that in the 16th с. E. Slav MS LSL Undol’skij 13, but it contains later interpolations.
90. Thus Innokentij Pavlov in A. Kavko ed.: Kruglyj stol: 1000-letie christianizacii Rusi. Sovetsioe slavjanovedenie 6 (1988), pp. 10-75, p. 45; A. Alekseev: К istorii (see note 19), p. 185, and idem: Kirillo-Metodievskoe nasledie i ego istoričeskie sud’by. (Terevody sv. Pisanija v slavjanskoj piśmennosti). Istorija, kul'tura, ètnografija i fol'klor slavjanskich narodov. X Mezdunaroanyj s”ezd slavistov. Sofija, sentjabr' 1988 g. Doklady sovetskoj delegacii, ed. I. Kostjuško, Moskva 1988, pp. 124-145, p. 136.
91. Listed by Alekseev, К istorii (note 19), pp. 185-186.
92. A collection of excerpts is in the 16th с. E. Slav codex, formerly number 119 in the collection of St. Nicholas’ Monastery at Mel'cy, now in the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences in Kiev, which was clearly copied from a Bulgarian exemplar, and the translation has been considered Old Bulgarian, see W. Veder: Meleckij sbornik i istorija drevnebolgarskoj literatury. Palaeobulgarica 6, iii(1982), pp. 154-165, pp. 158-159.
312
6. Catena in Canticum canticorum
This is the translation [93] of a hitherto untraced Greek catena whose main source was Philo of Carpasia’s Enarratio in Canticum canticorum, but also made extensive use of Gregory of Nyssa’s Commentarius in Canticum canticorum, Hippolytus of Rome’s Commentarius in Canticum canticorum and Procopius of Gaza’s In cantica canticorum selectarum expositionum epitome [94]. The claims that the translation was in all probability made in Kievan Russia [95] and that, since no such caten has been traced in Greek, the East Slav translator selected the passages from the Greek works himself [96], are contradicted by the linguistic evidence which points to the catena having been translated in Bulgaria in the tenth century, the translator making use of the earlier ninth-century translation of the Biblical text [97].
7. Theophylact of Ochrid, Enarrationes in evangelia
A chance remark by A. I. Sobolevsky at a meeting of the Commission for the Scientific Edition of the Bible in Petrograd on 16 December 1916 to the effect that he considered the translation [98] East Slav
93. Hitherto unedited in full. The Biblical text from it ed. A. Alekseev: „Pesń pesnej“ V drevnej slavjano-russkoj piśmennosti. I—II. Moskva 1980 (= Predvaritel’nye publikacii Instituta russkogo jazyka AN SSSR 133-134), I, pp. 9-29; excerpt from the commentary ed. idem, К istorii (see note 19), pp. 194-196. Earliest codex: 13th с. E. Slav LSL Society of Russian History and Antiquities 171.
94. Indirectly via Procopius’ Epitome it makes use of other sources, e. g. the commentary on v, 14 is from Origen’s In Cantica canticorum libri iv.
95. Thus Sobolevskij, Materialy (see note 3), p. 177. without giving any evidence.
96. Thus Alekseev, К istorii (note 19), pp. 164, 175, 188. Earlier he only claimed that the translation had been made by an East Slav either in Constantinople or on Athos since these Greek works were not available in Kievan Russia, see idem, Pesń (see note 93) II, pp. 37-43. It scarcely needs to be pointed out that the reasoning because the catena has not been traced in Greek, ergo it is a Slav compilation is a non sequitur.
97. See Lunt, Song (note 80), pp. 292-304. Alekseev’s rejection of Lunt’s criticisms, see his: Der Stellenwert der Textologie bei der Erforschung altkirchenslavischer Übersetzungstexte. Die Welt der Slaven 31 (1986), pp. 416-438, and idem, К istorii (note 19), p. 190, fails to come to grips with the linguistic evidence.
98. In a slightly revised form the translation was first published at Moscow in 1649. (This edition was reprinted at Suprasl’ in the 1790’sl. The second edition, which appeared at Moscow in 1698, had been revised from tne Greek. This was reprinted several times in the 18th century. There is no modern edition. The earliest complete codices of the Enarrationes on the individual gospels are of the 14th century, e. g. the 1348 Bulgarian codex SHM Barsov 115 (on John), but fragments of the 13tn century exist, e. g. East Slav SAS 4.9.11 (on Matthew).
313
in origin [99], together with the fact that, as in the Catena in Canticum canticorum, quotations are introduced by the word вѣща and not рече, has been considered sufficient evidence for the claim that the two works were translated by the same person, viz. an East Slav living at Constantinople or on Athos [100].
8. Pseudo-Oecumenicus of Tricca, Catena in Pauli epistolas
The claim that this translation [101] was made in Kievan Russia was based purely on the fact that the earliest codex is East Slav [102], and no evidence to support the claim has ever been adduced [103].
9. Andrew of Caesarea, In divi Joannis apostoli et evangelistae Apocalypsm commentarius
Here too the claim that this translation [104] is East Slav was based solely on the fact that the earliest codex is East Slav [105], and the translation is of the 10th century at the latest [106].
99. See K. Logačev: Dokumenty Biblejskoj komissii. Organizacija, principy raboty i dejatel’nost’ Komissii v 1915-1921 godach. Bogoslovskie trudy 14 (1975), pp. 166-256, p. 225. It should be noted that this recorded opinion conflicts with Sobolevskij’s own statement that they were translated in Bulgaria, see Sobolevskij, Literatura (note 76), p. 29.
100. Thus Alekseev, Pesn (see note 93) II, pp. 61-63. More recently he has admitted that it is uncertain where and when they were translated, idem, Nasledie (note 90), p. 136, and that the question requires more study, idem, К istorii (note 19), p. 187.
101. Unedited. The earliest codex is the 1220 East Slav SHM Synodal 7.
102. See Anonymous, Svedenija (note 1), p. 359. Cf. nn. 83, 105, 111.
103. Sobolevskij, Materialy (see note 3), p. 177, states that in all probability it was translated there, but gives no reasons for this. Alkeseev, К istorii (note 19), p. 187, records Soboievskij’s opinion, but states that the question requires more study.
104. Ed. Anonymous (= M. Bogoljubskij): Tolkovanie na Apokalipsis Andreja, archiepiskopa kesarijskogo, v slavjanskom perevode po drevnim spiskam, s prisovokupleniem russkogo perevoda s grečeskogo teksta. Moskva 1889, pp. 2-306. Earliest codex: 13th c. East Slav SAS Nikol’skij 1.
105. Thus Anonymous, Svedenija (see note 1), p. 259. Cf. nn. 83,102, 111.
106. The vexed question whether it is Moravian in origin cannot be examined here.
314
C. Theology
10. Pseudo-Basil of Caesarea, Commentarius in ordinem sacerdotalem [107]
No evidence whatsoever has been adduced to substantiate the claim that this translation [108] was made in Kievan Russia [109].
11. Ephraem the Syrian, Paraeneses
The claim that this translation [110] was made in Kievan Russia [111] was based solely on the fact that the earliest known codex at the time was East Slav [112]. The translation was in fact made in Bulgaria in the late ninth or early tenth century.
12. Pseudo-Gennadius of Constantinople, Centuria [113]
The opinion that this work [114] is an East Slav
107. The Greek original remains untraced, but it is clearly related to the various forms of Germanus of Constantinople’s Historia ecclesiastica et mystica contemplatio, one of which is ascribed to Basil, see F. Thomson: Constantine of Preslav and the Old Bulgarian Translation of the ’Historia ecclesiastica et mystica contemplatio’ Attributed to Patriarch Germanus I of Constantinople. Palaeobulgarica 10, I (1986), pp. 41-48, pp. 42-45.
108. Ed. V. Beneševič: Drevne-slavjanskaja kormčaja XIV titulov bez tolkovanij. I-II. St. Petersburg 1906 - Sofija 1987, II, pp. 128-129. Earliest codex: East Slav SHM Synodal 132 of c. 1280.
109. Thus Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (see note 2), p. 59, and idem, Materialy (see note 3), pp. 176-177. Durnovo, Vvedenie (see note 8), p. Ц1, notes the claim but does not include the translation in his list.
110. So far the first four volumes of the first critical edition have appeared: G. Bojkovsky and R. Aitzetmüller: Paraenesis. Die alt bulgarische Übersetzung von Werken Ephraims des Syrers. Freiburg im Br. 1984-1988. (= Monumenta linguae slavicae dialecti veteris. Fontes et dissertationes 20, 22, 24, 26). The earliest witness is the eight 11th-c. Bulgarian Fragmenta Macedonica, two in SAS 24.4.15, six in Rila Monastery.
111. Thus Anonymous, Svedenija (see note 1), p. 359. Cf. nn. 102, 105.
112. Viz. SPL Pogodin 71a. Because of the confusing colophon, it is disputed whether the codex is of the 13th century or a 15th c. copy of a 13th c. exemplar. If the former, then it is the earliest complete codex.
113. As yet no Greek text has been traced. The ascription to Gennadius is not found prior to the 14th century and is clearly false as far as Gennadius I of Constantinople (458-471) is concerned. G. Birkfellner: Glagolitische und kyrillische Handschriften in Österreich. Wien 1975 (= Schriften der Balkankommission, Linguistische Abteilung 23), p. 134, anachronistically considered the author Gennadius II (1453-1456). Some South Slav codices give the author as Nilus, e. g. 15th-century Serbian codex NLB 1047. It is not in fact certain whether it is a translation, see below note 117.
114. The earliest codex is the 1076 florilegium SPL Hermitage 20, ed. Kotkov, Izbornik (see note 24), pp. 206-273. However, a better text is found in the 14th c. East Slav codex LSL Trinity Sergius 11, ed. A. Ponomarev: Pamjatniki drevnerusskoj cerkovno-učitel’noj literatury, III. St. Petersburg 1897, pp. 1-16. So far no study has been made of the bewildering number of redactions.
315
translation [115] has not been backed up by any evidence. The East Slavisms are not found in South Slav codices [116] and it is not even certain that it is a translation [117].
13. Michael Syncellus, Libellus de fide orthodoxa
The claim that the Arian version of the Libellus included in the Primary Chronicle’s account of Vladimir’s conversion sub 988 [118] was specifically translated for Vladimir [119] ignores the fact that the chronicle only quotes, albeit in extenso, one [120] the three early translations of the Libellus [121] and repetitions of the claim of an East Slav origin [122] have singularly lacked any supporting evidence.
115. Thus P. Vladimirov: Drevnjaja russkaja literatura Kievskogo perioda XI-XIII vekov. Kiev 1900, p. 27.
116. The earliest are of the 15th century, e. g. Bulgarian codex NLS 439/320. Indeed, even the 14th с. E. Slav codex Trinity Sergius 11 does not have some of the deliberate E. Slav alterations found in the 1076 florilegium, e. g. цр҃ѧ, ed. Ponomarev, Pamjatniki (see note 114) III, p. 4, but кнѧзѧ, ed. Kotkov, Izbornik (see note 24), p. 242.
117. It has been considered both an original Bulgarian composition, thus, e. g. Ju. Begunov: Oratorskaja proza Kieyskoj Rusi v tipologičeskom spostavlenii s oratorskoj prozoj Bolgarii. Slavjanskie literatury. IX Meždunarodnyj s"ezd slavistov. Kiev, sentjabr' 1983 g. Doklady sovetskoj delegacii, ed. G. Stepanov et al, Moskva 1983, pp. 38-51, p. 40, and an original East Slav one, thus, e. g. Gudzij, Literatura (see note 21), p. 44. The theory, however, that the author was Hilarion of Kiev, thus N. Popov: Les auteurs de l'Izbornik de Svjatoslav de 1076. Revue des Études Slaves 15 (1935), pp. 210-223, pp. 213-219, is untenable and was based on hypotheses about Hilarion’s life after retiring as metropolitan.
118. PSRL 1, i, coll. 112-113; 2, coll. 97-09.
119. E. g. Anonymous, Svedenija (see note 1), p. 354; Makarij (Bulgakov), Istorija (note 49) I (1889), p. 115-116.
120. Ed. N. Nikol’skij: Materialy dlja istorii drevnerusskoj duchovnoj piśmennosti. SORJa 82, iv (1907), pp. i-vi, 1-168, pp. 21-24. Earliest codex: 12-13th c. East Slav LSL Trinity Sergius 12.
121. For the other two (Orthodox) translations see Thomson, Implications (note 48), p. 64, n. 14.
122. E. g. Istrin, Knigy (see note 6) II, p. 308 and idem, Ocerk (see note 16), p. 4; Uspenskij, Istorija (see note 13), p. 30.
316
14. Nicetas of Heracleia, Scholia in orationes Gregorii Nazianzeni [123]
In some codices [124], in the Scholium in orationem XLV where Nicetas deals with the threefold structure of human nature, there is the gloss: Внимаи, христолюбче кнѧзе. It is true that in his Epistola ad Vladimirum Monomachum, magnum ducem, de ieiunio Metropolitan Nicephorus I of Kiev (1104-1121) deals with this threefold structure [125], but even if the gloss does refer to this, it is not evidence that the scholia were translated then [126], only that the translation was available then. The earliest East Slav codices contain, unsurprisingly enough, some East Slavisms, which is no evidence in favour of an East Slav origin [127], especially since South Slav codices [128] reveal no traces of East Slavisms [129].
15. Peter of Antioch, Epistola ad Dominicum Gradensem
A translation of the second half of the epistle [130], so far only traced in East Slav codices, contains a very few East Slavisms [131], which proves nothing, and there is
123. Unedited. The earliest codices are of the 14th century, e. e. East Slav SHM Monastery of the Miracle 11, which has the earliest form, viz. the scholia grouped together after the orationes.
124. E. g. 14th c. East Slav SHM Synodal 954, see A. Gorskij and K. Nevostruev: Opisanie slavjanskich rukopisej Moskovskoj Sinodal’noj biblioteki. II, ii, Moskva 1S59, p. 86.
125. Ed. Russkie dostopamjatnosti I, Moskva 1815, pp. 61-75, p. 66.
126. As claimed by N. Nikol’skij: O literaturnych trudach mitropolita Klimenta Smoljatiča, pisatelja XII v., St. Petersburg 1892, p. 57, n. 1.
127. Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (see note 2), p. 60, considered that it was a South Slav translation which had been revised in Kievan Russia, but in Materialy (see note 3), pp. 169-170, without giving any reason for altering his opinion, he lists it as an East Slav translation. This latter opinion has been repeated by others, e. g. Durnovo, Vvedenie (see note 8), p. 107; Speranskij, Iz istorii (see note 13), p. 60; Alekseev, К istorii (see note 19), p. 171.
128. Earliest: 14-5th c. Serbian BAS 69.
129. See D. Trifunović: Slovenski prevod slova Grigorija Bogoslova sa tumačenjima. Prilozi za književnost, jezik, istoriju i folklor 35 (1969), pp. 81-91, p. 85.
130. Viz. the section on azymes, ed. A. Popov: Istoriko-literaturnyj obzor drevnerusskich polemičeskich sočinenij protiv Latinjan (XI-XV v.). Moskva 1875, pp. 165-173. Earliest codex: 14-5th c. East Slav SPL О.p.1.7 (Tolstoj III.65). There is also a 14th-century Serbian translation of the entire epistle.
131. See A. Pavlov: Kritičeskie opyty po istorii drevnejšei greko-russkoj polemiki protiv Latinjan. St. Petersburg 1878, p. 71, n. 11; Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (see note 2), p. 59, lists three, which in idem, Materialy (see note 3), p. 173, he reduces to two. It is hardly surprising that Durnovo, Vvedenie (see note 8), p. 111, notes the claim but does not include the work in his list of E. Slav translations.
317
no reason to date the translation prior to the 14th century.
16. Theodore Studites, Magna catechesis [132]
The presence of a few East Slavisms in such a long translation [133] is hardly conclusive evidence, while the fact that only East Slav codices have been traced is not an argument in favour of an East Slav provenance [134]. The suggestion that the translation was made for Theodosius of the Caves Monastery in the eleventh century when he introduced the Studite rule [135] is pure speculation and there is no evidence that the translation was available in Russia before the 14th century.
17. Theodore Studites, Parva catechesis
The claim that this translation [136], if not already in existence, must have been made in the eleventh century when Theodosius introduced the Studite rule [137], is pure hypothesis. Even more extraordinary is the suggestion that because in two later East Slav codices [138] a cycle of homilies for the days of the week ascribed to Gregory the Philosopher, a Bulgarian cleric who accompanied Metropolitan George from Constantinople to Kiev in 1062 [139], is found sandwiched between a selection of thirty-one homilies from the Magna catechesis and a selection of fifteen from the Parva catechesis, these latter being in a different translation to that of the full translation, Gregory himself participated in the translation of both the Studite rule
132 Only bk. ii was translated, ed. VČM, Nojabr' dni 1-12, ed V. Vasil'evskij, St. Petersburg 1897, coll. 482-800. Earliest codex: 14-5th c. East Slav LSL Moscow Theological Academy 52.
133. Vladimirov, Literatura (see note 115), p. 27, listed ten. Sobolevskij, Materialy (see note 3), p. 172, n. 3, states that he bases the inclusion of the translation m his list on P. V. Vladimirov's opinion, but, ibid., p. 172, reduces the number to seven.
134. As D. Iščenko: Poučenija Feodora Studita v rukopisi Ryl’skogo monastyrja. Sovetskoe slavjanovedenie 4 (1979), pp. 96-98, p. 98, attempts to argue.
135. Thus Vladimirov, Literatura (see note 115), pp. 26-27; Sobolevskij, Materialy (see note 3), p. 172, n. 3; Durnovo, Vvedenie [see note 8), p. 105, et al. On the translation of the Studite rule see below. On the theory that Gregory the Philosopher participated in the translation see below under Theodore's Parva catechesis.
136. Unedited. Earliest codex: mid-13th c. Serbian Hilandar 387.
137. Thus E. Golubinskij: Istorija russkoj cerkvi. I. i, Moskva 1901 (= ČIOI 198), pp. 921-922; see also Anonymous, Svedenija (note 1), p. 367.
138. Viz. 15-6th c. SPL Solovki 269/1134 and 16th c. SHM Uvarov 423.
139. On Gregory see above note 51.
318
and the two catecheses [140]. In fact the language of the translation of the Parva catechesis reveals that it is a thirteenth-century South Slav translation and there is no evidence that it was known to the East Slavs before the fifteenth century.
D. Liturgy
18. Synaxarium
A. The development of the first translation of the synaxarium would appear to have taken place in the following stages:
i. the translation of the Menologium Basilii;
ii. the addition of a few East Slav vitae;
iii. the addition of an appendix containing short homilies to be read on the feast -days;
iv. the integration of the homilies into the collection of vitae under the appropriate days [141].
No codex containing solely the original translation has been traced, although the earliest codex, Sophia 1324 [142] of the 12-13th century, contains the collection of vitae with no Slav vitae added, to which the collection of short homilies has been appended. Since the latter is by different hands, it may well be that this codex preserves the original translation [143]. The second stage would logically have been made by East Slavs, but no East Slav codex has been traced, only South Slav ones [144].
140. Thus D. Iščenko: О „Slovach“ kievskogo pisatelja XI veka Grigorija Filosofa. Istorija russkogo literaturnogo jazyka staršej рогу: osnovnye problemy i perspektivy issledovanija, ed. V. Vomperskij, Moskva 1989, pp. 40-42, p. 41.
141. E. Petuchov: Materialy i zametki po istorii drevnej russkoj piśmennosti. I. К istorii drevne-russkogo prologa. Izvestija Istoriko-filologičeskogo instituta knjazja Bezborodko v Nežine, 12 (1893), p. 1-32, p. 11, states that it is more natural to suppose that the homilies were first included under the appropriate day and only subsequently collected together in a separate appendix. Wny this should be more natural he does not specify.
142. On Gregory see above note 51.
143. Thus E. Fet: O Sofijskom prologe konca XII — načala XIII veka. Istočnikovedenie i archeografija Sibiri. Novosibirsk 1977, pp. 79-92, pp. 86-90.
144. E. g. late 13th c. Serbian JAS III.c.6; late 13th c. Bulgarian BAS 72; 13-14th c. Serbian codex LSL Rumjancev 319; 1339 Bulgarian SPL Pogodin 58. For a brief survey of E. Slav commemorations in S. Slav codices of the 13—14th centuries see Angelov, Iz istorijata (note 14), pp. 47-57.
319
The third [145] and fourth [146] stages are definitely East Slav since South Slav codices do not contain these homilies.
It has often been claimed that the original translation was made in Kievan Russia in the 12th century since the South Slav codices contain not only East Slav vitae but also East Slavisms in the translated vitae [147]. Alternatively it has been claimed that since the East Slavisms are only in some of the translated vitae, the translation was made by a team of South and East Slav translators, perhaps on Athos but — in view of the comparative absence of Athonite feasts and presence of Constantinopoiitan ones — more probably in Constantinople in the 12th century [148]. Logically, of course, it could be argued that such a mixed linguistic basis indicates a combination of two separate translations [149]. The plain fact is that all these theories about the provenance of the original translation remain speculative since no study has ever been made of the alleged East Slavisms in the South Slav codices. There are no critical editions of even the most essential codices, e. g. Sophia
145. Earliest codex: 13-4th c. E. Slav CSA Synodal Typography 171. Sophia 1324 does not belong to this group as it contains no E. Slav vitae.
146. Earliest codex: 13th c. E. Slav SHM Chludov 187.
147. E. g.
Sergij (Spasskij): Polnyj mesjaceslov Vostoka. I-II. Moskva 1875-1876, I, pp. 252-253, 261;
V. Mošin: Slavenska redakcija prologa Konstantina Mokisijskog u svjetlosti vizantijsko-slavenskih odnosa XII-XIII vijeka. Zbornik Historijskog Instituta Jugoslavenske Akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 2 (1957), pp. 17-69, pp. 22, 38, 46;
Sobolevskij, Materialy (see note 3), p. 176.
The presence of an East Slavism in a translated vita in an early South Slav codex was first pointed out by A. Vostokov: Opisanie russkich i slovenskich rukopisej Rumjancovskogo Muzeuma. St. Petersburg 1842, p. 454, with regard to Rumjancev 319 (see note 144). With regard to Pogodin 58 (see note 144) see P. Syrku: К istorii ispravlenija knig v Bolgarii v XIV veke. I, i, St. Petersburg 1898, p. 459.
148. Thus M. Speranskij: Istorija drevnej russkoj literatury. Moskva 1914, pp. 208-212, although he admitted that we are guessing, ibid., p. 210. In repeating the theory in Iz istorii (see note 13), pp. 40-42, he used the more respectable word hypothesis, ibid., p. 40. Several scholars have reported his theory without actually espousing it, e. g. M. Tichomirov: Istoričeskie svjazi Rossii so slavjanskimi stranami i Vizantiej. Moskva 1969, p. 132; Durnovo, Vvedenie (see note 8), p. 106. E. Fet: Prolog. Slovar' knižnikov i knižnosti Drevnej Rusi I, ed. D. Lichačev, Leningrad 1987, pp. 376-378, p. 377, favours a Kievan origin, but adds that even if it was translated m Constantinople, it was intended precisely for the needs of the Russian church.
149. The most detailed analysis of the translated sources of the synaxarium, viz. N. Petrov: O proizchoždenii i sostave Slavjano-russkogo pečatnogo Prologa. (Inozemnye istočniki). Trudy Kievskoj Duchovnoj akademii 2 (1875), pp. 39-92, 300-359, 588-657; 3 (1875), pp. 3-41, 230-289, 325-372, unfortunately does not deal with the question of the origin of the translations which it contains.
320
1324 [150], and the lack of detailed textological and codicological studies means that there is no agreement even about, the basic relations between the redactions [151].
B. The introduction of the Jerusalem typicon with the concomitant alterations in liturgical practices led to the translation of a new version of the synaxarium arranged according to the new rules and prefacing each vita with a versicle [152]. The claim that because the translation is bad it was probably made in Russia not earlier than the second half of the 13th century [153] flies in the face of the linguistic evidence and it was undoubtedly translated in the 14th century by a South Slav [154].
19. Hilandar typicon
The typicon drawn up on Athos in 1199 for Hilandar is basically a translation of the typicon of the Constantinopolitan Euergetis monastery [155]. The language contains a few East Slavisms and it has been considered that the Euergetis typicon
150. There is only a partial edition (the months September to April) of Pogodin 58 (see note 144) by D. Abramovič, P. Šeffer and V. Majkov: Prolog po rukopisi Publičnoj biblioteki Pogodinskogo drevlechranilišča No. 58. I-II. St. Petersburg 1916-1917 (= IIOL 135-136). The printed editions of the synaxarium, the first of which appeared in 1641-1643, are of no help since they conflate the contents of the various translations and redactions of the work.
151. The development of the synaxarium outlined above is that of the first redaction. A second redaction was made in which the vitae were revised, some new vitae added, others omitted, while short homilies were inserted for the feast-days. Earliest codex: 13-4th c. CSA Synodal Typography 164. This has always been considered later than the first redaction, but recently it has been argued that it antedates stage three of the development of the first redaction and that the homilies appended to the third stage had been excerpted from the second redaction, which is of the late twelfth century and was compiled in Turov on the initiative of Cyril of Turov (retired or died before 1182^), see Fet, Prolog (note 148), pp. 377-378. Much of this is purely speculative and cannot be examined here.
152. Earliest codex: Serbian SHM Chludov 186 of the 1370’s. The earliest East Slav codices are of the late 14th century, e. g. SHM Monastery of the Miracle 17. There is no critical edition of the new translation.
153. Thus N. Durnovo: Legenda о zaključennom bese v vizantijskoj i starinnoj russkoj literature. Drevnosti. Trudy Slavjanskoj kommissii Imperatorskogo Moskovskogo archeologičeskogo obščestva 4, i (1907), pp. 54-152, p. 86.
154. The codicological evidence would point to Serbia, see Mošin, Redakcija (note 147), pp. 23-24; A. Turilov: Bolgarskie i serbskie istočniki po srednevekovoj istorii Balkan v russkoj knižnosti konca XIV — pervoj četverti XVI vv., Moskva 1980, p. 8.
155. Ed. V. Čorović: Spisi svetoga Save. Beograd 1928 (= Z1JK 17), pp. 14-150. Earliest codex: 13th c. Serbian Hilandar PS 156;
321
was translated by an East Slav monk for Sabas of Serbia, who adapted it for Hilandar [156]. However, the translation contains many South Slavisms [157] and the few East Slavisms can well be explained by Sabas’ close links with the Russian monastery of Pantaleon, where he was tonsured, and the general symbiosis of South and East Slav monks on Athos.
20. Studite typicon
There are two conflicting accounts of how Theodosius of the Caves Monastery at Kiev obtained this typicon. According to Nestor’s Vita S. P. N. Theodosii abbatis Cryptensis Theodosius despatched a monk to Ephraem, a monk of the Caves Monastery then residing in Constantinople, with a request for a copy of the rule. Ephraem duly copied it and sent it to Kiev [158]. However, according to the account in the Primary Chronicle sub 1051, Theodosius obtained the rule from Michael, a Studite monk who had accompanied Metropolitan George (c. 1065 — c. 1076) to Kiev [159]. Neither account specifies who translated it, or where, and all
156. See Sobolevskij, Materialy (note 3), pp. 184-185; Speranskij, Iz istorii (note 13), pp. 35-36. The meaning of the claim that the typicon is based on a Russian original, thus A. Rogov: Kul’turnye svjazi Kievskoj Rusi s balkanskimi stranami. Slavjanskie kul'tury i Balkany I, ed. N. Todorov et a1., Sofija 1978, pp. 42-49, p. 47, is obscure but is probably to be interpreted in thes sense. It is listed as an E. Slav translation by Durnovo, Vvedenie (see note 8), pp. 110-111.
157. V. Jagić: Tipik Hilandarski i njegov grčki izvor. (Dodatak к izdanju episkopa Dimitrija). Spomenik Srpske Kraljevske Akademije 34 (1898), pp. 1-66, pp. 59-60, noted some Bulgarisms and considered, ibid., pp. 62, 65, that the original translator had been a Bulgarian, whose work had later been revised by Sabas. This cannot be examined here.
158. Ed. D. Abramovyc: Kyjevo-Pečers’kyj pateryk. Kiev 1931 (= Pamjatky movy ta pyśmenstva davn'oji Ukrajiny 4), pp. 20-78, p. 39. Ephraem had become a monk at the Caves Monastery in St. Anthony’s time, see ibid., p. 33, and later left to reside at Constantinople until he was recalled to become bishop of Perejaslavl, see ibid., p. 36. When this was is uncertain, but he is mentioned in the Primary Chronicle as a hierarch sub 1089 and 1091, see PSRL I, i. coll. 108, 211.
159. PSRL I, i, col. 160. The Patericon cryptense contains both of the conflicting accounts since it includes both Theodosius’ vita, see note 159, and an account based on the chronicle, ed. Abramovyč, Pateryk (note 158), pp. 19-20. Many scholars, most recently M. Heppell: The Paterik of the Kievan Caves Monastery. Cambridge, Mass. 1989 (= Harvard Library of Early Ukrainian Literature. English Translations I), p. 44, n. 152, attempt to reconcile the conflicting accounts by positing that Theodosius only obtained preliminary information from Michael but a copy from Ephraem, an ingenious solution which does violence to both sources. Equally speculative is the suggestion by others, e. g. Makarij (Bulgakov): Istorija russkoj cerkvi. II, St. Petersburg 1889s, p. 56, that the monk had already been despatched to Constantinople when Michael arrived in Kiev.
322
that can be said is that its introduction into Kievan Russia was associated with Theodosius [160].
A comparison of the earliest codex containing only the liturgical rules [161] with the earliest codex with both the liturgical and monastic rules [162] reveals that whereas both contain the the Alexian redaction of the Studite typicon, the former codex contains a text influenced by the typicon of St. Sophia [163]. In view of the lack of any editions, let alone critical ones, it remains impossible to say whether there was one translation which was later revised, or two translations, and the presence of a few East Slavisms in the latter codex is no justification for the claim that the (a?) translation was made in Kievan Russia [164].
21. Nicon of the Black Mount, Pandectes de interpretationibus mandatorum divinorum [165]
Formerly traced only to East Slav codices [166], its Kievan provenance was postulated on the basis of East Slavisms [167], although the undoubted South Slavisms gave rise to the idea that it may have been translated by a team of South and East Slavs [168]. In fact the absence of the East Slavisms in the earliest South Slav
160. For the theory that Gregory the Philosopher was associated with the translation, see above under Theodore Studites’ Parva catechesis.
161. Viz. 11-2th c. E. Slav TG К 5349 (formerly Synodal Typography 142).
162. Viz. 12th с. E. Slav SHM Synodal 330.
163. See Sergij (Spasskij), Mesjaceslov (note 147), I, app. vii, pp. 35-52.
164. Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (see note 2), p. 56, and idem, Materialy (note 3), p. 168; Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 105; Angelov, Iz istorijata (note 14), p. 66. Vladimirov, Literatura (note 115), p. 26 puns: Feodosij Pečerskij vvel ill perevel Ustav.
165. This vast collection of excerpts from patristic, hagiographic and canonical works was intended as a guide to the liturgical and canonical rules governing the monastic life. It could equally well be listed in the sections on canon law or theology.
166. Earliest E. Slav codex: 13th c. SHM Synodal 836. There is no edition.
167. Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (see note 2), p, 56, and idem, Materialy (note 3), p. 167; Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 107; Angelov, Iz istorijata (note 14), p. 66.
168. Thus I. Sreznevskii: Svedenija i zametki о maloizvestnych i neizvestnych pamjatnikach, lv: Pandektv Nikona Cernogorca. SORJa 12, i (1874), pp. 217-296, p. 293, and idem, Pandekty Nikona Cernogorca po drevnemu perevodu. SORJa 10 (1873), pp. ix-xiii, p. xiii. This has been accepted by some scholars, e. g. V. Jagić: Opisi i izvodi iz nekoliko južnoslovinskih rukopisa. Starine 9 (1877), pp. 97-171, p. 95, and K. Ivanova-Konstantinova: Ob odnoj rukopisi XIV veka Pogodinskogo sobranija. TODRL, 25 (1970), pp. 294-308, p. 303.
323
codex [169] belies the theory of Kievan provenance [170].
E. Law
a. Canon Law
22. Nomocanon XIV titulorum
The claim that this translation [171] was made in Kievan Russia during Yaroslav’s reign (1019-1054) [172] was based upon the fact that the Primary Chronicle sub 1037 states that Yaroslav loved цр҃квнъıı-a оуставъı [173] while the long redaction of Yaroslav’s Constitute ecclesiastica as found in the Chronicle of Pereyaslavl in Suzdalia states that the list of causes for divorce had been taken from Yaroslav's nomocanon [174]. Not merely is this claim contradicted by the linguistic evidence, which shows that it was translated in Bulgaria in the 9-10th century [175], but it is itself incorrect: the term ecclesiastical rules in the 1037 entry means the ordering of church services, not the nomocanon [176], while the redaction of the Constitutio in the Pereyaslavl Chronicle only dates from the 14-5th century [177].
169. Viz. 13th c. Serbian Hilandar 175, e.g. instead of pѣзана it has мѣдница.
170. See R. Pavlova: Pandekty Nikona Černogorca v slavjanskoj piśmennosti. Slavjanskaja filologija 19 (1988), pp. 99-116, pp. 104-105, 108, and eadem, Voprosy (see note 10), pp. 94-96.
171. Ed. Beneševič: Kormčaja. (note 108) I. pp. 1-837; II, p. 17-246. Earliest codex: 12th c. East Slav SHM Synodal 227.
172. The claim was advanced by A. Pavlov: Pervonačal’nyj slavjano-russkij nomokanon. Izvestija i učenye zapisii Imperatorskogo Kazanskogo universiteta 5, iv (1869), app, pp. 1-100, pp. 55-58, although he did admit that we are taking the risk of making a guess, ibid., p. 56. Those who repeat the claim omit the fact that it was posited as a guess, e. g. Durnovo, Vvedenie (see note 8), p. 110; Speranskij, Iz istorii (note 13), p. 29.
173. PSRL I, i, col. 151.
174. Ed. Ja. Ščapov: Drevnerusskie knjažeskie ustavy XI-XV vekov. Moskva 1976, pp. 103-107, p. 106.
175. The various attempts to establish a more precise dating by V. Zlatarski (864-866), S. Troickij (prior to 893) and V. Mošin (prior to 920) cannot be examined here.
176. Compare the statement in the entry sub 955 that after baptizing Olga, the patriarch of Constantinople instructed her ѡ цр҃квимь оуставѣ, ѡ мл҃твѣ и ѡ постѣ, PSRL 1, i, col. 61.
177. See Ja. Ščapov: Knjažeskie ustavy i cerkov’ v drevnej Rusi XI-XIV vekov. Moskva 1972, pp. 208-211.
324
23. Nomocanon serbicus
There can be few works the origins of which are so disputed. No similar Greek collection has been traced [178] and it remains uncertain whether it is a translation of an untraced Greek collection or whether the selection of texts was made at the time of translation, and if the latter is the case, were the texts selected all in Greek or were some already in Slavonic translation? [179] In the colophon the compilation is ascribed to the zeal, love and desire of Archbishop Sabas of Serbia (1219-1235) [180], but again it is uncertain whether this means by or only for him, or with his assistance. The earliest codex of 1262 [181] contains East Slavisms [182], which has led to the conflicting theories that either East Slavs assisted in the translation [183], or that it is an East Slav translation which Sabas merely (had) copied [184]. In fact the first 53 folia of the 1262 codex, which contain most of the East Slavisms, were copied by an East Slav scribe, while the rest of the codex was copied by a Serb from an East Slav codex [185]. The other codices of the nomocanon do not in fact contain the majority of the East Slavisms [186] of the 1262 codex and the presence of a few East Slavisms
178. It corresponds to the Nomocanon XIV titulorum but with the canons in the short form as in the Synopsis canonum accompanied by Alexius Aristenus’ Commentarius in canones.
179. These questions cannot be examined here. Compare the opposing views of Pavlov, Nomokanon (note 172), pp. 72-64 (Greek texts were used) and A. Solovjev: Svetosavski nomokanon i njegovi novi prepisi. Brastvo 26 (1932), pp. 21-43 (Slavonic translations were used).
180. The nomocanon has not been edited, although the colophon has often been published, e. g. Lj. Stojanović: Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi, I. Beograd 1902 (= ZIJK I), no. 38, pp. 17-18 and no. 1029, pp. 285-286. In the 1262 codex the ending of the colophon has been altered, ed. ibid., no 19, pp. 7-8.
181. Viz. JAS III.c.9.
182. On them see Reinhart, Vlijanie (note 46), pp. 7-58. The list in Sobolevskij, Materialy (note 3), p. 189, is unreliable as he included words from the 1284 East Slav codex SPL F.p.II.l, which are not in the S. Slav codices.
183. Thus, e. g. D. Bogdanović: Krmčija svetoga Save. Međunarodni naučni skup Sava Nemanjić — Sveti Sava. Istorija i predanje. Decembar 1976, ed. V. Đuric, Beograd 1979 (= Naučni skupovi Srpske Akademije nauka i umetnosti 7), pp. 91-99, pp. 94-95; see also A. Belić: Učešće sv. Save i njegove škole u stvaranju nove redakcije srpskih ćirilskih spomenika. Posebna izdanja Srpske Kraljevske Akademije nauka 114 (1936), pp. 213-276, pp. 251 -264.
184. Thus, e. g. Sobolevskij, Materialy (see note 3), p. 180; Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 110; Speranskij, Iz lstorii (note 13), p. 33.
185. See L. Cernić: Neka zapažanja о pisarima Ilovicke krmčije. Arheograiski prilozi 3 (1981), pp. 49-64, pp. 50-51.
186. See Reinhart, Vlijanie (note 46), pp. 16, 57-58.
325
in the original translation can adequately be explained, as in the case of the Hilandar nomocanon, by the symbiosis of East and South Slav monks on Athos, so that there is no need to posit an East Slav origin [187].
b. Civil Law
24. Libri legales, quibus omnes orthodoxos principes decet omnia constituere
Once again the origins of this work are much disputed. No similar Greek collection has been traced [188] and it remains uncertain whether it is a translation of an untraced Greek collection or a Slav compilation [189]. The language does not antedate the 12th century [190] and contains both South and East Slavisms [191]. It has been suggested that it was translated in Kievan Russia [192] and later revised there in the 14th century by a Serb [193], or alternatively revised in the south and in this form it
187. The question whether the original translation was made by a Serb (thus most scholars) or a Bulgarian (thus I. Snegarov, B. Angelov) cannot be examined here.
188. In spite of its grandiose title this collection consists merely of the last part of the Preface to the Ecloga, the Lex rustica, excerpts from the Procheiron (viz. (in this order) titles xxix-xl; xxvi, 2; xi; iv, 26-27; vii, 1; xxvii) and an abridgment of c. xiv of the Ecloga. Ed. I. Medvedev: Vizantijskij zemledel’českij zakon. Leningrad 1984, pp. 233-256. The earliest codices are only of the 15th century, e. g. E. Slav SHM Uvarov 264.
189. The idea that it was compiled from extant Slavonic translations, thus V. Kačanovskij: Slavjanskaja „Kormcaja“. IORJa 2, iv (1897), pp. 1068-1108, p. 1075, and the idea that there is a link between it and the Serbian nomocanon, thus Sobolevskij, Materialy (see note 3), pp. 181-182 and V. Mošin: Pravni spisi svetoga Save. In Đurić, Skup (see note 183), pp. 101-108, pp. 106-107, are incorrect: the Procheiron texts in the two are in different translations, see Reinhart, Vlijanie (note 46), pp. 4-5.
190. Earlier datings to the 10th century by F. Zigel’: Obščestvennoe značenie dejatel’nosti sv. Kirilla i Mefodija. Mefodievskij jubilejnyj sbornik, ed. A. Budilovič, Warsaw 1885, pp. 1-42, pp. 16-18 and V. Zlatarski: Kakvi kanoničeski knigi i graždanski zakoni Boris e polučil ot Vizantija. Letopis na Bălgarskata akademija na naukite 1 (1912), pp. 79-116, pp. 114-115, are based on theoretical arguments contradicted by the linguistic evidence.
191. For the E. Slavisms see M. Benemanskij: Zakon gradskij. Značenie ego v russkom prave. Priloženija. Zapiski Moskovskogo Archeologičeskogo instituta 20 (1917), pp. i-viii, 1-478, pp. 40-43; A. Pavlov: „Knigi zakonnyja“ soderzaščie v sebe, v drevne-russkom perevode, vizantijskie zakony zemledel’českie, ugolovnye, bračnye i sudebnye. SORJa 38, iii (1885), pp. 1-92, pp. 17-18.
192. Pavlov, Knigi (see note 191), p. 17; Benemanskij, Zakon (note 191), p. 56; Kačanovskij, Kormčaja (note 189), p. 1075-1077; V. Kuz’mina: Devgenievo dejanie. (Deianie prežnich vremen chrabrych čelovek). Moskva 1962, p. 75; Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 110.
193. It has even been suggested that the reviser was none other than Metropolitan Cyprian of Kiev (1381-1382, 1390-1406), thus Benemanskij, Zakon (see note 191), pp. 82-93, and E. Piotrovskaja in Medvedev, Zakon (see note 188), pp. 227-229. This is yet another example of monoprosopomania.
326
then returned to the north [194]. A more logical view it that it was translated by a South Slav and later revised in Russia in the 14th century [195].
F. Hagiography
25. Athanasius of Alexandria, Vita et conversatio S. P. N. Antonii
The suggestion that this translation [196] was perhaps translated in Kievan Russia is merely based on the fact that it is quoted in Nestor’s Vita S. P. N. Theodosii abbatis Cryptensis [197] and conflicts not merely with the linguistic evidence, but also with the fact that the colophon states that it was made at the behest of Archbishop John of Bulgaria [198].
26. Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita S. P. N. Sabae
The reason for the claim that this translation [199] was perhaps made in Kievan Russia is the same as in the case of the previous entry [200] and is equally groundless, the language being quite clearly Bulgarian [201].
194. Pavlov, Knigi (see note 191), p. 19, although he also admits the possibility that it may have been revised in Russia by a Serb.
195. Thus V. Jagić, Review of Pavlov, Knigi (see note 191), Archiv für slavische Philologie 9 (1886), pp, 151-154, pp. 152-153; A. Sobolevskij, Review of Pavlov, Knigi, Žurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveščenija 243 (1886), pp. 352-358, pp. 355-356, and idem, Materialy (see note 3), p. 182.
196. Unedited in full; excerpts ed. B. Angelov: Iz starata bălgarska, ruska i srăbska literatura II. Sofija 1967, pp. 116-126. Earliest codex: 14th c. Serbian SHM Chludov 195.
197. Thus Istrin, Knigy (see note 6), II, p. 282. On the quotations in the vita see Thomson, Implications (note 48), p, 67.
198. The colophon has been edited from six codices by Angelov, Literatura (see note 196), II, pp. 112-116. The disputed identity of this John cannot be examined here.
199. Ed. I. Pomjalovskij: Žitie svjatogo Savy Osvjaščennogo, sostavlennoe svjatym Kirillom Skifopol'skim v drevne-russkom perevode. St. Petersburg 1890 (= IIOL 96), pp. 3-533. Earliest codex: 13th с. E. Slav SPL Society of Admirers of Early Literature 2004 (Q 106). There is also a 12th с. E. Slav fragment of one folio, Matenadaran 1351.
200. See note 197. On the quotations see Thomson, ibidem.
201. See V. Vinogradov: Zametki о leksike „Žitija Savvy Osvjaščennogo“. SORJa 101, iii (1928), pp. 349-353, and idem: Ortografija i jazyk žitija Savvy Osvjaščennogo po rukopisi XIII veka. Pamjatniki drevnerusskoj piśmennosti. Jazyk i tekstologija, ed. V. Vinogradov, Moskva 1968, pp. 137-198, pp. 148-152, 194-198.
327
27. Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita S. P. N. Euthymii
The grounds for the claim that this translation [202] too was perhaps made in Kievan Russia are the same as in the case of the previous two entries [203]. The vita remains both unedited and unstudied.
28. Theodore Daphnopates, Vita et conversatio S. P. N. et confessons Theodori praepositi Studitarum
There is no doubt that the earliest codex of this translation [204] contains East Slavisms and an East Slav provenance has been claimed [205]. The language, however, has many South Slavisms and the East Slavisms can be adequately explained as later alterations [206].
29. Gregory the Monk, Vita S. Basilii iunioris ascetae Constantinopolitani
Precisely twelve East Slavisms discovered in this extraordinarily prolix vita [207], the earliest codex of which is only of the 16th century, have been deemed sufficient
202. Unedited; earliest codices are of the 14th century, e. g. E. Slav SHM Monastery of the Miracle 20.
203. See note 197. On the quotations see Thomson, ibidem.
204. Ed. Vygoleksinskij sbornik, ed. S. Kotkov, Moskva 1977, pp. 134-409. Earliest codex: late 12th c. East Slav LSL Museum 1832.
205. Sobolevskij, Materialy (see note 3). pp. 172-173; Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 105; Angelov, Iz istorijata (note 14), p. 66. The claim that the translation was actually made in the Kievan Caves Monastery, thus Vladimirov, Literatura (note 115), p. 26, is pure speculation.
206. See N. Tichomirov: Katalog russkich i slavjanskich pergamennych rukopisej XIXII vekov, chranjaščijasja v otdele rukopisej Gosudarstvennoj biblioteki SSSR imeni V. L. Lenina. Zapiski otdela rukopisej Gosudarstrennoj biblioteki SSSR imeni V. L. Lenina 27 (1965), pp. 93-148, pp. 141-142; C. Gribble: Origins of the Slavic Short Version of the „Life of Nifont“. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 17 (1974), pp. 9-19, pp. 10-11; Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (see note 2), p. pp. 59-60, also held this view and in Materialy (note 3), pp. 172-173, gives no reasons for having changed it.
207. Ed. S. Vilinskij: Žitie svjatago Vasilija Novogo v russkoj literature. I-II, Odessa 1913-1911 (sic) (= Zapiski Imperatorskogo Novorossijskogo Universiteta 6-7), II, pp. 350-623. Earliest codex: early 16th c. East Slav LSL St. Nibs’ Hermitage on Stolbensky Island 1.
328
grounds for claiming that it was translated in Kievan Russia [208]. That it was known there in the eleventh century [209] is not evidence that it was translated there, and there are no reasons for denying its South Slav provenance.
30. Nicephorus of St. Sophia, Vita S. Andreae Sali
The presence of East Slavisms in the East Slav codices of the 14-5th century on [210] is undoubted [211], but no linguistic analysis of the entire textual tradition going back to the 13th century [212] has been undertaken and any claim that it was translated in Kievan Russia [213] is premature.
31. Peter the Hieromonk, Vita S. Nephontis episcopi Constantinianae in Aegypto
The claim that this translation [214] was made in Kievan Russia [215] was based upon a confusion of an ineptly made abridgment [216] with the original translation which was made in Bulgaria in the 10th century.
208. For the East Slavisms see V. Istrin: Gde bylo perevedeno žitie Vasilija Novogo? IORJa 22, ii (1917), pp. 320-325, pp. 323-325; see also idem, Knigy (note 6), II, pp. 297, 308. The claim has been repeated by some scholars, e. g, Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), pp. 105-106; Uspenskij, Istorija (note 13), p. 30.
209. It was used by the compiler of the Primary Chronicle sub 941, see Thomson, Implications (note 48), p. 65.
210. Ed. VMČ, Oktjabr' dni 1-3, ed. S. Palauzov, St. Petersburg 1870, coll. 80-273. Earliest codex: 14-5th c. E. Slav CSA Synodal Typography 182.
211. Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (see note 2), pp. 55-56, listed 45, which in Materialy (note 3), p. 37 was reduced to 37.
212. Excerpts are found in synaxaria from then on, e. g. 13th c. E. Slav SAS 4.9.20 (Finnish fragment 21).
213. See note 211; also Istrin, Knigi (note 6), II, p. 297; Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 105; Speranskij, Iz istorii (note 13), pp. pp. 94-95; Angelov, Iz istorijata (note 14), p. 66. That it was well known in Kievan Russia in tne 12th century is clear from the introduction of the feast of the Intercession of Our Lady (Pokrov), see L. Rydén: The Vision of the Virgin at Blachernae and the Feast of the Pokrov. Analecta Bollandiana 94 (1976), pp. 63-82.
214. Ed. R. Rystenko: Materijaly z istoriji vizantijsko-slov’janskoji literatury ta movy. Odessa 1928, pp. 239-383. Earliest codex: 1219 E. Slav LSL Trinity Sergius I. 35.
215. Durnovo, Vvedenie (see note 8), p. 106.
216. Ed. Kotkov, Sbornik (see note 204), pp. 69-133. Earliest codex: see note 204. It is frequently asserted that the abridgment was made in Kievan Russia, but the correct use of the nasals in the passages not in the original translation would militate against this. The question cannot be examined here.
329
32. Vita Barlaam et Joasaph [217]
The ascription of this translation [218] to Kievan Russia on the grounds that the earliest codices as well as the much earlier textological evidence [219] are East Slav [220] is an obvious non sequitur as this only shows that it was available then, not where it was translated.
33. Vita S. Macarii Romani, qui inventus est iuxta paradisum
The claim that this translation [221] was made in Kievan Russia [222] is erroneous as the East Slavisms are found in a revised version [223] of the original South Slav translation.
217. For mediaeval man this was a vita, not a tale, and hence it is listed under hagiography. This also applies to several other of the entries listed in this section.
218. Ed. I. Lebedeva: Povest’ о Varlaame i Ioasafe. Pamjatnik drevnerusskoj perevodnoj literatury XI-XII vv., Leningrad 1985, pp. 112-267. Earliest codices (of this translation) are only of the 16th century, e. g. E. Slav LSL Bol’sakov 410.
219. There are five excerpts in the earliest synaxaria sub 19, 20, 22, 23 and 28 November, e. g. in Sophia 1324, those for 19, 20 and 28 on 13th c. folia, those for 22 and 23 on 15-6th c. folia (see note 142): on these excerpts see Lebedeva, Povest’ (note 218), pp. 72-78. That sub 23 November was quoted by Cyril of Turov (11691182), see ibid., pp. 85-87.
220. Thus Lebedeva, Povest’ (see note 218). p. 74, who, ibid., p. 87, finds it tempting to think that it was made in Jaroslav's day. She unfortunately has not made the least attempt to provide a linguistic analysis of the text. Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (see note 2), p. 59, included it in his list of Kievan translations, but dropped it from the list in Materialy. Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), does not include it, and only the Bulgarian scholar, Angelov, Iz istorijata (note 14), p. 66, kept it in his list.
221. Ed. A. Popov: Opisanie rukopisej i katalog knig cerkovnoj pečati biblioteki A. I. Chludova. Moskva 1872, pp. 396-404. Earliest codex: 14th c. Serbian SHM Chludov 195.
222. Thus Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (see note 2), p. 59, and idem, Materialy (note 3), p. 174-175; Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 110.
223. Ed. K. Tichonravov: Pamjatniki otrečennoj russkoj literatury, II. Moskva 1863, pp. 59-66. Earliest codex: 14-5th с. E. Slav SPL Dormition Monastery of St. Cyril of Beloozero 4/1081. No S. Slav codices have been traced and the revision may well be E. Slav.
330
34. Vita et miracula S. Nicolai Sionitae [224]
A cycle of in all sixteen miracles [225], the number and order of which vary in the codices, is found appended to the vita [226]. The nucleus is formed by a group of six translated from Greek, whose manuscript tradition is earlier than that of the vita [227]. Of the other ten miracles only one has been traced in Greek [228], although the theme of another is found in variant forms in Greek [229]. Of the others, two are associated with events which took place in Constantinople between 1043 and 1055 while their author was resident there [230], while one is associated with Kiev and can be dated to the period 1015-1191. [231]
The theory that the translation of the Greek texts and the composition of the Slav ones are to be ascribed to Ephraem, the monk of the Caves monastery who resided for a time at Constantinople in the eleventh century [232], is a tissue of unsubstantiated
224. VIZ. BHG 1347. The confusion of Nicholas, archimandrite of Sion and bishop of Pinara, with Nicholas of Myra is found in Greek and is not due to the Slav translator.
225. Ed. Leonid (Kavelin): Posmertnye čudesa svjatitelja Nikolaja, archiepiskopa Mir-Likijskogo Čudotvorca. Pamjatnik drevnej russkoj piśmennosti XI veka. Trud Efrema, episkopa Perejaslavskogo (po pergamennoj rukopisi ischoda XIV veka biblioteki Troice-Sergievoj Lavry, No. 9). St. Petersburg 1888 (= PDPI72), pp. 1-74. For the codices see below nn. 227-231.
226. Ed. Leonid (Kavelin): Žitie i čudesa svjatogo Nikolaja Mirlikijskogo i pochvala emu. Issledovanie dvuch pamjatnikov drevnei russkoj piśmennosti XI veka. St. Petersburg 1881 (= PDPI 34), pp. 27-93. Earliest codex: 14th с. E. Slav LSL Trinity Sergius 9.
227. Viz. (in this order) BHG 1353-4; 1355; 1356; 1352, i; 1358; 1359. Earliest codex 12th с. E. Slav SPL F.p.1.16.
228. Viz. BHG 1350; for the earliest codex see note 227.
229. Viz. Miraculum de tribus filiabus, cf. BHG 1348d; the Slavonic is closer to the form in BHG 1352z. For the earliest codex see note 226.
230. Viz. Miracula de stromate and de servo liberato; for the earliest codex see note 226. The events took place at the time of Emperor Constantine (viz. IX; 1042-1055) and Patriarch Michael (viz. I, 1043-1055). Three others are also associated with Constantinople, but are undatable, viz. Miracula de sepulchro, de tribus Christianis and de patriarcha. For the earliest codex of the first two see note 226; the earliest codices of the third are of the 15th century, e. g. E. Slav SHM Uvarov 192.
231. Viz. Miraculum de puero submerso in Borysthene. The relics of Boris and Gleb were only at Vyšgorod from 1015 to 1191. For the earliest codex see note 226. Another miracle associated with Kiev, viz. Miraculum de Cumano capto, is undatable, and the earliest codices are of the 15th century, see note 230. (The sixteenth miracle, viz. Miraculum de saraceno, deals with an event on Cyprus; for the earliest codex of the 12th century see note 227).
232. Thus Leonid, Žitie Nikolaja (see note 226), pp. 9-12, and idem, Čudesa (note 225), pp. v-xii. On Ephraem see above note 158.
331
hypotheses [233], and other vague claims that at least the miracles were translated in Kievan Russia [234] not merely fail to distinguish between the translated Greek and original Slav ones, but beg the unanswered question whether the Greek ones were all translated at the same time [235].
35. Sermo panegyricus de translation reliquiarum S. Nicolai Barim
This work [236] contains a few Graecisms [237], but these are common in Slavonic texts and certainly do not substantiate the claim [238] that it is a translation made in Kievan Russia of an untraced Greek work. Its historical information goes back to Latin sources [239] and it is probably an original Slav composition [240].
233. It has been almost unanimously rejected, e. g. by Golubinskij, Istorija (see note 137) I, i, p. 776, n. 1; N. Nikolskii: Materialy dlja povremennogo spiska russkich pisatelej i ich sočinenij (X-XI vv). St. Petersburg 1906, p. 302. The sole scholar to accept it seems to have been G. Praga: La Traslazione di S. Nicolò e i primordi delle guerre normanne in Adriatico, v: La Leggenda di Kiev. Archivio storico per la Dalmazia 132 (1937), pp. 114-136, pp. 120-121, but his account of Ephraem contains più i tom del romanzo storico ehe della ricerca scientifica, see G. Cioffari: La Leggenda di Kiev. La traslazione delle reliquie di S. Nicola nel racconto di un annalista russo contemporaneo. Nicolaus 7 (1979), pp. 205-331, p. 246, n. 54.
234. Thus Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (see note 2), p. 57, and idem, Materialy (note 3), p. 171; Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 106; Angelov, Iz istorijata (note 14), p. 66.
235. Speranskii, Iz istorii (see note 13), pp. 48-49, claimed a Kievan origin for the translation of one of the miracles, viz. BHG 1355: Miraculum de Basikio, since in the 13th c. codex SPL Q.p.1.64. (formerly part of the convolute Codex sinaiticus 34) there are East Slavisms. However, this miracle was translated together with BHG 1353-4 and 1356, but in the order 1353-4, 1356, 1355, numbered 1-3. The SPL codex only has 1355 but with the title Чю(д) г҃ стг҃о Ник(о)лы об Агриковом сыне Василии, which clearly shows that it was taken from a codex with all three, the provenance of which will have to be examined together, not individually.
236. Ed. I. Šljapkin: Russkoe poučenie XI veka о perenesenii moščei Nikolaja čudotvorca i ego otnošenie k zapadnym istočnikam (s faksimile rukopisi ΧΙII-XIV veka). St. Petersburg 1881 (= PDP119), pp. 3-10. Earliest codices are of the 14th century, e. g. E. Slav SAS Archaeographical Commission 163/312.
237. E. g. лимень, трѧпеза, see Sljapkin, Poučenie, p. 20.
238. By Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (note 2), p. 58, and idem, Materialy (note 3), p. 172; Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 106.
239. Its immediate source has been considered to be either Nicephorus of Bari’s Translatio S. Nicolai in Varim, thus, e. g., Golubinskij, Istorija (see note 137) I, i, p. 774, n. 1, or John of Bari’s Translatio S. Nicolai Barim, thus B. Leib: Rome, Kiev et Byzance à la fin du XIе siecle. Rapports religieux des Latins et des Greco-Russes sous le pontificat d’Urbain II (1088-1099). Paris 1924, p. 67. It is indeed closer to the latter, but there are no textual coincidences and its immediate source(s) remain(s) uncertain.
332
36. Vita S. Stephani episcopi Suroziae
Among the sources quoted in this vita [241] are the Slavonic translations of John Moschus’ Pratum spirituale [242] and George of Alexandria’s Vita S. Johannis Chrysostomi [243]. The claim that these are interpolations into a translation made in Kievan Russia of an untraced Greek vita [244] is untenable since they form an integral part of the account, which is an original Slav composition of the 14th century [245].
37. Miraculum S. Demetrii Thessalonicensis de duabus virginibus
The claim that this tale [246] was translated in Kievan Russia [247] has been made without any evidence to support it. Whether it is a translation of an untraced Greek composition or — as more likely — an original Slav tale remains disputed [248].
240. Ascription to particular persons, e. g. Ephraem, thus Leonid, Čudesa (see note 225), pp. xi-xii; Theodore the Greek, who allegedly arrived in Kiev from the pope in 1091 bearing relics, thus Goiubinskij, Istorija (note 137) I, i, pp. 774-775, are fanciful guesses.
241. Ed. Trudy V. G. Vasil'evskogo III, Petrograd 1915, pp. 77-98. Earliest codex late 14th c. E. Slav LSL Trinity Sergius 745.
242. See Vasil’evskij, Trudy III, pp. ccxxiv-ccxxv. He compares the passage with the Greek, but it is taken from the Slavonic translation, cf. ibid., pp. 84-85, and Sinajskij Paterik, ed. V. Golysenko and V. Dubrovina, Moskva 1967, p. 243.
243. See Vasil’evskij, Trudy, III, pp. ccxlii-cclviii, for a comparison with the Slavonic translation.
244. Thus Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (note 2), p. 58, and idem, Materialy (note 3), p. 172; Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 106.
245. The dating by Vasil’evskij, Trudy III, p. cclix, to the 15th century because it quotes Cyprian of Kiev’s Vita S. Petri archiepiscopi Kioviensis is erroneous as the passage in question is a later interpolation not found in the earliest codex, which is of the late 14th century, see note 241.
246. Ed. VČM, Oktjabr' dni 19-31, ed. M. Kojalovič, St. Petersburg 1880, coll. 1898-1899. Earliest codex: 15-6th century E. Slav LSL Trinity Sergius 39. On the correct dating of this codex, which is not of the 14th century, see N. Golejzovskij: „Poslanie о rae“ i russko-vizantijskie otnošenija v seredine XIV veka. Rusko-balkanski kulturni vrăzki prez srednovekovieto, ed. N. Dragova et al., Sofija 1982, pp. 42-67, p. 66, n. 136.
247. Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (note 2), p. 59, and idem, Materialy (note 3), p. 176. He may have been led astray by the incorrect dating of the codex, see note 246. Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. Ill, notes the claim, hut does not include the tale in his list.
248. V. Tăpkova-Zaimova on many occasions has claimed that it is a translation of an untraced Greek work composed in Thessalonica, since it deals with the capture of the city by the Arabs led by the renegade Leo of Tripolis in 904, e. g. „Les textes demetriens dans les recueils de Rila et dans la collection de Macaire“. Cyrillomethodianum 5 (1981), pp. 113-119, p. 117. In fact the tale is just another variant of the legend of the flying carpet.
333
38. Miracula S. Georgii
No Greek version of the Miraculum de Bulgaro [249], a tale of the miraculous rescue of a Bulgarian soldier in a battle against the Hungarians in Symeon’s day, viz. in the wars of 894-896, has been traced and it may well be an original Slav legend [250]. If it is a translation, there is no evidence to substantiate the claim [251] that it was made in Kievan Russia.
Equally unsubstantiated is the same claim [252] in the case of three more miracles, viz. Miracula de filio presbyteris, de iuvene daemonium habenti and de imagine sancti [253], only the last of which has been traced in Greek [254]. Again the first two may well be original Slav legends.
G. Apocrypha
39. Apocalypsis Abraham
The claim that this translation [255] was made from Hebrew in Kievan Russia [256] has been adequately refuted and there is no reason to doubt that it was translated from an untraced Greek version in Bulgaria in the tenth century [257].
249. Ed. Ch. Kodov: Opis na slavjanskite răkopisi v biblioteka na Bălgarskata akademija na naukite. Sofija 1969, pp. 143-144. Earliest codex: 14th с. Е. Slav LSL Trinity Sergius 5.
250. Thus, e. g. Kodov, ibid, p. 144. His edition is of an early 15th c. Bulgarian text, viz. BAS 73, a convolute of various MSS of the 14-15th centuries.
251. Thus Sobolevskii, Osobennosti (note 2), p. 59, and idem, Materialy (note 3), p. 176. Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 111, notes the claim but does not include the miracle in his list.
252. Sobolevskij, Materialy, p. 176. Durnovo, Vvedenie, p. 111, notes the claim but does not include them in his list.
253. Ed. VMČ, Aprel', ed. S. Sever’janov, Moskva 1916, coll. 852-854, 854-855, 855-857. Earliest codex: 1484 E. Slav LSL Piskarev 92.
254. Viz. BHG 691.
255. Ed. M. Philonenko and B. Philonenko-Sayar: L'Apocalypse d'Abraham. Paris 1981 (= Semitica 31), pp. 36-104. Earliest codex: 14th с. E. Slav CSA Synodal Typography 53.
256. Thus Meščerskij, Problemy (note 9), pp. 191,. 203, and idem, Istočniki (note 4), p. 30.
257. See H. Lunt: On the Language of the Slavonic “Apocalypse of Abraham“. Slavica Hierosolymitana 7 (1985), pp. 55-62, p. 56; E. Turdeanu: L’“Apocalypse d’Abraham“ en Slave. Journal for the Study of Judaism 3 (1973), pp. 153-180, pp. 158-159, also pointed out that it was translated from Greek by a S. Slav, but his dating to the 13th century is too late. Even Alekseev does not include it in his list of putative East Slav translations from Hebrew in Perevody (note 73).
334
40. Vita (sive Assumptio) Mosis
The claim that this translation [258] was made in Kievan Russia has often been made, although it was disputed whether it was from Greek [259], or from Hebrew [260]. In fact it was from Hebrew but only in the 15th century [261].
41. Liber secretorum Enochi
The claim that this translation [262] was made from Hebrew in Kievan Russia [263] cannot be upheld: there are clear indications that it was translated from an untraced Greek original [264] and the linguistic evidence points to Bulgaria in the 10th or 11th century [265].
42. Iudicia Salomonis
There are in all fifteen judgments but neither their number nor their order is
258. Ed. M. Farrall: A Jewish Translator in Kievan Ruś; a Critical Edition and Study of the Earliest Redaction of the Slavic „Life of Moses“. Brown University Dissertation 1981, pp. 17-37. Earliest codices are of the 15th century, e. g. 1477 E. Slav SHM Synodal 210.
259. Thus Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (note 2), p. 58 and idem, Materialy (note 3), p. 174; Speranskij, Iz istorii (note 13), pp. 76-77.
260. Thus Meščerskij, К voprosu (see note 73), pp. 201, 205; Alekseev, Perevody (note 73), pp. 7, 15; Robinson, Literatury (note 13), p. 12; Farrall, Translator (note 258), 66-68.
261. See E. Turdeanu: La “Chronique de Moïse“ en russe. Revue des études slaves 46 (1967), pp. 35-64, pp. 53-58; Lunt, Translations (see note 46), p. 157.
262. Ed. A. Vaillant: Le livre des secrets d'Hénoch, texte slave et traduction française. Paris 1952 (= Textes publíes par l'Institut d'Études slaves 4), pp. 2-84. Earliest codex: 15th с. E. Slav SHM Uvarov 18, but there is an excerpt in the 14th с. E. Slav codex LSL Trinity Sergius 1.15.
263. N. Meščerskij: К istorii teksta slavianskoj knigi Enocha. (Sledy pamjatnikov Kumrana v vizantijskoj i staroslavjanskoj literature). Vizantijskij vremennik 24 (1964), pp. 91-108; also idem, Problemy (note 9), p. 19, and Istočniki (note 4), p. 30.
264. See Vaillant, Livre (note 262), pp. viii-xiii, and the examples in the footnotes to his edition. No other scholar supports the theory of a Hebrew original; even Alekseev does not list it in his Perevody (note 73).
265. See Vaillaint, Livre (note 262), pp. xiii-xv; Speranskij, Iz istorii (note 13), p. 93.
335
stable in the codices [266]. It has been claimed that the translation was made in Kievan Russia either from Greek [267] or from Hebrew [268]. The second alternative is incorrect since the Hebraisms are either late glosses or not in fact Hebraisms [269]. Since no Greek originals for these tales have been traced it is very possible that the cycle is an original Slav composition based upon oral tales and there is no evidence to support a dating prior to the 14th century.
43. Narratio de Salomone et Centauro
Precisely the same claims have been made about this tale [270] as about the Iudicia Salomonis [271]. Again no Greek original has been traced and the tale may well be an original Slav composition of the same time as the Iudicia.
266. The numbering adopted here is that of the classification proposed by A. Jacimirskij: Bibliografičeskij obzor apokrifov v južnoslavjanskoj i russkoj piśmennosti. I. Petrograd 1921, pp. 206-220. Of the fifteen, nos. 12-15 are unknown before the 18th century and are clearly of late origin. Earliest codex: 15th c. E. Slav LSL Trinity Sergius 729. Nos. 1-10 ed. K. Tichonravov: Pamjatniki otrečennoj russkoj literatury, I. St. Petersburg 1863, pp. 259-277; no. 11 ed. Pamjatniki starinnoj russkoj literatury III, ed. A. Pypin, St. Petersburg 1862, pp. 58-59. On no. 7 see also entry 61 (Darian) in the list.
267. Thus Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (note 2), p. 58, and idem, Materialy (note 3), p, 174; Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 110.
268. Thus Meščerskij, К voprosu (note 27), pp. 201, 217, and Alekseev, Perevody (note 73), pp. 7-10.
269. See Lunt, Translations (note 46), pp. 158-159.
270. Ed. Tichonravov, Pamjatniki I (see note 266), pp. 254-258. The earliest codices are of the 15th century, e. g. E. Slav SHM Barsov 619. The former dating of this codex to the late 15th century is contradicted by the watermarks, see I. Levočkin: Drevnejšij spisok prostrannogo Žitija Konstantina Filosofa. Sovetskoe slavjanovedenie 2 (1983), pp. 75-79, p. 77. A tale about Salomon and the Centaur was known in N. E. Russia in the early 14th century since bronze panel 22 of the Basilian doors of 1336 formerly in Novgorod Cathedral depicts it, see with illustration V. Lazarev: Russkaja srednevekovaja živopiš. Stat’i i issledovanija. Moskva 1970, pp. 203-204. This is by no means proof that this written version existed then. Indeed the fact that Solomon is portrayed with a crown has been interpreted to mean that it refers to a different version of the tale, see A. Veselovskij: Iz istorii literaturnogo obščenija vostoka i zapada. Slavjanskie skazanija о Solomone i Kitovrase i zapadnye legendy о Morol’te i Merline. St. Petersburg 1872, pp. 223-224, and L. Titova: Povest’ ob uvoze Solomonovoj ženy. TODRL 41 (1988). pp. 116-117, p. 117.
271. See notes 267-269.
336
44. Acta Joannis Theologi
The claim that the tale De imagine Joannis [272], based on an episode in cc. xxvi-xxix of the Acta, was translated in Kievan Russia [273] has been made without adducing the slightest evidence. Certainly the language does not support a dating prior to the 14th century.
45. Aphroditian, Narratio de iis, quae Christo nato in Persia acciderunt
The claim that this translation [274] was made in Kievan Russia was advanced when S. Slav codices had not been traced [275]. It is still occasionally repeated [276] even though the S. Slav codices do not contain East Slavisms [277].
46. De epistula Abgari ad Jesum
The claim that this work [278] is a translation made in Kievan Russia [279] is totally erroneous since it is a Slav compilation of the 14th or early 15th century based upon the earlier redaction of the Slavonic translation of Thaddaei Praedicatio and the Slav apocryphal compilation Historia de ligno crucis ascribed to a certain Jeremiah [280].
272. Ed. (Anonymous=) P. Vjazemskij: Žitie i chozdenie Ioanna Bogoslova. St. Petersburg 1878 (= IIOL 23), ff. 98r-99v. (It is also found in the printed editions of the synaxarium sub 26 September). Earliest codex: 15th c. East Slav SPL Dormition Monastery of St. Cyril of Beloozero 22/1099. It is usually referred to in Slav literature as the Miraculum S. Ioannis Theologi de pastore anserum.
273. Thus Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (note 2), p. 59, and idem, Materialy (note 3), p. 176. Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. Ill, notes the claim but does not include the tale in his list.
274. Ed. Lavrovskij, Opisanie (note 1) pp. 42-46. Earliest codex: 13th c. E. Slav SPL F.p.I. 39 (Tolstoj 1.8).
275. Lavrovskij, Opisanie (note 1), p. 42.
276. E. g. Adrianova-Peretc in Lebedev-Poijanskij (ed.) Istorija I (note 15), pp. 77-78.
277. Earliest S. Slav codex: 14th c. Serbian NLS 305.
278. Ed. VMČ Oktjabr' dni 4-18, ed. S. Palauzov and M. Kojalovič, St. Petersburg 1874, coll. 1115-1121. Earliest codices are of the 15th century, e. g. E. Slav SPL Sophia 1385.
279. Thus Sobolevskij, Materialy (note 3), p. 177. Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. Ill, notes the claim but does not include the epistle in his list.
280. See F. Thomson: Apocryphica Slavica. Slavonic and East European Review 58 (1980), pp. 256-268, pp. 263-264.
337
47. Pseudo-Methodius of Olympus, Apocalypsis
The claim that a translation had been made in Kievan Russia was advanced even before the text [281] had been traced, merely because the work is quoted in the Primary Chronicle sub 1096 [282]. Even more extravagant is the theory that Metropolitan Nicephorus I of Kiev (1104-1121) translated it, which was based on the grounds that some codices [283] contain both Nicephorus’ epistles and the corpus Methodius’ works in Slavonic translation [284]. Quite apart from the fact that this proves nothing about the origin of the translation, the corpus does not even include the Apocalypsis.
H. Gnomologia
48. Melissa
The oft repeated claim that one of the versions of the Melissa [285] was translated in Kievan Russia is based on a few East Slavisms [286]. Since the translation is known to have been available in Kievan Russia in the 12th century [287], whereas the earliest
281. Ed. F. Thomson: The Slavonic Translations of Pseudo-Methodius of Olympus’ Apocalypsis. Tărnovska knižovna škola 4 (1985), pp. 143-173, pp. 146-170. Earliest codex: 16-17th East Slav convolute SHM New Jerusalem Monastery of the Resurrection 154.
282. Thus V. Istrin: Otkrovenie Mefodija Patarskogo i Letopiś. IORJa 29 (1924), pp. 380-382, p. 381, and idem, Knigy (see note 6) II, p. 308; Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 109; Uspenskij, Istorija (note 13), p. 30. Cf. PSRL 1, i, coll. 234, 235-236; see Thomson, Implications (note 48), p. 65.
283. E. g. the Macarian menologium sub 20 June.
284. Thus Kalajdovič: Pamjatniki rossijskoj slovesnosti XII veka, izdannye s ob"jasneniem, variantami i obrazcami počerkov. Moskva 1821, p. 156. M. Obolenskij: Issledovanija i zametki knjazja M. A. Obolenskogo po russkim i slavjanskim drevnostjam. St. Petersburg 1875, pp. 135-136, claims that a work of Methodius was translated at the time of Metropolitan Nicephorus, which with virtual certainty refers to this, but he does not claim that Nicephorus translated it.
285. Viz. that in 71 cc., ed. V. Semenov: Drevnjaja russkaja Pčela po pergamennomu spisku. SORJa 54, iv (1893), pp. i-lxvi, 1-444. Earliest codex: 14-5th c. E. Slav SPL F. p.1.44.
286. Thus Anonymous, Svedenija (note 1), pp. 358-359; Vladimirov, Literatura (note 115), p. 49; Sobolevskij, Materialy (note 3), pp. 170-171; Istrin, Knigy (note 6) II, p; 297; Angelov, Iz istorijata (note 14), p. 66.
287. It is quoted in the Laurence Chronicle sub 1175 and 1185, ed. PSRL 1, ii, col. 370, 403. On this see Thomson, Implications (note 48), p. 65.
338
codex is only of the 14-5th, these can adequately be explained as scribal alterations [288].
49. Menander, Sententiae
The sole reason adduced for considering that this translation [289] was made in Kievan Russia is that in some codices it is found together with the Melissa [290]. Not merely is this irrelevant, it conflicts with the fact that the earliest codex is S. Slav, as is the language.
I. History
50. George Hamartolus, Chronicon breve
In view of the presence of East Slavisms in the translation [291] it was originally suggested that a team of South and East Slavs made it [292], although most scholars considered that it was a tenth-century Bulgarian translation revised later by an East Slav [293]. However, in 1922, in the study to accompany his 1920 edition of the Chronicle,
288. It is significant that Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (note 2), p. 60, considered it to be a S. Slav translation revised in Kievan Russia, but witnout giving any reason in Materialy (note 3), pp. 170-171, it is listed as an E. Slav translation.
289. Ed. V. Jagić: Razum i filosofija iz srpskih književnih starina. Spomenik Srpske Kraljevske Akademije 13 (1892), pp. i-xxxi, 1-103, pp. 1-21. Earliest codex: 13-4th c. Serbian NLS 651. The number of gnomes varies m the codices, the fullest collection being that in 16th с. E. Slav LSL Trinity Sergius 730.
290. E. g. 14-5th с. E. Slav SPL F.p.1.44, although there the Sententiae are in a later redaction. The claim is made by Speranskij, Iz istorii (note 13), pp. 44-45. Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 107, simply says that Menanaer was translated at the same time as the Melissa. Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (note 2), p. 61, considered it a S. Slav translation revised in Kievan Russia, but in Materialy (note 3), p. 171, lists it as an E. Slav Translation. In neither case does he quote a single East Slavism.
291. Ed. Istrin, Knigy (see note 6) I, pp. 3-572. Earliest codex: 14th с. E. Slav LSL Moscow Theological Academy 100. For lists of the East Slavisms see I. Sreznevskij, Svedenija (note 168), iv: Russkaja redakcija chroniki Georgija Amartola. SORJa 1, vi (1867), pp. 20-26, pp. 21-25; Istrin, Knigy II, pp. 298-305.
292. Sreznevskij, Svedenija (note 168), lv, p. 293.
293. E. g. Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (note 2), p. 61, and idem, Materialy (note 3), p. 177; Weingart, Kroniky (note 8) II, i, pp. 81-95. At all events it cannot antedate the 960’s since it contains redaction В of the continuation, often ascribed to Symeon the Magister and Logothete, which goes down to 948 and was compiled in the 960’s.
339
Istrin set out his criteria for ascribing a translation to Kievan Russia and concluded that the translation had been made there [294].
This conclusion was by no means accepted by his reviewers, some of whom continued to maintain either the team theory [295] or the Bulgarian provenance with a Kievan revision [296], while others considered that the question remained open [297]. In 1930 Istrin replied to his critics, but added nothing new to the debate [298]. A typical example of his hypothetical reasoning is provided by his argument against the team theory: a Bulgarian who knew Greek would not require the assistance of an East Slav, while Bulgarisms in an East Slav translation reveal either the translator’s erudition or else the fact that he occasionally had to turn to a Bulgarian for advice [299]. Such speculation is pointless. So far no linguistic evidence has been adduced which affords incontrovertible proof that the most probable theory that a tenth-century Bulgarian translation was later revised in Kievan Russia is wrong [300].
294. See note 6. For a summary of his views see V. Istrin: Chronika Georgija Amartola v drevnem slavjano-russkom perevode. Slavia 2 (1923-24), pp. 460-467.
295. E. g. N. Durnovo: К voprosu о nacional’nosti slavjanskogo perevodčika Chroniki Georgija Amartola. Slavia 4 (1925-26), pp. 446-460, p. 460. This view is still favoured by some scholars, e. g. Gudzij, Literatura (note 21), p. 36.
296. E. g. Lavrov, Review of Istrin, Knigy (see note 8), pp. 670-671. His theory that the translator in Bulgaria may have been a Moravian refugee, ibid., pp. 464, 474482, cannot be examined here. The Bulgarian provenance of the translation is held even by ardent adherents of the theory of a Kievan school of translations, e. g. Meščerskij, Istočniki (note 4), pp. 77-78.
297. E. g. Weingart, Kroniky (note 8) II, ii, pp. 500-514. Durnovo changed his mind (see note 295) and came to hold this view, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 108. He was not the only person to change his mind in the debate: V. Rozov, Review of Weingart, Kroniky II, i, Slavia 4 (1925-26), pp. 364-370, pp. 367-368, considered the translation E. Slav, but in his review of Kroniky II, ii, Siavia 5 (1926-27), pp. 359-365, pp. 364-365, concluded that it was a Bulgarian translation revised in Kievan Russia.
298. Istrin, Knigy III, pp. v-1.
299. Ibid., pp. xlviii-xlix.
300. In the most recent examination of the question S. Franklin: К voprosu о vremeni i meste perevoda Chroniki Georgija Amartola na slavjanskij jazyk. TODRL 41 (1988), pp. 324-330, p. 330, inclines to the Kievan theory, although he allows that it is not proven. However, none of his three reasons is convincing: a) the assertion, ibid., p. 326, that the illumination in the earliest codex (see note 291) reflects Byzantine miniature forms of the eleventh century is by no means certain, while the idea that the illuminated Greek codex from which the translation was made may have been a diplomatic gift to a Kievan ruler on some auspicious occasion is a flight of fancy; b) the colloquial forms of Constantinopolitan toponymy, ibid., pp. 328-329, would favour a southern, not a northern origin of the translation; c) on the translation of the Bulgarian Khan’s name Κροῦμνος by Аптокроумль, ed. Istrin, Knigy (note 6) I, p. 487, Franklin comments: It is difficult to imagine that a Bulgarian translator would not have recognized the name of the celebrated Bulgarian prince Krum, ibid., p. 330. However, the very form of the name shows that the Greek codex had a corrupt reading and there is thus no reason why he should have recognized it. The theory that it was translated in Kiev in the tenth century by the Bulgarian hieromonk Gregory, thus Leonid (Kavelin): Tri stat’i k russkomu palestinovedeniju. Pravoslavnyj Palestinskij sbornik 6 (1889), pp. 1-57, p. 13, and elsewhere, is a curiosum based on the fallacy that Gregory translated the Chronographus judaicus, which is in fact a Slav compilation and not a translation. The theory need not be examined here.
340
51. George Syncellus, Chronographia
The claim that this translation [301] was made in Kievan Russia because it has a few East Slavisms and contains explanatory glosses of Graecisms similar to those in the translation of George Hamartolus [302] is invalid. Such glosses are a common feature of Slavonic translation techniques and are found even in the earliest codices [303], while the language does not antedate the 14th century [304].
52. Josephus, De bello judaico
The claim that this translation [305] was made in Kievan Russia has been favoured by many scholars [306] and it is true that stylistically it varies from other translations
301. Unedited. Earliest codices are of the 15th century, e. g. E. Slav SHM Undol’skij 1289.
302. Thus Istrin, Očerk (see note 16), pp. 87-88; idem., Knigy (note 6) II, pp. 286-288, idem., Issledovanija v oblasti drevne-russkoj literatury. St. Petersburg 1906, p. 30. The claim has often been repeated, e. g. Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 108 (who incidentally wrongly claims that it is quoted in the Primary Chronicle); Gudzij, Literatura (note 21), p. 37; Robinson, Literatury (note 13), p. 11; Uspenskij, Istorija (note 13), p. 30. The most recent scholar to devote his attention to it merely reports Istrin’s dating without actually endorsing it, see O. Tvorogov: Chronika Georgija Sinkella v Drevnej Rusi. Issledovanija po drevnej i novoj literature, ed. L. Dmitriev, Leningrad 1987, pp. 215-219, p. 215.
303. There are some in the early 11th c. Codex Suprasliensis, cf. Suprasălski ili Retkov sbornik v dva toma, ed. J. Zaimov and M. Kapaldo, Sofija 1982-1983, I, p. 181: καλανδῶν μαρτίῳ — каландъ марта, сирѣчь въ к҃ѕ феуроáра.
304. Although there is no agreement as to where it was translated in the 14th century: Weingart, Kroniky (note 8) I, p. 54, considers it is East Slay; Ju. Trifonov: Vizantijskite chroniki i cărkovno-slavjanskata knižnina. Izvestija na Istoričeskoto družestvo v Sofija 6 (1924), pp. 163-181, pp. 169-170, South Slav. In the absence of any edition, further speculation is pointless.
305. Ed. N. Meščerskij: Istorija iudejskoj vojny Iosifa Flavija v drevnerusskom perevode. Leningrad 1958, pp. 167-467. Earliest complete codex: late 15th с. E. Slav CSA Archives of the Ministery of Foreign Affairs 279/658; parts of books v-vi are found in the mid-15th с. E. Slav codex LSL Museum 3271.
306. E g. Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (note 2), p. 57 and idem, Materialy (note 3), p. 169; Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 107; Angelov, Iz istorijata (note 14), p. 66; Istrin, Knigy (note 6) II, p. 297 and idem: „Iudejskaja vojna“ Iosifa Flavija v drevnem slavjanorusskom perevode. Učenye zapiski Vyšej školy goroda Odessy 2 (1922), pp. 27-40; A. Höcherl: Zur Übersetzungstechnik des altrussischen „Jüdischen Krieges“ des Josephus Flavius. München 1970 (= Slavistische Beiträge 46), p. 158; Meščerskij, Istorija (note 305), pp. 90-102, and idem, Istočniki (note 4), pp. 96-108.
341
by its free [307] and often dramatic approach. To interpret this as a specifically East Slav approach to translation [308] would ipso facto mean that no other translation was East Slav, but the equation free and dramatic approach equals East Slav is unproven. Many of the alleged East Slavisms are well attested in South Slav Slavonic [309] and again the others can be explained as later alterations [310], especially in view of the fact that the manuscript tradition only begins in the 15th century.
53. Josippon
In the Primary Chronicle sub 1110 is an account of a fiery pillar in the sky which is interpreted as an angelic manifestation [311]. The Hypatian Chronicle then continues with a digression on angels which contains the account of a dream which Alexander the Great had while on an expedition to Jerusalem [312]. This is similar to a passage in the Josippon and it was concluded that it must have been translated from Hebrew [313]. The account of the second capture of Jerusalem by Antiochus in
307. The question of the interpolations, especially those of a christological nature, cannot be examined here.
308. It has often been compared to the style of E. Slav chronicles, e. g. Meščerskij, Istorija (note 305), pp. 75-79 and idem, Istočniki (note 4), pp. 102-105.
309. At least sixteen of the twenty-three words listed by Höcherl, Übersetzungstechnik (see note 306), pp. 34-38, are well known in OCS. To assert that they are here being used in a specifically Old Russian sense is to assert the unknown.
310. So far Lunt, Interpreting (see note 58), p. 360, seems to be alone in positing this. Brauer’s conclusion that the translation was made by a team of South and East Slavs cannot be accepted as it is based on his fallacious syntactic criterion, see note 9.
311. PSRL 1, i, coll. 284-285; PSRL 2, coll. 260-263. The Primary Chronicle in fact ends with this account.
312. PSRL 2, coll. 263-264.
313. G. Barac: Sobranie trudov po voprosu о evrejskom elemente v pamjatnikach drevne-russkoj piśmennosti, II. Berlin 1924, pp. 246-255. His conclusion was reaffirmed by N. Meščerskij: Otryvok iz knigi „Iosippon“ v „Povesti vremennych let“. Palestinskij sbornik 2 (1956), pp. 58-68; see also idem, Istorija (note 305), p. 313-341.
342
169 and 167 BC in the Chronographus academicus [314] has also been considered to have been taken from the Josippon [315], as has the account of the third capture of Jerusalem by Titus in AD 70 in the second redaction of the Chronographus hellenicus ac romanus [316] and it has been concluded that the entire work was translated from Hebrew in Kievan Russia [317].
However, with regard to the Hypatian Chronicle, it is unknown when the digression was interpolated, the terminus post quern non being only the fifteenth century. Moreover, the digression also contains an excerpt from Epiphanius of Salamis’ De mensuris et ponderibus, but there is not the slightest evidence that the entire work was translated [318]. In fact a comparison of the passage with the original version of the Josippon [319] reveals only thematic, not textual dependence and both are variants of a widely diffused legend about Alexander the Great. As for the evidence of the chronographs, the account of the second capture of Jerusalem by Antiochus certainly does not go back to the original version of the Josippon, although theoretically it could represent a later redaction [320], while the account of the third capture of Jerusalem by Titus is based on various sources,
314. 16th c. E. Slav SAS 45.13.4. The best description remains that by V. Istrin: Chronograf Akademii nauk No 45.13.4 (iz Vologdy). LIFO 13 (1905), pp. 313-341.
315. See N. Meščerskij: К voprosu о sostave i istočnikach Akademičeskogo chronografa. Letopisi i chroniki. Sbornik statej. 1973 g. Moskva 1974, pp. 212-219 pp. 217-218, see also idem, Istorija (note 305), pp. 141-142.
316. See Meščerskij, Istorija (note 305), pp. 142-151. The second redaction of this chronograph is of the mid-15th century, see O. Tvorogov: Drevnerusskie chronografy. Leningrad 1975, p. 31; for the nine codices of the 15th and 16th centuries see ibid., pp. 112-115.
317. Thus Meščerskij, Istorija (note 305), pp. 151-153; Problemy (note 9), pp. 201-203, 225; Istočniki (note 4), pp. 30, 77, and elsewhere. His conclusion has received wide acceptance, e. g. Alekseev, Perevody (note 73), p. 7; Podskalsky, Christentum (note 49), p. 79; Robinson: Literatury (note 13), p. 12; Uspenskij, Istorija (note 13), p. 40.
318. PSRL 2, col. 262. It is taken from a larger excerpt quoted in the Primary Chronicle sub 986, PSRL 1, i, coll. 87-88. On this see Thomson, Implications (note 48), p. 65.
319. See the juxtaposition in Lunt, Translations (note 46), p. 161-164. A critical edition of the original text of the Josippon was only published in 1978, see below note 320 and earlier juxtapositions are with later redactions see ibid., p. 156, n. 74.
320. The claim that there is an exact coincidence with the Hebrew text of the Josippon, thus Meščerskij, Istorija (note 305), pp. 141-142, cannot be sustained. I must thank M. Taube for elucidation on this point in a letter dated 17. viii. 1989 The first critical edition of the Josippon is that by D. Flusser: The Josippon (Josephus Gorionides) I-II. Jerusalem 1978-1980.
343
including the chronicles of George Hamartolus and John Malalas. The passages in it allegedly taken from the Josippon are in fact taken from a late Hebrew account of the Judaeo-Roman war which is based on the Josippon but only attested in the fifteenth century [321], and there can be no doubt that the chronograph accounts are to be linked with the appearance of translations from Hebrew into Ruthenian in Lithuania in the fifteenth century.
54. John Malalas, Chronographia
The occasional statements that this translation [322] might have been translated in Kievan Russia [323], or that the place where it was translated is uncertain [324] are devoid of substance. The surviving fragments clearly indicate a tenth-century Bulgarian origin [325].
55. Nicephorus of Constantinople, Chronographia brevis
The claim that the translation in the nomocanon [326] compiled in Russia in the
321. It has only been traced to one Hebrew codex of 1442, viz. Bodleian Library, Huntingdon 345. This was pointed out by Flusser, Josippon (note 320), II, p. 63, see also Lunt, Translations (note 46), p. 156, n. 79. The Hebrew passages have been edited by M. Taube: O genezise odnogo rasskaza v sostave „Ellinskogo letopisca“ vtoroj redakcii („O vzjatii Ierusalima Titom“). In Honour of Professor Ilya German. Russian Literature and History, ed. W. Moskovich et al., Jerusalem 1989, pp. 146-151, pp. 147-150. In fact the Chronographus Tikhonravovianus in the 16 c. codex LSL Tichonrayov 704 has preserved a beter text of the passages without the interpolations into them from George Hamartolus' Chronicon breve found in the Chronographus hellenicus ac romanus, see Tvorogov, Chronografy (note 316), p. 93, and Taube, O genezise, p. 147. None of the chronograph evidence thus antedates the 15th century, see also nn. 314 and 316.
322. The translation has not survived except in excerpts quoted in various chronographs of the 15th-16th centuries. These have been edited by V. Istrin in fascicles with differing titles, most often as Chronika Ioanna Malaly v slavjanskom perevode in ZIANIFO 1, in (1897), pp. 1-29, pp. 5-19; LIFO 10 (1902), pp. 437-486, pp. 465486; LIFO 13 (1905), pp. 342-367, pp. 353-367; LIFO 16 (1910), pp. 1-51; SORJa 89, iii (1911), pp. 1-50, pp. 4-30; SORJa 89, vii (1912) pp. 1-39, pp. 2-18; LIFO 17 (1913), pp. 144; SORJa 90, ii (1913), pp. 1-52, pp. 3-20; SORJa 91, ii (1914), pp. 1-52, pp. 3-29, 48-52.
323. Rozov, Review of Weingart, Kroniky II, i (note 297), p. 367.
324. Meščerskij, Istočniki (note 4), p. 83.
325. For the fallacious argument that it was translated in Kiev in the tenth century, see note 300.
326. Unpublished in full; part ed. N. Stepanov: Letopisec vskore patriarcha Nikifora v Novgorodskoj Kormčej. IORJa 17 (1912) ii, pp. 250-293; iii, pp. 256-320, pp. 293-320. Earliest codex: c. 1280 E. Slav SHM Synodal 132.
344
second half of the thirteenth century [327] is a different translation made in Kievan Russia [328] to the original translation [329] is false, as a comparison reveals that the nomocanon contains an abridged version of the original into which interpolations have been made [330], and the original translation can be dated to the 10th century [331].
J. Geography
56. Cosmas Indicopleustes, Topographia Christiana
On the basis of a few East Slavisms in the translation [332] it has been considered that it was either translated by a team of South and East Slavs [333] or that it was translated in Kievan Russia [334]. No serious study of the language has been made, nor is there a critical edition, and in view of the late manuscript tradition it would
327. It is a conflation of the Nomocanon XIV titulorum with the Nomocanon serbicus.
328. Thus Stepanov, Letopisec (see note 326) iii, p. 227; Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 66; E. Piotrovskaja: К izučeniju „Letopisca vskore“ kontantinopol’skogo patriarcha Nikifora. TODRL 29 (19741 pp. 170-177, p. 175; Gudzij, Literatura (note 21), p. 37; Robinson, Literatury (note 13), p. 11. Even more aberrant is the idea that it was translated in honour of Metropolitan Nicephorus I of Kiev (1104-1121), as claimed by Obolenskij, Issledovanija (note 284), p. 136.
329. Ed. Beneševič, Kormcaja (note 108) II, pp. 210-236. Earliest codex: 15th c. East Slav SPL PJL 250.
330. This is proven by the fact that the interpolations were taken from Slavonic translations, including George Hamartolus’ Chronicon breve, Athanasius of Alexandria’s Passio et inventio Danielis et trium puerorum and the fourth appendix to the Nomocanon XIV titulorum.
331. See E. Piotrovskaja: О vremeni perevoda „Letopisca vskore“ konstantinopol’skogo patriarcha Nikifora na slavjanskij jazyk. Vspomogatel'nye istoričeskie discipliny 7 (1976), pp. 101-118. Her precise dating to before 912 is, however, based on the mistaken idea that the translation influenced Constantine of Preslav’s Chronographia brevis.
332. Ed. Anonymous: Kniga glagolemaja Koz’my Indikoplova. St. Petersburg 1886 (= IIOL 86), pp. 3-240. Earliest codices are of the late 15th century, e. g. 1495 E. Slav SHM Uvarov 566, but excerpts are in the 14th с. E. Slav codex LSL Trinity Sergius 1.15. It was used by the Palaea interpretata, but that cannot be dated with certainty earlier that the 14th century.
333. Thus Sreznevskij, Svedenija (see note 168) lv, p. 293.
334. Thus Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (note 2). pp. 56-57 and idem, Materially (note 3), pp. 168-169; Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 110; Gudzij, Literatura (note 21), p. 37; Robinson, Literatury (note 13), p. 12; Uspenskij, Istorija (note 13), p. 30.
345
be logical to consider that the East Slavisms are later alterations to a tenth-century Bulgarian translation [335].
57. Narratio de structura templi Sanctae Sophiae
The provenance of this translation [336] has been claimed to be both 10th-century Bulgaria [337] and Kievan Russia [338]. However, the few East Slavisms have also been taken to show later East Slav editing [339]. There is in fact no evidence that the translation antedates the 14th century [340], and until a critical edition has been made, speculation remains pointless.
58. Physiologus
The five East Slavisms adduced as evidence of the Kievan provenance [342] of a
335. A dating maintained by many Bulgarian scholars, e. g. I. Dujčev: Medioevo bizantino-slavo. II. Rome 1968 (= Storia e letteratura. Raccolta di studi e testi 113), p. 13; D. Petkanova: Starobălgarska literatura. I. Sofia 1968, p. 375.
336. The earliest form is found in the 15th-century E. Slav Trinity Chronograph, viz. LSL Trinity Sergius 728, on which see Tvorogov, Chronografy (note 316), pp. 74-97. In various later chronographs it is found in variant versions; e. g. the Chronographus russicus a. 1512, ed. PSRL 22, i (1911), pp. 293-295; the Chronographus Russiae Occidentalis, ed. PSRL 22, ii (1914), pp. 108-113; the Chronographus russicus a. 1601, ed. S. Vilinskij: Skazanie о Sofii Caregradskoj v Ellinskom letopisce i v Chronografe. IORJa 8, iii (1903), pp. 1-43, pp. 39-43. From the 15th century on it also exists in various forms as an independent work, e. g. 15th c. Bulgarian codex Odessa University 104, ed. S. Vilinskij: Vizantijsko-slavjanskie skazanija о sozdanii chrama svjatoj Sofii Caregradskoj. LIFO 8 (1900), pp. 227-336, pp. 305-319; the 16th с. E. Slav codex SHM Uvarov 902, ed. Leonid (Kavelin): Skazanie о svjatej Sofii Caregradskoj. Pamjatnik drevnej russkoj piśmennosti ischoda XII veka. St. Petersburg 1889 (= PDPI 78), pp.1-29.
337. Thus Vilinskij, Skazanija (note 336), p. 18.
338. Thus Sobolevskij, Materialy (note 3), p. 173; Istrin, Knigy (note 6) II. p. 308; Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), pp. 106-107; Speranskij, Iz istorii (note 13), p. 66; Angelov, Iz istorijata (note 14), p. 66, and most recently O. Belobrova: Skazanie о postroenii chrama svjatoj Sofii. TODRL 41 (1988), pp. 136-137, p. 136.
339. Thus Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (note 2), pp. 60-61. He gave no reason for his later change of mind (see note 338).
340. Leonid, Skazanie (note 336), p. iii, claimed that it was known to Dobrynja Jadrejkovič when he visited Constantinople in c. 1200, but there is only thematic not textual resemblance, see Thomson, Quotations (note 48), p. 72.
341. This is the term used in East Slav scholarship. In fact any scientific information imparted by the Physiologus is purely coincidental.
342. Thus Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (note 2), p. 59 and idem, Materialy (note 3), p. 173; Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 110; Gudzij, Literatura (note 21), p. 37; Angelov, Iz istorijata (note 14), p. 66; Meščerskij, Istočniki (note 4), p. 21.
346
translation found only in one sixteenth-century codex [343] have not even convinced adherents of the theory of a Kievan school of translations [344].
L. Popular Tales
59. Ahiqar
The origins of this tale [345] remain most controversial: it has been variously argued that it was translated from Armenian in Macedonia in the eleventh century [346], from Syriac in Kievan Russia [347] and from a lost Greek version, also in Kievan Russia [348], perhaps — in view of the small number of East Slavisms — by a team of East and South Slavs [349]. That it was available in Kievan Russia is shown by the fact that Daniel the Exile quotes it in his Petitio [350], but in view
343 Viz. E. Slav SHM Uvarov 515, ed. A. Karneev: Materialy i zametki po literaturnoj istorii Fiziologa. St. Petersburg 1890 ( = IIOL 92), pp. iii-xvi.
344. See, e. g., V. Istrin: Zamečanija о sostave Tolkovoj Palej. SORJa 65, vi (1898), pp. 1-155, pp. 100-101.
345. There are two main redactions, the longer in E. Slav codices from the 15th century on, e. g. 15th c. LSL Society of Russian History and Antiquities 189, ed. A. Grigor’ev: Teksty povesti ob Akire Premudrom. Drevnejšaja redakcija. Versii: sirijskaja, arabskaja, armjanskaja i slavjanskaja. ČIOI 226 (1908), pp. 1-128; 230 (1909), pp. 129-264; 244 (1913), pp. 165-316, pp. 1-235; the shorter in S. Slav codices from the late 14th century on, e.g, c. 1380 Serbian Dormition monastery at Savina (Montenegro) 29; ed. ibid., pp. 236-264.
346. A. Grigor’ev: Proischoždenie slavjanskich tekstov povesti ob Akire Premudrom. Archeologičeskie izvestiia i zametki 11-12 (1898), pp 353-359 (he later changed his mind, see note 347); A. Martirosjan: Istorija i poučenija Chikara Premudrogo. Erevan 1970 (autoreferat) (unavailable to me).
347. Thus A. Grigor’ev: Povest’ ob Akire Premudrom. Issledovanija i teksty. ČIOI 240 (1912), pp. 1-288; 244 (1913) pp. i-x, 289-562, pp. 526-549. This has been accepted by many, e. g. Meščerskij, Problemy (note 9), pp. 204-205, and Istočniki (note 4), p. 31; Uspenskij, Istorija (note 13), p. 40.
348. Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (note 2), p. 59, and Materialy (note 3), p. 175; Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 104; Vladimirov, Literatura (note 115), p. 101; Istrin, Očerk (note 16), p. 96, and Knigy (note 6) II, p. 304; Angelov, Iz istorijata (note 14), p. 66. Typical of the cavalier fashion in which questions of Kievan provenance are decided is Speranskij’s remark that though Durnovo and Grigor’ev differ about which language the original was in, since they agree about the provenance: ètim dlja nas, razumeetsja, rešaetsja vopros, Speranskij, Iz istorii (note 13), p. 46.
349. Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 108.
350. See Thomson, Quotations (note 48), p. 71.
347
of the equally early South Slav manuscript tradition [351], there is no need to posit an East Slav provenance and the East Slavisms cam be explained as the result of revision [352]. Finally, it is not certain that it is a translation as opposed to a written variant of an oral tale.
60. Alexander
The presence of some East Slavisms in this translation [353] led to the claims that it was translated either by a team of South and East Slavs [354] or in Kievan Russia [355]. In fact the language would favour a Bulgarian origin [356].
61. Darian
The inclusion of the tale about King Darian [357] in lists of alleged East Slav translations [358] is misleading since it is in fact the seventh of the Iudicia Salomonis. It is true that it is, like many of the others, sometimes found as an independent work [359], but that is clearly a later development.
351. See note 345. The S. Slav shorter redaction is, however, secondary.
352. A S. Slav provenance has been posited by several Bulgarian scholars, e. g. M. Jonova: Razprostranenie i razvitie na povestta za Akir Premădri v srednovekovnite literaturi na južnite i iztočnite slavjani. Palaeobulgarica 11, i (1987), pp. 104-109, p. 105.
353. Viz. the earliest translation, ed. V. Istrin: Aleksandrija russkich chronografov. Issledovanie i tekst. CIOI 168 (1894), p. i-viii, 1-862; 169 (1894), pp. 1-378, 169, pp. 5-128. Earliest codex: 15th c. E. Slav CSA Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs 279/658.
354. Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 104.
355. Sobolevskij, Osobennosti (note 2), p. 57, and Materialy (note 3), p. 169; Istrin, Očerk (note 16), p. 99, and Knigy (note 6) II, p. 308; Gudzij, Literatura (note 21), p. 36, Robinson, Literatury (note 13), p. 11; Uspenskij, Istorija (note 13), p. 30.
356. See A. Veselovskij, Review of Istrin, Aleksandrija (note 353), Vizantijskij vremennik 4 (1897), 533-579, pp. 535-536; P. Lavrov: Gde byla perevedena Aleksandrija pervoj redakcii? Sbornik Char'kovskogo istoriko-filoiogičeskogo obščestva 15 (1908), pp. 281-285. Even some of those who favour a Kievan origin consider that the East Slavisms could indicate a later revision, e. g. Vladimirov, Literatura (note 115), pp. 88-89.
357. Ed. Tichonravov, Pamjatniki (note 266) I, pp. 268-269. Earliest codex: 15th.c. E. Slav Trinity Sergius 729. This is the earliest codex of the Iudicia.
358. Sobolevskij, Materialy (note 3), p. 175; Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 111.
359. E. g. 15th c. E. Slav SPL Dormition Monastery of St. Cyril of Beloozero 22/1099. There are also later, much expanded versions.
348
62. Digenes Acrites
In view of the extremely late manuscript tradition of this tale [360] any precise dating of the translation is extremely hazardous indeed. There is no evidence, linguistic or literary, for a dating prior to the fifteenth or, at the very earliest, late fourteenth, century [361] and the dating to Kievan Russia [362] is completely unproven.
63. Dinara
No tale, either Greek or Georgian, resembling this account [363] of a Persian defeat at the hands of Queen Dinara has been traced and it was accepted that it was an original Slav composition of the 16th century until A. Sobolevsky claimed that it was a translation of a Greek legend in iambic octametres which had originated in Trapezund and gone via the Crimea to Kievan Russia, where it had been translated [364]. None of his arguments is more that special pleading in favour of an
360. The three surviving E. Slav codices all contain varying redactions: 17-8th c. SPL Pogodin 1773, ed. M. Speranskij: Devgenievo dejanie. К istorii ego teksta v starinnoj russkoj piśmennosti. Issledovanie i teksty. SORJa 99, vii (1922), pp. 1165, pp. 148-165; 1744 LSL Tichonravov 399, ed. ibid., pp. 134-148; 18th c. SPL Titov 4369, ed. Kuzmina, Dejanie (see note 192), pp. 215-248. The few surviving quotes of the text in the Musin—Puškin codex of the 15-6th century (?) which perished in the Moscow conflagration of 1812, ed. ibid., p. 143.
361. See A. Vaillant: Le Digenis slave. Prilozi za književnost, jezik, istoriju i folklor 21 (1955), pp. 197-228.
362. E. g. Sobolevskij, Materialy (note 3), p. 175 (who even, ibid., p. 175, n. 2, considered that the Pogodin and Tichonravov codices contain different translations both made in Kievan Russia); Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 107; Gudzij, Literatura (note 21), p. 36; Angelov, Iz istorijata (note 14), p. 66. The many problems connected with the „evidence“ to prove the claim cannot be dealt with here. Suffice is to say that a) the stylistic resemblances to the 13th c. Galicio-Volhynian Chronicle are commonplaces and prove neither that it influenced the Chronicle, nor that it was translated in Galicia or Volhynia; b) the Slav hero’s name, clearly derived from Diogenes, not Digenes, did not influence the name of the son of Romanus IV Diogenes mentioned in the Hypatian Chronicle sub 1095. If there is a link, it is the reverse.
363. Ed. Pamjatniki literatury Drevnej Rusi. Konec XV — pervaja polovina XVI veka, ed. L. Dmitriev and D. Lichačev, Moscow 1984, pp. 38-46. Earliest codices are of the 16th century, e. g. SPL Sophia 1471.
364. He first made the claim at a meeting of the Society of Admirers of Early Literature on 7 March 1897, see Anonymous: Soobščenija v Imperatorskom Obščestve ljubitelej drevnej piśmennosti. Vizantijskij vremennik 4 (1897), pp. 307310, p. 308. He listed it in Materialy (note 3), p. 175, and expounded his ideas in his article „Iz istorii drevneslavjanskoj piśmennosti“, IRJaS i, ii (1928), pp. 391398, pp. 391-395.
349
unsubstantiated hypothesis [365] and the sole moot point is not whether it is an original Russian work, but whether it dates to the 15-6th or 16th century.
64. Prester John
The claim that this tale [366] was translated in Kievan Russia [367] is borne out by neither the linguistic nor the archaeographic evidence, which points to the fact that it was translated from Latin in Dalmatia or Bosnia [368] in the 13-4th century. [369]
65. Shahinshah
Although various Tibetan, Indian, Arabic and Persian parallels to the Slavonic tale [370] of the twelve dreams of Shakhaisha (= Shahinshah) interpreted by Mamer have been quoted, the theme has not been traced in Byzantine literature and the
365. He completely ignored the refutation of the idea that it was a translation by M. Speranskij: Povest’ о Dinare v russkoj piśmennosti. IORJa 31 (1926), pp. 43-92, especially pp. 4849, and his extravagant ideas are not even mentioned in the most recent succinct account of the tale by T. Troickaja: Povest’ о carice Dinare. TODRL 41 (1988), pp. 98-101. For the Georgian literature on the tale see L. Menabde: Izučenie drevnerusskoj literatury v Gruzii. Russkaja i gruzinskaja srednevekovye literatury, ed. G. Prochorov, Leningrad 1979, pp. 204-211, pp. 206-208.
366. The original translation has not survived. The earliest surviving form is that interpolated into the second redaction of the Alexander romance in the second redaction of the Chronographus hellenicus ac romanus of the 15th century, ed. Istrin, Aleksandrija (note 353) 169, pp. 131-242, cf. pp. 188-200. On the codices see note 316. It is found as an independent entry in codices from the 15th century on, e. g. 15th c. Serbian NLB 771, ed. M. Speranskij: Skazanie ob Indejskom carstve. IRJaS 3, ii (1930), pp. 369-464, pp. 461-464, but these already have a revised form.
367. A. Sobolevskij: К istorii zaimstvovannych slov i perevodnych povestij. IORJa 10, ii (1905), pp. 140-145, and idem, Materialy (note 3), p. 190; Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. 109.
368. V. Istrin: Skazanie ob Iudeiskom carstve. Drevnosti. Trudy slavjanskoj kommissii Imperatorskogo Moskovskogo archeologičeskogo obščestva 1 (1895), pp. 175, p. 61; idem: К istorii (note 7), pp. 181-185; Istrin, ibid., pp. 182-183, points out that of the three Russisms listed by Sobolevskij, Materialy (note 3), p. 190, one (шида) is not a Russism and one (страда) is a later interpolation. See also note 7.
369. Earlier datings are based on the false premise that the second redaction of the Chronograpbus hellenicus ac romanus is of the 13th century. This need not be examined here, see note 316.
370. Differing redactions are preserved in S. and E. Slav codices. E. Slav codices go back to the 15th century, e. g. SPL Dormition Monastery of St. Cyril of Beloozero 22/1099; ed. A. Veselovskij: Slovo о dvenadcati snach Šachaiši po rukopisi XV veka. SORJa 20 ii (1879), pp. 147, pp. 4-10; S. Slav codices go back to the late 14th century, e.g. c. 1380 Serbian Dormition Monastery at Savina (Montenegro) 29; ed. P. Potapov: К literaturnoj istorii „Skazanie (sic) о 12 snach carja Šachaiši. SORJa 101, iii (1928), pp. 120-129, pp. 124-129.
350
tale would appear to be an original Slav composition, which, from the linguistic evidence, probably originated on the basis of oral legends in the region of Dalmatia in the 13-4th century [371]. The theory that it is a translation from Greek [372] made in Kievan Russia [373] is totally unwarranted.
66. Troy
The claim that a tale of Troy was translated in Kievan Russia did not even specify which translation was implied [374]. It is probably a mistake, at all events the sole East Slav translation is that of Guido de Columnis’ Historia destructionis Troiae in the 15-6th century [375] and first published in a later redaction at St. Petersburg in 1709.
Postscript
67. John of Constantia, Vita S. Epiphanii Constantiae in Cypro episcopi [376]
The suggestion that this translation [377] may have been made in Kievan Russia in the eleventh century [378] is based on a few East Slavisms, hardly surprising in East Slav codices, and is just one more example of the maxim: Russian copy implies
371. Thus most scholars, e. g. Istrin, Issledovanija (note 302), p. 224; V. Adrianova-Peretc in Lebedev-Poljanskij (ed.), Istorija (note 15) I, p. 148. A few East Slavisms have led some to suppose that it originated in Russia, e. g. Veselovskij, Slovo (note 370), p. 19; Potapov, К istorii (note 370), p. 112, but the S. Slav codices have no traces of East Slavisms.
372. A. Rystenko: Skazanie о 12 snach carja Mamera v slavjano-russkoj literature. LIFO 13 (1904), pp. 23-134, pp. 52-53, 56-57, lists a few words and phrases which, he thought, indicated a translation from Greek. None, however, is convincing, while the majority are not in E. Slav codices, which contain a better text.
373. Sobolevskij, Materialy (note 3), p. 176; Durnovo, Vvedenie (note 8), p. Ill, also lists it, but adds that Sobolevskij is alone in considering it a Kievan translation.
374. Fedorov, Vvedenie (note 13), p. 42.
375. The earliest codices are of the 16th century, e. g. CSA Mazurin 368.
376. That the above list is by no means exhaustive is shown by the fact that when sent to Professor H. G. Lunt, he was at once able to point out this omission (letter to me dated 26 May 1989), for which I take the opportunity here to thank him.
377. Ed.: Uspenskij sbornik XII-XIII vekov, ed. S. Kotkov, Moscow 1971, pp. 253269. Earliest codex: late 12th с. E. Slav SHM Synodal 1063.
378. Thus S. Averina: К charakteristike leksičeskich parallelej v drevneslavjanskich perevodach (po spiskam XIII vv.). Vestnik Leninpadskogo universiteta 2 (1975), pp. 121-131; eadem: Morfologičeskie russizmy v spiske „Žitie Epifanija“ (XIII v.). Problemy istoričeskogo jazykoznanija 1 (1976), pp. 110-127.
351
Russian translation [379]. It is in fact one of four works devoted to Epiphanius [380], the language of which clearly shows that they were all translated together in Bulgaria in the tenth century.
68. Agapetus Diaconus, Expositio capitum admonitorium per partiores adomata [381]
The claim that this translation [382] was made in Kievan Russia in the eleventh century [383] is based upon two alleged East Slavisms — neither of which is one [384] —
379. Formulated by H. G. Lunt in his letter of 26 May 1989, see note 376.
380. The others are Polybius of Rhinocura’s Reliquia vitae S. Epiphanii Constantiensis episcopi and Epistola ad Sabirnim episcopum Constantiensem and Sabinus of Constantia’s Epistola ad Polybium episcopum. The are found together in the codices; ed. Kotkov, Sbornik (note 377), pp. 269-293, 293-294, 294-297.
381. Although the original is a mirror of princes, a new section of Political Theory need not be created tor it, since it was clearly viewed as a collection of moralistic gnomes addressed not merely to princes, as the variant titles show, e. g. Поȣчение благаго царьства, се же и к болѧром, и къ епископом и игоуменом лѣпо есть, cf. А. Gorskij and К. Nevostruev: Opisanie Velikich Čet’iich-Minej Makarija mitropolita Vserossijskogo. ČIOI 128 (1884), pp. i-xix, 1-64; 136 (1886), pp. 65-184, p. 136; to which some codices add: и черньцемъ, cf. Gorskij, Opisanie (note 124) II, ii, 622, others: и черноризцемъ, cf. P. Stroev: Rukopisi slavjanskie i rossijskie, prinadležaščie početnomu graždaninu i Archeografičeskoj kommissii korrespondentu Ivanu Nikitiču Carskomu. Moscow 1848, p. 188. The idea that it was translated for Simeon (893-927) or Peter (927-969/70) of Bulgaria as part of their interest in Byzantine political ideology, thus I. Ševčenko: Agapetus East and West: the Fate of a Byzantine ’Mirror of Princes’. Revue des études sud-est européennes 16 (1978), pp. 3-44, p. 28, is unlikely.
382. Unedited in full; excerpt ed. I. Ševčenko: On some Sources of Prince Svjatoslav’s ’Izbornik’ of the Year 1076. Orbis scriptus. Dmitrij Tschizewskij zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. D. Gerhardt et ai., Munich 1966, pp. 723-738, pp. 725-728. Earliest complete codex: 14th с. E. Slav SHM Uvarov 589. An excerpt from it is already found in the 1076 florilegium, ed. Kotkov, Izbornik (note 24), pp. 198-206. Whether the second version found in codices from the 16th c. on, e. g. LSL Dormition Monastery of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk 158/522, is a new translation or a revision of the earlier one using the Greek need not be examined here.
383. Thus M. D'jačok: O meste i vremeni pervogo slavjanskogo perevoda „Nastavlenija Agapita“. Pamjatniki literatury i obščestvennoj mysli èpochi feudalizma. Archeografija i istočnikovedenie Sibiri, ed. E. Romodanovskaja. Novosibirsk 1985, pp. 5-13, p. 12.
384. D’jačok’s claim, ibidem, that in Old Slavonic лаı-ати only meant to ambush and not to bark, to rant, only reveals his ignorance of modern scholarship, see above note 45, while his claim, ibidem, that болии and большии have the sense great (as opposed to greater) only in Old Russian is not merely unsubstantiated (even if it is assumed that he means, большои, the latter is only known from the fifteenth century, see Sreznevskij, Materialy I (note 36), p. 148; Slovar’ russkogo jazyka XI-XVII vv., ed. S. Barchudarov, I, Moscow 1975, p. 287), but is also irrelevant as the translation of μέγας by болии in the context is merely the translator’s attempt to render the true sense of the passage, cf. ῥῆμα βασιλέως φιλὸν μεγάην ἔχει παρὰ πᾶσιν ἰσχύν — слово царı-а простое болшȣ имат лише всех силȣ.
352
and totally ignores the rest of the linguistic evidence in favour of a tenth century Bulgarian origin [385], as well as the textological evidence [386].
69. John of Negra, Vita et disputatio cum Herbano Judaeo S. Gregentii episcopi Tepharensis
A note following the translation [387] in most E. Slav codices commemorates
blessed father Anthony, who translated this booк from the Greek language into Russian [388]
which led some scholars to ascribe it to St. Anthony of the Kievan Caves Monastery († 1073), either unhesitatingly [389] or tentatively [390]. In fact the note in S. Slav codices commemorates father Anthony,
who translated this book from the Greek into Serbian [391]
385. It also involves an extravagant theory about loans from Volga Bulgar (not Proto-Bulgar) into Old Russian, cf. D’jačok, О meste (note 383), pp. 10-11, based upon erroneous assumptions, e. g. that кȣрѣлъкъ did not exist in Old Bulgarian. A glance at any dictionary would nave shown that it does, e. g. in John the Exarch’s Hexaemeron, ed. R. Aitzetmuller: Das Hexaemeron des Exarchen Johannes, VI, Graz, 1971, p. 81. On the word see A. Poppe: ’Is kurilotsě’ i is kurilovitsě’. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 31-32 (1985), pp. 319-350, pp. 328-329.
386. Although no S. Slav codices of the full translation have been traced, excerpts are found m a late 14th c. Serb codex, NLB 1073, ff. 230v-233r, see M. Stojanov and Ch. Kodov: Opis na slavjanskite răkopisi v Sofijskata Narodna biblioteka. III. Sofija 1964, p. 243, as well as in a 16th c. S. Russian codex copied from a Bulgarian exemplar, viz. Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, collection of St. Nicholas’ monastery at Mel’cy codex 119, ff. 111v-122r, see N. Petrov: Opisanie rukopisnych sobranij, nachodjasčichsja v gorode Kieve. I. ČIOI 160 (1892), pp. i-viii, 1-174; 161 (1892), pp. 175-240; 162 (1892), pp. 241-321, p. 225.
387. Ed. VMČ, Dekabr' dni 18-23, Moscow 1907, coll. 1207-1438. Earliest codex: late 14th c. Serbian Decani Monastery 98. In the translation the saint is called Gregory instead of Gregentius.
388. Ed. ibid., col. 1438.
389. E. g. A. Viktorov: Opisi rukopisnych sobranij v knigochraniliscach Severnoj Rossii. St. Petersburg 1890, p. 252.
390. E. g. A. Šachmatov: Neskol’ko slov о Nestorovom žitii Fedosija. IORJa 1, i (1896), pp. 45-65, p. 48, n. 2.
391. See the note in the 1462 Neamţu Monastery codex 150, ed. A. Jacimirskij: Melkie teksty i zametki po starinnoj slavjanskoj i russkoj literature, V. IORJa 3, i (1898), pp. 149-152, p. 151.
353
and there is no doubt that the language is 14th c. Serbo-Slavonic [392].
70. Palladius, Historia lausacia
The translation of an excerpt [393] from the prefatory Epistola scripta ad Lausum praepositum has been ascribed to a Russian, viz. East Slav, because it contains a dativus comparationis instead of a genitivus:
eine künstliche Konstruktion, die weder im Altrussischen noch im Altbulganschen eine Grundlage hatte. Es ist eine hyperkorrekte bulgarische Konstruktion eines Nichtbulgaren [394].
In fact it is merely an anacoluthic solecism, not the only one in the short excerpt [396], the Bulgarian origin of whose translation need not be doubted.
392. The earliest Slav codices are of the 15th c., e. g. SHM Synodal 419 of 1452. The question whether or not Anthony was a monk at St. Paul’s Monastery, Athos, need not be examined here.
393. Earliest codex: 1076 florilegium, ed. Kotkov, Izbornik (note 24), pp. 623-625. In this codex the title Паладиı-а has been omitted, so that it misleaaingly appears to be part of the preceding entry, see W. Veder: The „Izbornik of John the Sinner“: a Compilation from Compilations. Polata knigkopisnaja 8 (1983), pp. 15-37, pp. 18, 21, 24, 28 (it is his entry no. 998). It begins with the words: Оурокъмь бо въкоушаи.
394. D. Freydank: Interpretation einer griechisch-kirchenslawischen Übersetzung im Изборник von 1076. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 12 (1967), pp. 38-48, p. 45. The offending phrase is: Лоуче бо съ оуставъмъ пити вино съ величаниѥмь водьноуоумоу питию (ed. Kotkov, Izbornik [note 24], р. 624), an incomprehensible rendering of the straightforward: Ἄμεινον γὰρ ἡ μετὰ λόγου οίνοποσία τῆς μετὰ τύφον ὑδροποσίας.
395. Cf. the impossible combination of two adnominal adjectives, one in the genitive, the other in the dative, (not to mention the scribal error which has turned the original dative plural of the noun into an instrumental singular!), so that καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν σύνταγμα τῶν ἐθελοφιλοσόφων has become и прокыихъ съборъ хотѣславьныимь философъмъ, ed. Kotkov, Izbornik, p. 625.
396. N. Meščerskii: К izučeniju leksiki „Izbornika 1076 g.“. Russkaja istoričeskaja leksikologija i leksikografija, I, ed. S. Volkov, Leningrad 1972, pp. 3-12, pp. 11, rightly denied the East Slav origin of the translation, but was scarcely correct in seeing a Bulgarian example of a dativus comparationis in the 11th c. Sinai psaltery in Psalm cxviii (Masoretic cxix), 72: паче тысѫщи злата, ed. S. Sever’janov: Sinayskaia psaltyr'. Glagoličeskij pamjatnik XI veкa, Petrograd 1922 (= Pamjatniki staroslavjanskogo jazyka 4), p. 159, since the word should be in the plural, cf. χιλιάδας, and it is probably a scribal error for тысѫщь based on a confusion of the Glagolitic letters for и and ь.
354
Abbreviations
a. Manuscript depositories
BAS Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia.
CSA Central States Archives of Early Acts, Moscow.
JAS Jugoslav Academy of Sciences, Agram.
LSL Lenin State Library, Moscow.
NLB National Library of Bulgaria, Sofia.
NLS National Library of Serbia, Belgrade.
SAS Soviet Academy of Sciences, Leningrad.
SHM State History Museum, Moscow.
SPL State Public Library, Leningrad.
TG Tret’jakov Gallery, Moscow.
b. Periodicals and reference works
BHG Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca
ČIOI Čtenija v Imperatorskom Obšcestve istorii i drevnostej rossijskich
IIOL Izdanie Imperatorskogo Obščestva ljubitelej drevnej piśmennosti
IORJa Izvestija Otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk
IRJaS Izvestija po russkomu jazyku i slovesnosti Akademii nauk SSSR
LIFO Letopis Istoriko-filologičeskogo obščestva pri Imperatorskom Novorossijskom universitete
PDPI Pamjatniki drevnej pismennosti i iskusstva
PG Patrologiae cursus completus.... Series graeca et orientalis....
PL Patrologiae cursus completus.... Series prima....
PSRL Polnoe sobranie russkich letopisej
SORJa Sbornik Otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk
TODRL Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury
VMČ Velikie minei četii sobrannye vserossijskim mitropolitom Makariem
ZIANIFO Zapiski Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk po istoriko-filologičeskomu otdeleniju
ZIJK Zbornik za istoriju, jezik i književnost srpskog naroda
