Градският закон и градското благоустройство в южнославянски контекст

Author(s): Mariyana Tsibranska-Kostova / Language(s): Bulgarian Issue: 57-58/2018

The Byzantine Procheiros nomos, an official monument of secular law from 870‒879, has an unclear and convoluted history in the Slavic context. There is no extant complete translation of this text from the time of Tsar Simeon (893‒927); in the Nomocanon of 14 titles, translated in Preslav, there are only some excerpts from three of its titles. The first material witness to a complete Slavonic translation of the Procheiros is the Serbian Kormchaia of 1262 from Ilovitsa, which introduces also the Slavonic title of this legal corpus (“Закон градски,” or Urban Law), under which it later circulates in the Slavic milieu. Significantly, this title is not a calque of Πρόχειρος νόμος, but highlights the official character of the codex with its particular emphasis on the typical medieval urbanocentric notion of power.This article presents for discussion several terms referring to medieval architecture and urban development which are derived from the 38th title of the Procheiros. The author attempts to demonstrate how treating the medieval town as a complex symbol stimulated the terminological use of specific Slavonic words. At the same time, the urban perspective of the present study allows her lexical analysis to utilize the universality of Byzantine heritage in place of the traditional focus on ethnicity, linguistic domination, and opposition. The ultimate goal of this study is to reveal how this important monument of Byzantine secular power was adopted among the Slavs, enriching in the process the terminology of civic law. The article uses the following sources for comparison: MS HM. SMS 466 from the Hilandar Monastery on Mt. Athos; the Russian miscellany for judges Just Measure, and the official printed version of the Kormchaia (1650‒1653) from the time of Patriarchs Joasaph and Nikon. The complete Slavonic text of the title, according to the Ilovitskaia Kormchaia from 1262 is made available here for the first time in a typeset edition, for the benefit of future studies and/or contemporary translations into modern Bulgarian.

Как Патриарх Евтимий преосмисля и преработва византийски жития?

Author(s): Evelina Mineva / Language(s): Bulgarian Issue: 57-58/2018

This publication stems from observations on two texts: the Encomion of St. Philothea of Temnitsa (Polivot), especially its inserted tale about the pious Amun, and the extended version of the Life of St. Paraskeva (Petka) of Tanovo. The author of the article claims that Patriarch Euthimius drew from a great number of Byzantine texts for each of his works, creating complex mosaics of different motifs and themes, never blindly following his sources. These findings make visible both the creative method of the Bulgarian writer and his excellent education, including his familiarity with Greek and Byzantine literature and his skills as a sophisticated reader. They also highlight the way the Patriarch left his personal imprint on his works, for example the hint, in the Life of Paraskeva, that he personally visited the holy spring at the tomb of St. Euthymius in Madytos.

Константин Философ Костенечки и „ересите“ в Сърбия по времето на деспот Стефан Лазаревич

Author(s): Stanoje Bojanin / Language(s): Bulgarian Issue: 57-58/2018

This study deals with Chapter 29 of Constantine Kostenečki’s Treaties on the Letters, which contains a list of “heresies” – several customs and beliefs from the daily life of clergy and laymen – in Serbia around 1400. This chapter still remains fairly cryptic and unexplained, having received little reflection from scholars who have been focused primarily on Constantine’s concepts of orthography and grammar. In this treatise, characterized as “theoretical peroration” (Goldblatt), detailed and explanatory descriptions give way to moralistic lectures and criticism, replete with scriptural citations and commonplace remarks. The contents of the 29th chapter can be understood in terms of social life’s conceptual diversity, which includes dietary habits, segmentation of time, veneration of particular customs and individuals, kinship ties, and aspects of church rituals. These concepts could be mapped onto dichotomies of high/low, official/unofficial, central/local, clerical/lay culture (J. Le Goff, J.-C. Schmitt, Peter Burke), but in many cases they do not overlap with the social strata and classes in the feudal society. Constantine criticizes customs and beliefs that are, more or less, shared by many in the parish and the diocese, from priests and lower clerics to laymen. These cultural models replace the official church practice in the social and religious lives of Belgrade clergy and their flocks—a tendency that Constantine ardently opposes.

Първо Похвално слово за св. Георги от Григорий Цамблак

Author(s): Andrej Boyadzhiev / Language(s): Old Church Slavonic,Bulgarian Issue: 57-58/2018

The article offers an edition of the First Encomium on St. George by Gregory Tsamblak. It introduces 18 hitherto unpublished witnesses of the text from the 15th through 18th century and incorporates the previous edition from the Great Menologion of Metropolitan Makarius. The Encomium is examined together with texts that are linked to it in the manuscript tradition. Among them, special attention is paid to the Lives and Miracles of St. George, and to sermons and hagiographic texts of Slavonic origin. The author offers a classification of the witnesses according to their textological characteristics. A separate part of the publication deals specifically with some of the rhetorical figures typical for Tsamblak’s style and his preferred strategies for textual organization. The remarks on language shed light on some grammatical and lexicological features of the text. The author concludes that this exemplary work epitomizes the tradition of the Turnovo school from the 14th century.

Svetlana Kujumdzieva. The Hymnographic Book Of Tropologion. Sources, Liturgy And Chant Repertory. London and New York: Routledge, 2018, 184 pp. ISBN 9781138297814

Author(s): Kristina Yapova / Language(s): Bulgarian Issue: 57-58/2018

Елка Мирчева. Староизводните и новоизводните сборници – преводи, редакции, преработки, книжовноезикови особености. София: Издателство „Валентин Траянов“, 2018. 398 с. ISBN 978-954-9928-73-0

Author(s): Diana P. Atanassova / Language(s): Bulgarian Issue: 57-58/2018

Доц. д-р Елена Коцева-Арнаудова (16.08.1936 – 04.04.2018)

Author(s): Elena Uzunova,Elissaveta Moussakova / Language(s): Bulgarian Issue: 57-58/2018

Александър Наумов, Красимир Станчев и италианската славистика

Author(s): Marco Scarpa / Language(s): Bulgarian Issue: 59-60/2019

Публикации на проф. д-р хабил. Александър Наумов за периода 2009–2019 г.

Author(s): Marco Scarpa / Language(s): Bulgarian,Russian,Polish,Serbian,Old Slavonic,Italian Issue: 59-60/2019

Публикации на проф. д-р Красимир Станчев за периода 2010–2018 г.

Author(s): Marco Scarpa / Language(s): Bulgarian,Russian,Polish,Old Slavonic,Old Bulgarian,Italian Issue: 59-60/2019

Кирил и Методий в Рим и в паметта на Рим

Author(s): Krassimir Stantchev / Language(s): Bulgarian Issue: 59-60/2019

The article, whose theoretical foundation is the concept “sites of memory” (Lieux de Mémoire), formulated in the 1980s by Pierre Nora, traces the sites of Cyrillo-Methodian memory in Rome. The sites are classified into two groups:• sites linked by documentation or by hypothesis to the stay of St. Cyril (Constantine the Philosopher) and St. Methodius in Rome in 868-869 and which indisputably existed at the time, which allows us to treat them as sites of preserved and retransmitted memory;• sites of the ideal (in Nora’s terms, “abstract and intellectual”) fixation of memory, articulated in monumental representations of the First Apostles of the Slavs or in dedicatory inscription on institutional buildings, most often churches.In both cases, the main criterion for treating a particular object as a site of memory is its marking by inscriptions, memorial plaques, etc. Recalling Nora’s insight that the number of memory expressions is proportionate to the number of groups (communities) that see in these places a symbol of their history, the author concludes with the hope that, for both Slavic and non-Slavic peoples in Europe, Rome constitutes a collective memory site for the shared reverence toward Cyril and Methodius which transcends confessional difference.

Evelina Mineva. The Byzantine Hagiographic and Hymnographic Texts on St Parasceve of Epibatae. Pаrt One. The Byzantine Vita of St Parasceve of Epibatae or the Vita by „Vasilikos The Deacon“. Sofia: Publishing Centre „Boyan Penev“, 2017

Author(s): Maria Yovcheva / Language(s): Bulgarian Issue: 59-60/2019

Мая Петрова-Танева. „Помощница на царете“: света императрица Теофана в южнославянската традиция. София: Издателски център „Боян Пенев“, 2018. 335 с. ISBN978-619-7372-16-8

Author(s): Ana Stoykova / Language(s): Bulgarian Issue: 59-60/2019

Три версии толкований Никиты Ираклийского к словам Григория Богослова

Author(s): Dmitrii M. Bulanin / Language(s): Russian Issue: 61-62/2020

This article compares three Slavonic versions of one and the same theological composition translated from the Greek: the commentaries by Nicetas of Heraclea, the prominent Byzantine exegete of the eleventh century, on the collection of sixteen homilies by Gregory the Theologian. The Slavonic text of the commentaries is known in three versions. Version (1) is abridged and the oldest of the three. It is considered an Old Russian translation and has entered the „Second Slavonic Edition“ of Gregory the Theologian’s collection of sixteen homilies. Version (2) is an extended version, produced by South Slavic writers in the fourteenth century, which appeared in the „Third South Slavonic Edition“ of Gregory’s collection. Version (3) is included in the „Third East Slavonic Edition.“ Its first half, related to Homilies 1–8, is almost identical to the corresponding part of version (2), while its second half (homilies 9–16) contains original Russian commentaries based on the old abridged translation, i.e. version (1), although the content has been considerably altered and expanded. All examples used to compare the three Slavonic versions are taken from Nicetas’ commentaries on one homily dedicated to Gregory of Nyssa. The article significantly corrects our traditional understanding of Gregory the Theologian’s Slavonic reception by proposing, for example, that version (2) is independent from version (1). The author draws his conclusions not only from comparing the texts themselves, but from analyzing the different functions assigned to each version, which, in the final analysis determined the textual discrepancies among them.This article compares three Slavonic versions of one and the same theological composition translated from the Greek: the commentaries by Nicetas of Heraclea, the prominent Byzantine exegete of the eleventh century, on the collection of sixteen homilies by Gregory the Theologian. The Slavonic text of the commentaries is known in three versions. Version (1) is abridged and the oldest of the three. It is considered an Old Russian translation and has entered the „Second Slavonic Edition“ of Gregory the Theologian’s collection of sixteen homilies. Version (2) is an extended version, produced by South Slavic writers in the fourteenth century, which appeared in the „Third South Slavonic Edition“ of Gregory’s collection. Version (3) is included in the „Third East Slavonic Edition“ Its first half, related to Homilies 1–8, is almost identical to the corresponding part of version (2), while its second half (homilies 9–16) contains original Russian commentaries based on the old abridged translation, i.e. version (1), although the content has been considerably altered and expanded. All examples used to compare the three Slavonic versions are taken from Nicetas’ commentaries on one homily dedicated to Gregory of Nyssa. The article significantly corrects our traditional understanding of Gregory the Theologian’s Slavonic reception by proposing, for example, that version (2) is independent from version (1). The author draws his conclusions not only from comparing the texts themselves, but from analyzing the different functions assigned to each version, which, in the final analysis determined the textual discrepancies among them.

Translation Errors in the Slavonic Version of Athanasius’ Orations against the Arians

Author(s): Viacheslav V. Lytvynenko / Language(s): English Issue: 61-62/2020

This study seeks to shed light on errors made when translating into Slavonic from oral recitations of Greek texts and, more broadly, to contribute to a discussion about the typology of errors in Slavonic translations. It offers a catalogue of 95 translation errors in the Slavonic version of the Orations against the Arians. More often than not these errors appear to be the result of mishearing, creating the impression that the translator was working from recitations rather than from a written source. Establishing the real nature of these errors requires a closer study of each individual case as well as an analysis of their pattern of recurrence in all four Orations.

Хроника Георгия Амартола в Книге Иаков Жидовин

Author(s): Tetjana Leonidovna Vilkul / Language(s): Russian Issue: 61-62/2020

The Chronicle of George Hamartolos in the Book of Yakov Zhidovin.

Средновековният славянски текст на Acta Thomae Minora

Author(s): Andrej Boyadzhiev / Language(s): Bulgarian Issue: 61-62/2020

This article offers an edition and a preliminary study of the Slavonic text of Acta Thomae Minora (BHG 1833). As the study reveals, both the Greek and Slavonic versions of the text belong to the so-called open textual traditions. For that reason, we publish the Greek and the Slavonic texts in a parallel edition. The Slavonic witnesses are closer to the Greek copies C and N than to copy M. From the two Slavonic copies, T follows the Greek traditions more closely. The witness Und. 543 represents a compilation that is distinct from all other copies and should be studied and edited separately. The two Slavonic witnesses published here, T and Л, represent two independent translations from Greek. They originated, in all probability, during the Old Bulgarian period, in the tenth or eleventh century. Later, in the thirteenth or fourteenth century, both versions were reedited, introducing new linguistic features.

Текст и визуален език в Радомировия псалтир

Author(s): Elissaveta Moussakova / Language(s): Bulgarian Issue: 61-62/2020

In the Radomir Psalter script and illumination act together to produce a powerful visual and psychological effect on the viewer. In analyzing their modus operandi, the paper focuses on the paleographical features and the most striking imagery in the decoration, involving representations of human hands, snakes/dragons and birds. This selection of motifs has its focal point in the large-scale composition on f. 167r, showing a heraldic couple of monstrous birds (or flying dragons), intertwined with a couple of snakes/dragons. Assuming the double function of a headpiece and tailpiece, it marks the end of the Psalter where djak Radomir left his colophon and the beginning of the added “Story about Saul Chasing David.” The latter, still not properly studied, is considered an original Slavonic literary work. Its highly emotional content, when juxtaposed to the scribe’s note asking ‘readers’ to commemorate his father, suggests a very personal reason behind the creation of this manuscript. The study of the ornaments reveals encoded apocalyptic—and respectively soteriological—notions connecting in a single verbal and visual complex the devotional character of the Psalter as a book and private prayer for mercy and salvation. When considered in a broader socio-historical perspective, the manuscript’s illumination suggests that the book was created at a time when thirteenth-century Bulgarian society feared yet again the coming of the ‘last days’. In that respect, the author raises the open question to what extent the spread of the visual language so characteristic for the illumination of thirteenth-fourteenth century South- and East Slavonic manuscripts and usually termed ‘teratological style’ or ‘teratological ornament’ might have been prompted by such a collective sensibility.

Седалните за първите три месеца в Братковия миней (НБС Рс. 647). Въпросът за възникването на ноемврийската част от ръкописа

Author(s): Stanka Petrova / Language(s): Bulgarian Issue: 61-62/2020

This article analyzes the content and textological peculiarities of the kathismata in the Bratkov Menaion, Ms. NBS 647. Specifically, it compares the kathismata from the first (thirteenth-century) part of the codex, dedicated to the months of September and October, with those for the month of November. For the comparative analysis, the author also considers the corresponding kathismata from the earliest extant East-Slavic general and South-Slavic festal menaions (the Novgorod Menaion from the second half of the thirteenth century, the twelfth-century menaions from the Synod Collection of GIM, Menaion F. n. I.72 of RNB from the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth century, the Skopje Menaion NBKM 522 from the thirteenth century, and others). The analysis reveals that the November part of the Bratkov Menaion has a peculiar composition. It has preserved an older textual layer that testifies to the earlier origin of this part of the manuscript compared to the part for September and October.

Загребският пролог като представител на втората южнославянска редакция на Простия пролог

Author(s): Iskra Hristova Shomova / Language(s): Bulgarian,Old Slavonic,Old Bulgarian Issue: 61-62/2020

South Slavic manuscripts of the Synaxarion (Prost Prolog) had already been divided into two groups by Vladimir Mošin, but it was Lyudmila Prokopenko who registered the existence of two different textual South Slavic redactions. So far, the Second South Slavic redaction has not been studied in detail. This article is an attempt to characterize it on the base of the Zagreb Synaxarion (Zagrebski Prolog). Eight texts from the Zagreb Synaxarion are published and compared to the corresponding texts in the Sofiyski Prolog and the Lesnovski Prolog. For four of these texts parallels are provided also from the manuscript Wuk 37 (Berlin Staatsbibliothek), another exemplar of the second South Slavic redaction. In all cases, the comparison reveals considerable differences between the redactions. Sometimes there is exchange of synonyms, in other cases the same idea is expressed by two different phrases, so it seems that there are two different translations from similar sources. Occasionally, the text in the second redaction is much longer than the text in the first redaction, the second including episodes missing from the first. A question arises: Are we dealing with two redactions or with two different translations? The author is inclined to support the idea that these are two redactions based on the same primary text. Тwo reasons support this hypothesis. First, some parts of the texts are identical in the two groups of manuscripts. Second, there are mistakes common for all South Slavic manuscripts of both redactions. This means that the South Slavic manuscripts are secondary to the East Slavic ones and that all South Slavic manuscripts come from one Old Russian manuscript that already featured the corresponding errors.