Medieval Slavic Summer Institute 2013Hilandar Research LibraryThe Ohio State UniversityColombus, OH

Update Report - 7/16/2013

Group Members: Izolda Wolski, Gwyn Bourlakov, Katya Rouzina,and Talia Zajac

Under Supervision of: Hilandar Research Library, Curator Dr.Predrag Matejic and Department of Slavic Languages and Literature, Prof. Daniel E. Collins

Call Number: SPEC.OSU.HRL.5

Title: Monastic Miscellany (generic title)

Date: Based on watermarks and supported by orthography/recension, between 1567-1614.

Material: Paper

Number of Leaves: 298 leaves, later foliation of text starting with No. 19 marked on folio 1r – ending with No. 11033 (irregular numbering – folio 80 r ends with No. 98 andfolio 90 r begins with 1108 and continues on through No. 11033, with seemingly no merging of the 1’s, 10’s, and 100’snumerical place as in modern numbering conventions). Text seems continuous despite unusual and at times incongruous foliation.

Folio 40 r to 50 r – later marginalia

Folio 24 v blank, then Folio 25 r – starts new section of manuscript with ВЯЗЬ

Folio 83 r to 84 v - in red ink

Folio 90 r to 100 r - later marginalia

Folio 115 r – later foliation stops at No. 11033

Folio 135 r – quiremark

Folio 147 r – starts new section of manuscript

Folio 151 r – scribal correction of text…struck through

Folio 161 r – previously repaired and loose

Folio 184 r – marginalia, rubric, and ‘doodles’/ ‘drawings’ in margin

Folio 203 r – inserted scrap of paper with tip dipped in redink, match the color of ink used on red text (text marker?)

Folio 229 v to 230 r - bottom margin has inscription in pencil

Folio 233 r - previously repaired or replaced, lose and in different hand. Preceding and subsequent pages have 15 lineseach page, while replaced page has 14 lines. Margins of replaced page also narrower than rest of the text. Using Cold Nosed Illuminator – paper appears to be thicker than rest of the paper used in the manuscript. No watermark foundon this leaf.

Folio 246 – possible start of new section in text, no preceding blank page, rubric present.

Folio 255 r - possible start of new section in text, no preceding blank page, rubric present.

Folio 272 v – marginalia

Folio 286 r - possible start of new section in text, no preceding blank page, rubric present.

Folio 298 v – End of text

End papers light blue, with some worm holes

Size of Leaves:

9 cm. x 15.5 cm. Thickness 6 cm.

General, overall condition: seems complete with damage to binding; loose page (Folio 233); remnants of clasp attachments on back cover. The manuscript has been much-used. It is fragile and should be handled exceedingly carefully. Many pages are attached to binding tenuously, however, no pages seem to be missing. Many pages have dark stains on them, likely from oil off of readers’ hands, covering part of the leaf starting from the outside. A good number of pages have corners or edges missing due to what appears to be possibly mice. Other parts of the manuscript have been frayed or torn around the edges due to human use. Different handwriting and marginalia of various kinds and various time-periods may point to different users/owners, which would be consistent with the manuscript’s condition. Bottom right-hand corner of F1r is torn. The binding is separated from the cover. There appears to be mold on the bottom of the manuscript. Lines 1-6 of F2r are not visible due to the damage of the page of that area and the resultingpaper pasted in that spot, obscuring the text.

Watermarks:

Watermarks can be found on a few folios every 7 to 10 pages which might indicate that every original leaf of paper had awatermark (assuming that every leave would be folded 3 timesto create 8 folios, which is consistent with a rather small size of the manuscript). We found and traced two different types of watermark, one, (which can be found on majority of folios folio 25 onwards), depicting a pitcher with a

crescent moon on its top; and the other depicting grapes (this one was found on only four folios; each folio containing only a fragment of the watermark). A very similar watermark with a pitcher was found in Briquet Album which was dated as 1567, Briquet No 12722 (Les Filigranes, 1968) 1. Part of the second watermark with the image of grapes is similar to the one found in Likhachov Album and dated as 1614 (No 3076, Likhachov’s Watermarks 1994).

The following are the numbers of folios were the watermarks were found.Top (T) – Fragment of Vase/Pitcher with handle (MAJOR PART)Bottom (B) – Fragment of Vase/Pitcher with floral detail anda crescent (MINOR PART)

T 207 216 228B 208 215 226

The fact that the watermark with grapes can be found only onthe first 24 folios is consistent with text division of the manuscript (the second text starts on folio 25 r) and the different scribal hand.

There is a watermark on blue-sugar paper with initials JMWS.The same initials (probably so-called countermark) were found in the Pro patria watermark dated 1797 made in Large Mill in Yaroslavl (No 716, Russian Paper-Mills and watermarks by Zoya Uchastkina, 1962).

1

Binding: Leather 2 on wood; repaired with burlap 3 (date unknown): Three thick raised bands on the spine; partially separated from manuscript; a small center stamp on the back cover depicting a stylized floral design set in a shallow vase or cup. This central image is framed by a design of interwoven braid or rope and set on a background of very thin vertical lines. Bindery blue sugar-paper on inside backcover with a terminus a quo dating of 1719.4

2 Leather tanning technologies used from the XV-XIX c. relied on the useof vegetable tanning until 1835 when chrome-tanning methods were used; Doina Maria Creangă, “Novel Aspects In Leather Covers Conservation: Manuscripts From Putna Monastery,” European Journal of Science and Theology, June 2006, Vol.2, No.2, 94. Acid effects of vegetable tannins known as “red-rot” – low concentrations of sulfuric acids and oxygen made the leather friable especially at the joint areas and a cover could be easily torn from chemical degradation combined with use; Ibid., 93.

3 Burlap, also known as hessian cloth, sackcloth, or jute, was used for repair because it is made of vegetable fibers which its natural properties offer resistance to condensation and is flexible and easily bonds with natural glues/adhesives. Incidentally, burlap was used in religious ascetic practices of the mortification of the flesh – for penance, atonement of sins, and a path to sanctity - where individuals may wear an abrasive shirt called a cilice or "hair shirt", or an imitation of the sufferings of Christ. In fact Ivan the Terrible wore a cilice “sackcloth” (desiring to live and die as a monk), as well as modern use by Mother Teresa, Saint Padre Pio, and the assassinated Archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar Romero. Burlap was a common domestic item, and likely to be found in monastery workshops, not only used for religious practices but more practical use as a breathable storage material, for landscaping, and often used as smoker fuel in beehive-tending because of its generous smoke content and ease of ignition. Use of burlap (made of vegetable fibers) can be dated to 17th century, hair-shirts (made of animal hair) first mention in13th century writings, and sackcloth and ashes mention in Biblical writings – use as a textile, sackcloth can be traced back to Mesopotamia around 5000 BC.

4 According to Zoya Vasil’evna Uchastkina, “The first sugar factory in Russia was established in St. Petersburg in 1719, and a second factory opened in Moscow five years later. These led to a demand for blue paper for packing sugar, and the St. Petersburg mills created a new grade of

Measurement of outside binding: 9cm x 15.5 cm x 5.5 to 6 cm

Scribal hands: Text 1 is written in a distinct hand from therest of the manuscript: the script is more slanted, slightly larger. The letters in Text 1 are thicker than in the rest of the manuscript. Each line length is 5 ½ centimeters long in Text 1 , while Text 2 is narrower (5 cm long). Text 1 has more spacing between each letter compared to Text 2.

Earlier folia of Text 2 contain letters perpendicular to theruling lines. There is a gradual, slight increase in slant in the letters with some fluctuation throughout Text 2 and 3, and some increase in width in Text 3. Nonetheless, the letters remain more symmetrical than in Text 1 and internally consistent in better shape. It can be posited that there is one scribal hand for Text 1 and another for Texts 2 and 3. Folia 232 r. and probably 163r are leaves inserted at a later time; the hand and the width of the ruling lines match that of Text 1, suggesting that that Text1, like the leaf, was added later.

Script: Based on the following paleographic diagnostics— long even descenders of t, long legs of d, and the later, rounder with shorter tail shape of z, and half-cup shape of č—, the style is close to semi-uncial. The asymmetry of the ž also supports this hypothesis.

Three different v’s can be found in the manuscript: asymmetrical with the triangle top and more circular bottom;rectangular, made with four strokes with a small dash on theright side; c- shaped with two small circles on the top and the bottom. Apparently the second type of v is found almost exclusively in the first text, which (as other features

sugar-paper, colored blue with a vegetable dye made from sandalwood”; A History of Russian Hand Paper-Mills and their Watermarks, ed. and adapted by J. S. G. Simmons (Hilversum, Holland: The Paper Publications Society, 1962), p. 17.

discussed below) indicates the different scribe. The box v is also found in a couple of marginalia (e.g. on F78r and , suggesting that is may have been added at a later time by the same person who used it frequently in Text 1.

A connected E and C (somewhat resembling the modern @) are found with increasing frequency throughout the text, beginning with very infrequent occurrence in Text 1 and increasing significantly in Text 2. This difference in frequency further supports the hypothesis that Text 1 was added later, by a different person.

However, the fairly consistent letter shape and orthography throughout the manuscript suggests that the two scribes wereprobably trained at the same monastery and generally follow the same conventions. Despite the differences in overall script size, slant, line thickness line width, there are not significant differences in the shapes of the letters norin the recensional diagnostics, which supports the above hypothesis.

Scribe, place, date of copying: Between 1567-1614. Orthography points to ESL, particularly High Muscovite. While mostly ascribing to the customary pattern of this recension, the scribe seems to be following unique writing regulations (perhaps of his monastery?) which is expressed in some deviation in the recension of the front nasals.

Recension and orthography: Analysis points to East Slavic.Nasals: Ę – the front nasal generally follows ESL pattern,particularly the High Muscovite pattern, with someexceptions (not diagnostic of any specific or place, but itis fairly consistent, likely reflecting special scribalrules). Phonetically the front nasal is realized as “ja”(bolgarьskaę, bašę F1r), and the post-14th-centuryconvention of the phonetic identity of ѧ, ѫ, and jotated “a”is observed.  The realization of the front nasal generally

follows the ESL convention for the realization of the frontnasal with the jotated a occurring initially and after vowelletters, and ѧ after consonant letters. However, there arecertain exceptions, e.g. “-iѧ”, etc. The scribe uses thejotated “a” word-initially, but not always word-finally(“jako”-jotated; vs. “vsjacheskaѧ”). The rule the scribefollows seems to consider verb endings as word-final (e.g.“stoѧti”, “boѧti”) and the first vowel or vowel cluster asword-initial (“nijasti”- jotated, “dijavol”- jotated).However, exceptions to his use of the jotated “a” word-initially exist (“ѧdenije”). Further corroboration ofMuscovite orthography is the alternation in spelling of –ogoand –ovo in adjectival masculine genitive singular endings(for example, on F35v.) The presence of spelling “жы” pointsto the fact the manuscript is post 15th-c. The presence of“S” (‘zelo’) e.g. "zaSirajushti" points to a 16th-century orpossibly 17th century hand.

Ԛ - back nasal is not found in the text, and all the OCSmorphemes with this vowel have u or ю, which means theyfollow ESl pattern as well, examples:

A sg Fem adjectives: prečistuю (f. 3 r), svjatuю (f.5v) (ю after j)A sg Fem noun: bogorodicu (u after consonant)

Jers: Both back and front jers still present word-finally. ь, ъ – Both jer letters are in use (“Ilarionъ”, “esmь”). Most weak jers are not attested, with exception for the word“bolgarъskomu”.

R, L diphthongs - several examples of recensions of sonorants were found in the manuscript:s molčaniemъ – ESl recension OCS lъ changed into olsotvori – ESl recension OCS rъ changed into or

Reflexes of *dj – one example of ESl recension was found in the manuscriptpo nuži – OSC nѫžda/nužda

Ornamentation: Vyaz is featured once in the headings on F25r. A later hand appears to have made decorative markings throughout the text, usually on the outer margins, ranging from geometric shapes and floral designs to what can be seenalmost as pictures of dwellings. Initial letters in a text are often ornamental.

Content:

Text 1, fols. 1-22: . The first is the Bulgarian vita of Bishop Saint Ilarion (English: Hilarion),(died on October 21st 1164)5 of Meglin (alternate spellings: Moglena, Măglena), Bulgaria (modern Macedonia), which describes his fight against heresy in the region, particularly against theBogomils (dualist heretics called by their Byzantine designation of Manicheans).6 It also condemns the practices of the “Armenians” and Paulicians.7 The Bulgarian life of 5 See the brief notice on his life in Michael Walsh, A New Dictionary of Saints: East and West (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2007), p. 264.

6 Named after its founder Mani (216-277 AD). Dualist heresies conceived of the world as caught in the conflict of good and evil, in which both are seen as equal , opposing forces. The spiritual world was associated with good, while the physical world was associated with evil. A person’ssoul is good, while the body is wholly evil; Milan Loos, Dualist Heresy in the Middle Ages (Prague: Academia; The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff N. V: 1974),p. 23. According to the twelfth-century Byzantine author Euthymius Zigabenus, the Bulgarian Bogomils “rejected married life, as well as theeating of meat and the drinking of wine, and even other animal products such as cheese and eggs”, presumably because all these things were associated with (evil) copulation; Ibid, p. 91. See E. A. Livingstone, ed., “Euthymius Zigabenus” in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church,2 ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006- Online edition, 2013), accessed June 30th 2013, < http://www.oxfordreference.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/view/10.1093/acref/9780198614425.001.0001/acref-9780198614425-e-2030>

7 The Paulician movement appeared first in the Byzantine province of Fourth Armenia and in the Pontic region; Loos, Dualist Heresy in the Middle Ages, p. 32. The Paulicians themselves believed that they were restoring

St. Ilarion was written by Euthymius, Patriarch of Trnovo.8 A whole section is devoted to the “Question of the Armenians,” (noted in the manuscript’s rubric, transcribed below): that is, to Bishop Hilarion’s struggles against Armenian heresy.

Text 2, fols. 25-119 r. is an instructional work for a novice monk concerning how to live under an elder's obedience with teachings and examples from saints' lives. What seems to be the second half of text 2, starting on folio 119r, is about handiwork (working with one’s hands) asa part of monastic life (for more detail on the above content, see text intransliteration/translation section below). Text 2 includes detailed instructions on monastic lifestyle: what to eat and drink, how much and when, as well as a long warning against the potentially fatal (to oneself and others) dangers of drinking too much alcohol. For instance, drinking too much kvas will prevent one from doing much in both church and in handiwork. Examples of those include instructions not to

the church to apostolic practice by, for example, considering all believers to be priests and rejecting the hierarchy of bishops: “There were no ordained priests in their religious community, but only the bodyof ‘Christians’, among whom certain individuals had been blessed with the gift of the Spirit, giving them authority in matters of faith”; Ibid,p. 33. some of the other heresies which Hilarion persecuted according toText 1 are Arianism (led by Arius), Apollinarianism (led by Apollinaris), Macedonianism (led by Bishop Macedonius I), Sabellianism (led by Sabellius), Eytechianism, and Nestorianism (led by Nestor) (folio 2r, starting on line 7.) At least one of the Armenian heresies (led by monk Eutyches, who is mentioned in the manuscript as well, and whose particular position was known as Eutychianism) which Hilarion fought against was the Monophysite heresy, which suggested that Christ had only a Divine nature. Apollinarianism was actually a branch of Monophysitism which suggested that Christ had a human body and human "thinking principle" but the Divine Logos had taken the place of Christ's "thinking principle." Nestorianism divided the person of Christalmost to the point of having two separate persons.

8 Ibid, n. 23, p. 101 citing E. Kalužniacki, Die Werke des Patriarchen Euthymius(Vienna: 1901), pp. 27-58.

drink water unless you absolutely need to, even when thirsty, instructions not to put salt on your food, and instructions not to sleep through the night and morning prayers.

Text 3,folios 147r-298 consists of a collection of lives of early Church Fathers, perhaps in the philokalia tradition9, or starchestvo tradition, which describes the “ideal master-disciple relationship”10, a “movement of spiritual direction that involves total revelation of thoughts and obedience to the elder (starets), usually a monk.11 The first starets (or elder) recorded in Russia was Nilus (Maikov) of Sora or Sorsky (lived 1433 to 1508), who promoted the practice of hesychasm in Russia; including the practice of unceasing prayer.12 The practice of starchestvo, however, did not become firmly established in Russia until the 18th century with the Slavonic translation of the Philokalia by the Paisa Velichkovsky, an Athonite monk and native of Poltava.13

The first excerpted life is that of St. Sava. It is possible that there is also a separate text between F139r and F146r (or could be end of Text 2). Further evidence for

9 Greek for “love of beauty”; assembled at Mt. Athos in 1777 by SS. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain and Makarios of Corinth. The text was notprinted or fixed until 1782, when it was first published in Venice in Greek and then translated into Slavic by Paisiy Velichkovsky in 1793; Michael D. Peterson, “Philokalia” in Encyclopedia of Monasticism, Vol. 2:M-Z,ed. William M. Johnston (Chicago and London: Fitzroy Dearborn, 2000), p.1015.

10 David Goldfrank, “Nil’s and Iosif’s Rhetoric of Starchestvo” in Russian History, vol. 39 issue 1-2 (2012). p. 42.

11 Michael D. Peterson, “Elders, Russian Monastic (Startsi)” Encyclopedia ofMonasticism, vol. 1: A-L, ed. William M. Johnston (Chicago and London: Fitzory Dearborn, 2000), p. 439.

12 Ibid, p. 439.

13 Ibid, p. 439.

this tradition is suggested by the mention on folio 192 of St. Isaac of Syria; a desert father who preached that it wasimpossible to draw nearer to God by any means other than prayer.

The first excerpted life is that of St. Sava. It is possible that there is also a separate text between F139r and F146r (which could be end of Text 2).

Inscriptions:

Marginalia range from large hand-written notes at end ofa section, to prayers in semi-uncial e.g. the hesychast JesusPrayer,14 “Gospode iisuse xriste, pomiluj mja grešnago” , on folio 38v. and folio 47 v. to what appears to be some sort of symbolic letters or instructions, in several different hands, including cursive, throughout the manuscript. Some inscriptions appear to be additions to or corrections of thetext. Both pen and pencil are used. At the end of Text 1, Folio 23r features an inscription that appears to read prinese protivo-vred’e car’ lže silam’ (‘may the Tsar bring protection against evil powers’) in rather large, probably 19th-c. cursive whose hand resembles that of the 19th c. letter absolving Cassius Clay of the responsibility for his son’s behavior. This handis also found in several places throughout the manuscript, such as F117v, and is likely the same hand in which the original foliation was made. It is also possible that an earlier cursive hand made some inscriptions such as the one on F96r, which is larger, features a “k” with two

14 Originating in fourth-century Egypt, the Jesus Prayer (known also as the “prayer of the intellect”, the “prayer of the heart” and the “pure prayer) probably became fixed as a formula in the sixth century and became associated with controlled breathing in the thirteenth century; it is closely linked to the Hesychast spirituality of Gregory Palamas (1296-1359); John Chryssavgis, “Hesychasm” in Encyclopedia of Monasticism, vol. 1: A-L, ed. William M. Johnston (Chicago and London: Fitzory Dearborn, 2000), pp. 586-587. The presence an excerpt of the works of St. John of the Ladder on folio 154 v could serve to confirm the manuscript’s hesychast spiritual-intellectual bent.

unconnected sides, is more upright than the large 19th c. hand, and is underneath the markedly differently-scripted 19th-c. foliation on that page. F24r also contains two inscriptions (one horizontal, one in the side margin at a ninety-degree angle to the page) in the large 19th c hand, which appears to be addressed to the director of something, reading “L1 Gospodinu upravljajashumu. L2 Slava otcu i synu i svyatomu duhu” Folio 47 v. contains a scribal note marked with an interlinear superscript cross in the same scribal hand as the surrounding (Text 2) text, reading “Bog’ vidaitǫ v taině”: “God sees you in secret.” F53r features a floral/geometric pattern, and beneath it is a vertical text reading ‘p o s t s o sl e z a m i (haplology) m o l i t v o u’ (‘Post so slezami i molitvou.’. The hand appears less formal, but match the script of the time (e.g. long-descender t.)

See tracings of marginalia below:

Rough translation of excerpts

from Monastic Miscellany, SMS.5

Red/black color is as in manuscript.

(F1r):Rubric: V leto Manuila Carja grecheskago, byst’ Ilarion episkop meglinu gradu bolgarskomu. Iže smanixej i armen sotvori. I vsex Eretikov posrami i vo izgnanie po gradom razosla. O Episkope Ilarione.The work of Manuel the Greek Emperor. In Meglin, the Bulgarian city, there was a Bishop Hilarion who gave [lit. made] a teaching to the Manicheans and Armenians, and shamedall the Heretics and exiled them to [different] cities. About Bishop Hilarion. (F2r):Rubric: Predanie starogo smanichejaThe legend [teaching?] of the old Manichean.Text: Uchaštu nekogda sto vernyja i priidosha [lines 1-6 F20r (actually F2r) damaged and repaired with pasted paper which impairs reading ability of the beg. of these lines].Once, 100 faithful were learning, and came [damaged]Starting with (F2r, L7): …posledovati povelenij. Otvraštati zhe sja i proklinati nečestivykh Eretikov. Arija, Savelija, i Makedonija, i Origena ispisanija ix i Feodora Mamenta Estiskago. I Nestoria učenika ego. Dioskora i Sevgira i Evtixia……to follow commands. To turn him[? unclear b/c of damage] self away from and to curse/condemn the dishonorable Heretics: Arius, Sabellius, and Macedonius, and Origen—their writings—and those of Theodore Mament Estiskii. And of Nestor, his student. Of Dioskor and Sevgir and Eutychius…Text 1 continues about Hilarion fighting heresies. Sample rubric:F28v (original foliation):Rubric: Vopros Armen The Question of the ArmeniansF44r (original foliation): Start of Text 2(Here I simply translated the rubric)

Rubric: Lives and teachings of the holy fathers. For the novices. How to live in obedience to the elder.Text: Ašte brat’e prišel esi ko mne k nemošnomu. Ko grešnu kgrubu. K neljudima rabu. Grešnemu pače vsego mira. Ašte hošteši so mnoju z grešnym požiti. Ponastojašta blagoslovenna daeštesja v poslušanie Boga radi.If a brother came to me, [to] the weak one. To the sinful one, the rude one. To the aloof servant. To the one more sinful than the whole world. If he wanted to live with me, the sinful one. True blessing is given in obedience for the sake of God. F83r:Se že mi brate ponudisja vospomjanuti i proglasiti [?] togo radi. Jako da pritjažeti strax božij ašte bo priobrašteši strax božij to mnoga ti bude vsegda vezde pol’za. This thus my brother will try to remember and proclaim for its sake. When you take on the fear of God, if it’s for transforming the fear of God then it will be much use to youeverywhere and always. F119v Togo že svjatago I prepodobnago otca našego Efrema nakazanieo rukodelii. Of(/from) him, [lit.: of that one] [EMPH] our holy and most reverend father Ephrem, an instruction about handiwork [lit:working with one’s hands].F139 r (end of this text is F146r).Slovo kako lepo est’ inokomь prebyvati. A word [about] how wonderful it is to be a monk. F147r- Start of Text 3 (Phylokalia?)Ot žitija zvjatogo SavyFrom the life of St. Sava.