How to Edit the Questions of Anastasius Sinaita in Slavonic

KirilondashMetodievski studii 21(2012) 113ndash124

HOW TO EDIT THE QUESTIONS OF ANASTASIUS SINAITA IN SLAVONIC

WILLIAM R VEDER

Solo codice Anatolius Allex

Solo textu Xotěšlěm Baranov

The Identification

Maurits Geerardrsquos Clavis patrum graeligcorum (CPG) the great enterprise to up-date JacquesndashPaul Mignersquos Patrologiaelig graeligca by 1985 could draw upon the work of Franccedilois Nau Andreacute Guillou and KarlndashHeiz Uthemann to give a fair picture of the work of Anastasius Sinaita (dagger ca 7001) the Viaelig dux (CPG 7745 his magnum opus) one (or three) antindashheretical treatises (CPG 7756 and uncer-tain CPG 7772 7774) ten homilies (CPG 4583 7747ndash55 7780) and Historiaelig animaelig utiles (CPG 7758) Only his Questions and Answers (CPG 7746) re-mained an indigest conglomerate of authentic Anastasian PseudondashAnastasian and nonndashAnastasian questions even though the reader was alerted to a study of Marcel Richard (1969) which identified as sole authentic a collection of 103 Questions and Answers (Col 103)

The reason why Richardrsquos lucid and succinct study remained almost margin-al in CPG is of course that it could not extend very far beyond the initia of Anastasius Sinaitarsquos Questions and Answers being concerned with the structure of the collections and of the tradition as a whole Yet it proved seminal Heinz Miklas took its lead in interpreting the relevance of Richardrsquos study for Slavon-ic studies and Joseph Munitiz set out to prepare the full edition which ap-peared in 2006

In a paper as lucid and thorough as its model (read in 1985 but printed only in 1991) Miklas identified four separate Slavonic collections of Anastasian 1 In his study of the various authors known as lsquoAnastasius of Sinairsquo Sakkos 1964 proposed to identify our author with patriarch Anastasius II of Antiochia murdered in 609 by the local Jews This is contradicted by the fact that he was active as late as 686ndash689 as well as by a note on his demise in the Synaxarium of the Great Church (see Aleksandr Každan in ODB 87) The misidentification can be traced to before ca 873 when it was quoted by George Hamartolos (see Sieswerda 2004 fn 13 86)

FESTSCHRIFTndashMIKLAS 2

Questions and Answers as well as Edifying Histories in addition to the general-ly known (v) i 31ndash36 questions best preserved in the IvanndashAlexandrov sbornik but attested

as early as the Izbornik of 1076 (see Miklas 1991 68ndash69) ii 22 questions (2 unidentified) and 6 histories (2 anonymous) transmitted in

and translated from the Pandect of Nicon of the Black Mount (see Miklas 1991 69)

iii 12ndash15 questions complementary to i best preserved in the printed Kormčaja kniga of 1653 ch 69 but attested as early as the Izbornik of 1076 (see Mi-klas 1991 70ndash71)

iv 37 Anastasian and 3 anonymous histories transmitted in the AlphabeticndashAnonymous Collection of Apophthegmata Patrum and translated into the Az-bučnondashIerusalimskij Paterik (see Miklas 1991 71ndash72)

v 23 PseudondashAnastasian + 65 anonymous questions transmitted in the Σωτήριος and translated into the Symeonic Florilegium

The Transmission

Thanks to the meticulous survey of Miklas 1991 and the equally meticulous textological work of Munitiz 2006 we are now in a position to separate authen-tic Anastasian questions from inauthentic and to relate the Greek transmission of their text with their Slavonic translations

The witnesses to the original collection of 103 Questions and Answers of Anastasius Sinaita (Col 103) fall into two groups family M (fM) and family W (fW) the latter unrelated to Slavonic Of fM a single copy of the full text sur-vives along with three partial copies all other witnesses are compilations The most prolific of these is a dogmatic reelaboration of a selection of questions from the original Col 103 made ca 865 by a Constantinopolitan theologian in the form of 23 questions (23 PsAn ed Sieswerda 2004) with florilegia of Bib-lical and patristic questions added to the answers preserved in a collection with 65 anonymous questions added (Col 88 ed Hervet 1575 in Latin translation) Col 88 was recompiled three times with 56 questions from Col 103 interpo-lated between questions 59 and 60 (col a ed Gretser 16172) with the addition of 10 prolegomena and 25 epilegomena (Σωτήριος3) and 28 of its questions were combined with 55 questions of Col 103 (Col d unrelated to Slavonic) A simple selection of 15 questions from Col 103 is preserved in Col c (see note 2) 2 Gretser himself recompiled Col a by adding 10 questions from Col c (and replacing 5 others see Munitiz 2006 xxvi) 3 The Σωτήριος is being edited for publication in the Corpus christianorum by Douwe Sie-swerda and Lara Sels


Beyond this point the Greek transmission can only be explained with the help of the Slavonic evidence ic Miklasrsquo collections i and iii Collection i re-produces the ordering of questions in Munitizrsquo manuscript D and the text of his manuscripts D and Q + his Col b consequently neither D and Q nor Col b represent independent selections from fM but more or less selective copies of a collection (Col D) derived from it Similarly Miklasrsquo collection iii reproduces part of the PseudondashAnastasian questions of Munitizrsquo Col b consequently these questions must have formed a separate collection before being added to a selec-tion of 23 questions4 from Col D (their text is intimately related to manuscripts D and Q)

4 Munitiz 1991 xxiv mentions only 21 questions overlooking questions D 8 and 31 (= Col 103 15 and 100)

c700 Col 103 fM fW c865 65 Anon 23 PsAn Col D Col c προ- ἐπι- Col 88 56 23 22 PsAn c914 Σωτήριος Col a Col b The Greek collections of Anastasian Questions (shaded translated into Slavonic)

What to Edit in Slavonic

The Anastasiana in Miklasrsquo collections indashv are not all authentic collections iii and v do not contain any text attributable to our Anastasius of Sinai and collec-tions ii and iv belong to (compilative) works in their own right Moreover we should initiallly assume that all five collections represent different translations What then to edit


The most straightforward answer to this question suggests itself for collec-tions ii iv and v they need to be edited within the framework of the Pandect of Nicon of the Black Mountain (ii5) the AzbučnondashIerusalimskij Paterik (iv6) and the Symeonic Florilegium (v7) Only collections i and iii can be edited inde-pendently the lack of any common denominator in their entourage suggesting that they were transmitted as separate entities collection iii moreover is pre-served as a compact collection only in the printed Kormčaja kniga of 1653 ch 69 elsewhere it is preserved only in casual selections

Collection i reproduces the Greek Col D (manuscripts D and Q + Col b of Munitiz 1991) of 36 questions 5 questions (4 7 17ndash18 and 32) as yet untraced in Slavonic and 4 questions (33ndash36) preserved only in Col b not in manu-scripts D or Q An edition of the Slavonic translation of Col D should be based on the maximum inventory of 36 questions and reflect the sequence of the questions in this particular collection (references to Col 103 to be given sepa-rately)

Collection iii reflects the Greek collection of 22 PseudondashAnastasian ques-tions interpolated into the selection of 23 authentic questions from Col D to form Col b as reproduced in Appendices 1ndash16 (+ BHG 1322undashv + BHG 1444x) and 21ndash22 of Munitiz 1991 4 questions (A1ndash2 A11ndash13) are as yet un-traced in Slavonic but the Kormčaja adds 2 questions (A21ndash22) which must have belonged to the original Greek As the Slavonic translation shows no trace of ordering other than in the Kormčaja and as 4 of the questions are not includ-ed in the Kormčaja the most prudent solution for the edition would be to fol-low the sequence of appendices in Munitiz 2006 171ndash213 A problem is pre-sented by the presence of BHG 1322undashv and BHG 1444x in the Greek collection these are Edifying Histories and their Slavonic translation seems to be firmly connected to the AzbučnondashIerusalimskij Paterik and the Compilative Paterikon (Svodnyj Paterik ed Nikolova 1980 147ndash148) they may well have been interpolated in the Greek Col b

Isolated in Slavonic not included either in Miklasrsquo collection i nor collec-tion iii are 4 authentic Anastasian questions (Col 103 24 42 52 and 83) and 1 PseudondashAnastasian (A25) If it can be established that the text of the authentic questions 42 52 and 83 is not excerpted from the Pandect of Nicon (ch 52 51 and 22 respectively) they should be edited together with authentic question 24 in an appendix to collection i likewise the PseudondashAnastasian question A25

5 See the edition of the (defective) cod Athos Hilandar 175 (Serb 13th c) by Pavlova 2000 6 Only the first (alphabetic) part is edited by Caldarelli 1996 the initia of both parts are listed alphabetically by Belova 1991 7 See the edition of the (defective) cod Moskva GIM Sin 1034 (Russ dated 1073) by Dinekov 1991


should be edited in an appendix to collection iii Both the Slavonic collections i and iii as well as the isolated questions that

cannot be related to any other collection should be edited despite the fact that collection iii and question A25 are not authentic all were received and trans-mitted in Slavonic as belonging to Anastasius However care should be taken to set them apart of one another

How to Edit the Slavonic Translation

The Slavonic translations of both collections i and iii were made before 930 in Glagolitic presumably at Preslav The date is vouched for by by the excerption of 5 questions from i and 9 questions from iii into the Knjažij Izbornik com-piled or commissioned by Tzar Peter I for his son Boris from where all of i and 7 of iii were incorporated into the Izbornik of John the Sinner commissioned ca 960 by crownndashprince Boris for his heir apparent the script is vouched for by the fact that the Cyrillic copy of the Izbornik of John the Sinner made at Ki-ev in 1076 is not in fact a copy but a direct transcription from Glagolitic (for date script and transmission see Veder 2008)

The witnesses of collection i are the following L cod SndashPb RNB FI376 (Bulg dated 1348) f160vndash182 (units 331ndash388) ed

Kuev 1981 S cod Sofia NBKM 1047 (Serb end 15th c) f50vndash56v (units 439ndash464) de-

scr Stojanov 19648 Z cod Athos Great Laura Zndash9 (Serb first half 16th c) f102ndash109 descr

MatejićndashBogdanović 19899 M cod Kiev CNB Melmp119 (Ukr before 1596) f118vndash133 (units 1030ndash

1121) descr Veder 1983 listed Kuev 1981 301 acute 30 The witnesses of the Knjažij Izbornik and the Izbornik of John the Sinner are

the following I cod SndashPb RNB Erm 20 (Russ 1076) ed Moldovan 2008 O cod Saratov NBSGU 45 (Russ 15ndash16th c) f306cndash312d 319bndash325c descr

Moldovan 20089 K cod Kiev CNB Melmp119 (see above M) f90ndash107 (units 700ndash928)

The witnesses to collection iii are listed in Miklas 1991 70ndash71 Much re-search in manuscript collections (to begin with the manuscripts listed by Kuev 1981 295ndash30210) is required in order to assemble the documentation required

8 I thank Petko Petkov for his transcript of the text of S 9 I thank the Resource Center for Medieval Slavic Studies of The Ohio State University for prints of the text of Z and access to the microfilm of O 10 Of Kuevrsquos witnesses acute 29 is a copy of the manuscript edited by Kuev and as such of no value to the edition acute 12 18 21 40 45 each have a single question from collection i acute 1 5ndash7


to properly edit this collection The available evidence allows for no more than an operational edition which would however be of substantial assistance in the search for witnesses

The fact that the earliest extant witness to either collection the Izbornik of 1076 is at least a century and a half and three textological generations removed from the original (besides being a mere excerpt version) disqualifies it from serving as a base for the edition equally disqualified are LSZM distant more than 400 up to more than 650 years from the original even though LSZM are at least one textological generation closer to the original than the Izbornik of 1076 What disqualifies all of them is that none of them is written in Glagolitic in collection i we have evidence of at least five different transcriptions into Cyril-lic viz 1 ndash K 2 ndash I 3 ndash L 4 ndash M 5 ndash SZ a sixth transcription may underlie O Similar conditions surely obtain in the transmission of collection iii

The question how to present the edition of a text like the Questions and An-swers of Anastasius Sinaita is one Slavonic philology has not been properly prepared to answer From its very inception at the turn of the 18th and 19th cen-turies its attention was focused more on the local than the general more on the manuscript than the text both by scholars with a patriotic agenda and such without11 The least convincing study of van Wijk (1920ndash26 and 193112) could not have been written without the expectance of the mainstream of Slavic scholarship and Lixačev 1962 could not have based his textological tenets on a less particularist work than Beacutedier 1928 without the risk of dropping out of that mainstream However we know now that the traditional view of Slavonic man-uscripts as direct conveyors of information on place and time of their writing is untenable RottndashŻebrowski 1974 produced a methodologically impeccable

31 33ndash35 421 are witnesses to collection v acute 2ndash4 8ndash11 13ndash16 19 24 26ndash28 36 38ndash39 41 423 43 may be witnesses to collection iii (acute 17 = 13 acute 27 = two separate manuscripts) acute 25 32 422 are probably pseudepigraphshellip no indication can be given for acute 20 22ndash23 37 44 for lack of data 11 Our teachers all preferred editions in which (to use the words of one of the greatest connais-seurs of text transmission in the early Christian world) lsquothe deficiency of the foundation is en-hanced and underlined by the superstitious reverence with which the most insignificant acci-dents of copying are reproduced as if philology were bound forever to forsake any reliable rule to resolve a regular abbreviation read an obliterated letter without hesitation or distinguish the punctuation of the manuscript from the flyspecksrsquo (Peeters 1950 28) In our days such editions are best produced by digital imaging with minimal expense of time and loss of information 12 Van Wijk of course was well aware of the problems inherent in the mainstream approach to the textual heritage lsquoUnfortunately what makes it especially difficult to group old literary monuments geographically is that we are rarely able to separate the linguistic layers intermin-gled in a codex On the one hand we must view the language of a text as a unified whole on the other we know that such view is not appropriate but it is necessary in order not to sacrifice too much to phantasyrsquo (1926 43)


demonstration that the language of the Izbornik of 1076 was Ukrainian howev-er since he chose to ignore the more than a century and a half of prehistory of the text his demonstration is as convincing as the claim that the place name Ba-stogne derived from Upper Sorabian baćoń lsquostorkrsquo testifies to a Slavic substra-tum in the toponymy of the Ardennes corroborated by the river name Sovet

Let us take a look at the witnesses to Question 33 (= Anastasius Sinaita Quaestio 59) aligned roughly in chronological order 1 I Въпрос Аште мамъ члка вѣръна т м пакость сътворть т не могѹ L Въпрос Аще мамъ члка вѣрна печаль м створть т не могѫ S Въпрос Аще мамъ дрѹга вѣрна печаль м створть не могѹ Z Въпрос Аще мамь дрꙋга вѣрна печаль м створть не могꙋ O Въпросъ Аще мамь члка вѣрна пакость м створть не могꙋ K Въпрос Аще мамъ члка вѣрна тъ м напаст створть та не могꙋ M Въпросъ Аще мам члка вѣрна тъ м печаль творть тї не могꙋ I сѧ съ нмь съмрт л цѣловат ѥго нъ тъчью ꙗꙁыкъмь L сѧ съ нмь смрт цѣловат его нѫ тьчѫ ѫꙁыкомъ S се сь нмь смрт л цѣловат нь тьчїю єꙁыкомъ Z се сь нм смрт л цѣловат нь тьчїю єꙁыкомъ O сѧ съ нмь смрт цѣловат его нъ тьчю K сꙗ с нмь смрт л цѣловат его но точїю ꙗꙁыкомъ M сꙗ смрт с нм нѫ тьчѫ аꙁыкомъ I чьто сътворѫ ѹстрою л сѧ понѣ съ нмь на лц л отъвьргѹ сѧ L то что створѧ ѹстроѫ л сѧ съ нмъ понѣ на лц л ѿвръгѫ сѧ S то что створꙋ ѹстрою л се съ нмъ понѣ на лц л ѿврьгꙋ се Z то что створꙋ ѹстрою л се съ нм понѣ на лцѣ л ѿврьгꙋ се O то что створю ѹстрою л сѧ съ нмь понѣ на лц л отъврьгꙋ сѧ K что створꙗ ѹстроꙗ л сꙗ с нмъ поне на лц л ѿвергꙋ сꙗ M то что створꙗ ѹстрою л сꙗ съ нмъ понѣ на лц л ѿвръгѫ сꙗ 2 I Ѿвѣт Съмр сѧ съ нмь понѣ ѹсты мъногашьдꙑ бо отътолѣ начьнъ L Ѿвѣт Съмр сѧ съ нмъ понѣ ѹсты многащ бо ѿ того начѧнъ S Ѿвѣт Съмр се съ нмъ понѣ ѹст мнѡгащы бо ѿ того начьнъ Z Ѿвѣт Съмр се сь нм понѣ ѹст мнѡгащы бо ѿ того начьнь O Ѿвѣт Смр сѧ съ нмь понѣ ѹсты многажды бо наченъ K Ѿвѣтъ Смр сꙗ с нмь поне ѹсты мнѡгажды бо ѿтолѣ наченъ M Ѿвѣтъ Смр сꙗ понѣ ꙋсть съ нмъ мнѡгажды бо ѿ того наченъ I на стовѹю любъвь прведеть ѥго съврьшенѹю L на стнѫѧ любовь прдеть съвръшенѫ


S на стннѹю любовь прїт съврьшенѹю Z на стннꙋю любовь прїдеть съврьшеннꙋю O на стовꙋю любовь наведе съвершенꙋю K на стовꙋ любовъ прведет его съврьшенꙋю M на стовꙋю любовъ съвръшенꙋю прїдеш (Mt 529ndash30) I ѹне т ѥсть быт въ полы сѹхѹ неже вьсемѹ L ѹне бо т есть быт половнѫ сѹхѹ неже вьсемѹ S ѹнѥ т ѥс быт поль сꙋх нежел вьсемꙋ Z ꙋнѥ т ѥс быт поль сꙋхꙋ нежел всемꙋ O ѹне бо есть быт въ полы сꙋхꙋ нежел всемѹ K ѹне т єст быт въ полы сꙋхꙋ неже въсемѹ M ѹне т єст быт с полꙋ сꙋхꙋ нежел всемꙋ

The lineated collation makes it crystal clear that none of the copies give any indication as to the dialect of their scribe The deeper the editorial intervention into a Slavonic text the greater the chance that it predates the manuscript that transmits it the divergences in the Chrysostomian homilies common to the Glagolita Clozianus and the Codex Suprasliensis are due to two scribes work-ing side by side at Preslav to prepare two exemplars of a Glagolitic homiliary for the feast of Annunciation and the Holy Week of 899 from one and the same set of source translations (see Spasova 2008) The younger the manuscript the greater the chance that variation is trivial (see Veder 2005 316ndash319) Conse-quently if we find the maximum spectrum of variation we can be reasonably sure to have access to the main branches of transmission their data will enable us to approximate the original translation by reconstruction

In our case the lack of 1 ἐξ ὅλης καρδίας отъ вьсего срьдьца (or вьсемь срьдьцемь) betrays either a failure of the translator (excusable in view of the verb цѣловат13) or a damage of the Glagolitic original Тhe conflict of word formation in 2 стовъ стньнъ points to стъ in the Glagolitic orginal and the double translation τέλειος стъ + съврьшенъ together with the awkward syntax to съврьшенъ being added by the translator in a marginal note The tex-tual changes 1 печаль rarr пакость (rarr напасть) ѥго2 om 2 отъ того rarr отътолѣ прдетъ rarr прведетъ (rarr наведе) нежел rarr неже evidently belong to the ex-cerption of the question into the Knjažij Izbornik (1281ndash82) while the changes 1 чловѣка rarr дрѹга ѥго1 om 2 въ полꙑ rarr поль belong to the selective transcrip-tion of 13 questions from the Glagolitic original for the source of mss SZ All

13 In the Scete Paterikon which I attribute to St Methodius the meanings of цѣловат lsquoto greetrsquo and лобъꙁат lsquoto embrace kissrsquo are distinct The indistinct usage of цѣловат together with that of the conjunction т surely is a feature of the idiolect of the translator of the Questions


other changes must be ascribed to the individual copies These considerations should lead us to search for a way to present the text in

abstraction from its various graphic reencodings14 in the copies that have sur-vived by chance and to recognise the futility of any attempt to restore the textrsquos graphic encoding by the translator15 For morphosyntaxis and lexicon where Slavonic grammar has attained a high level of reliability this is not problemat-ic for orthography where despite all ink wasted on it Slavonic grammar has little to offer but conflicts of interpretation this requires restraint Philology here should serve the purpose of presenting lexicon and morphosyntaxis with optimal transparency As an illustration and a basis for discussion I offer an operational edition of Question 33 (= 59) 331 Ἐρώτησις νθacutemiddot Ἐὰν ἔχω ἄνθρωπον πιστὸν θλίψαντά microε καὶ οὺ δύναmicroαι Въпросъ Аще мамь чловѣка вѣрьна т печаль м твортъ т не могѫ διαλλαγῆναι ἢ ἀσπάσασθαι αὐτὸν ἐξ ὅλης καρδίας ἀλλὰ microόνον τῇ γλώττῃ сѧ съ нмь съмрт л цѣловат ѥго нъ тъчѭ ѩꙁꙑкомь τί ποιήσω Διαλλαγῶ αὐτῷ κἂν τῇ ἔξω ὄψει ἢ κόψω ἑαυτὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ чьто сътворѭ ѹстроѭ л сѧ съ нмь понѣ на лц л отъврьгѫ сѧ ѥго чловѣка rarr дрѹга SZ т + тъи K rarr и тъи M rarr и LSZO печаль rarr пакость IO rarr напаст K ми pref IKM твортъ rarr сътвортъ ISZKL т rarr тїи М rarr та K rarr и SZO съ нмь def M лhellip нъ om M л rarr LO чьто add то LSZOM rarr то O понѣ pref I ѥго2 om ILOK 332 Ἀπόκρισιςmiddot Διαλλάγηθι αὐτῷ κἂν τῷ στόmicroατιmiddot πολλάκις γὰρ ἀπὸ τούτου Отъвѣтъ Съмр сѧ съ нмь понѣ ѹстꙑ мъногашьдꙑ бо отъ того κατὰ πρόσβασιν ὲρχεται καὶ ἡ τελεία ἀγάπη начьнъ т на стѫѭ любъвь прдетъ съврьшенѫѭ Συmicroφέρει γάρ σοι εἶναι ἡmicroίξηρον καὶ microὴ ὁλόξηρον ѹне бо т ѥстъ бꙑт въ полꙑ сѹхѹ нежел вьсемѹ съ нмь def M ѹстꙑ rarr ѹсть М отъ того rarr отътолѣ IK om O т om М rarr и ILSZOK съврьшенѫѭ прдетъ rarr прведетъ ѥго съврьшенѫѭ IK бо2 om ISZKM въ полꙑ rarr ис полѹ М rarr половнѫ L нежел rarr неже IOK

The encoding of this text (not of the variant readings adduced) is shaped by four steps of abstraction from the data of the witnesses (besides abstraction from their individual page layout) 1 linear encoding ie elimination of super-script writing and resolution of abbreviations 2 limitation of the character set

14 The term lsquoreencodingrsquo is of course particularly apt for texts which were not originally writ-ten in Cyrillic but in Glagolitic script 15 It should not be discounted that the modern practice of reciting Slavonic texts in local pho-nology may have a longer and more venerable tradition than we are prepared to allow


to 38 units + 7 units to mark grecisms16 3 normalisation of spellings to the et-ymological standard postulated by Slavonic grammar17 4 normalisation of punctuation to a single nonndashfinal and a single final mark18 The purpose of in-terventions 1ndash3 is twofold a to eliminate all nonndashlinguistic obstacles to read-ing19 and b to provide a reliable base for indexation and lemmatisation of forms and ultimately for intertextual comparison using the memory capacity of the computer The purpose of intervention 4 is simply to ensure a unified punctuation A final intervention is the imposition of a system of textological coordinates (ic the questions numbered sequentially according to the Greek colD their parts numbered roughly to coincide with the division of the Greek text into sentences) which ensures brevity of reference to the text and its parts and in conjunction with an agreed abbreviation for the text as such its une-quivocal representation in dictionaries and repertories

Would not an agreement on any such strategy to enhance the prima facie legibility of Slavonic texts provide a sound base for the elaboration of a The-saurus linguaelig slavonicaelig as well

REFERENCES Beacutedier CM Joseph

1928 La tradition manuscrite du Lai de lrsquoombre Reacuteflexions sur lrsquoart drsquoeacutediter les anciens textes Romania 54 161ndash196 321ndash356

Belova Ljudmila B 1991 AzbučnondashIerusalimskij paterik Ukazatelrsquo načalrsquonyx slov StndashPeterburg 1991

Matejić Predrag amp Dimitrije Bogdanović 1989 Slavic Codices of the Great Lavra Monastery Sofia (= Balkanica II Inven-

taires et catalogues 8) Caldarelli Raffaele (ed)

1996 Il Paterik alfabeticondashanonimo in traduzione slavondashecclesiastica Roma (La

16 Of the 7 characters to mark grecisms (ѕ і ѡ ѯ ѱ ѳ ѵ) the first six are also used for Slavonic numerals the third in addition is used to mark the Slavonic interjection ѡ lsquoorsquo For the diamet-rically opposed mainstream view of the character set required for the edition of Slavonic texts see Lazov 2000 17 Note that I spell tense jers explicitely (eg тъчѭ) but that for epenthetic jers I follow the hybrid spelling of Večerka in SSS 41ndash43 (eg отъвѣтъ and отъ in all positions but отврѣст отѧт) It surely is time to review Večerkarsquos spelling (which also retains Glagolitisms eg авт) in the light of the phonotactic rules of Lunt 2001 33ndash34 18 Although Unicode fonts make it easy to introduce modern Greek or Latin punctuation into Slavonic texts such foreign accent to my mind would serve no useful purpose beyond the aim of teaching text comprehension It would also necessitate consistent introduction of capitalisa-tion which goes against the very grain of either Glagolitic or Cyrillic graphics 19 The nonndashtextual accidentals in the presentation of Slavonic texts set Slavonic studies apart from other medieval philologies as an arcane discipline and surely contribute to its decline as an academic discipline outside of the Slavic countries


Sapienza dissertation) CPG Maurits Geerard (ed) Clavis patrum graeligcorum 1ndash5 Turnhout 1974 ndash1987

Jacques Noret (ed) Supplementum Turnhout 1998 Dinekov Petăr (ed)

1991 Simeonov sbornik (po Svetoslavovija prepis ot 1073 g) 1ndash2 Sofia Gretser Jacob (ed)

1617 Sancti Anastasiaelig Sinaitaelig Patriarchaelig Antiocheni Quaeligstiones et responsiones de variis argumentis CLIV Ingolstadt repr in Opera omnia antehac ab ip-somet auctore accurate recognita Vol XIV Regensburg 1740 repr PG 89 312ndash824

Kuev Kujo M (ed) 1981 IvanndashАleksandrovijat sbornik ot 1348 g Sofia

Lazov Rumen 2000 Toward an SGMLndashCompatible Representation of Cyrillic Symbols (SGML

TEX Veder Birnbaum and All That) In A Miltenova David J Birnbaum (eds) Medieval Slavic Manuscripts and SGML Problems and Perspectives Sofia

Lixačev Dmitrij S 1962 Tekstologija na materiale russkoj literatury X ndash XVII vv Leningrad 1982 2nd

rev ed MoskvandashLeningrad 1983 3rd ed StndashPeterburg 2001 Lunt Horace G

2001 Old Church Slavonic Grammar Seventh Revised Edition BerlinndashNew York Miklas Heinz

1991 Materialien zur Erforschung des Werkes Methods und seiner Schuumller In E Konstantinou (ed) Leben und Werk der byzantinischen Slavenapostel Metho-dios und Kyrillos Beitraumlge eines Symposiums der Griechisch-deutschen Ini-tiative Wuumlrzburg im Wasserschloszlig Mitwitz vom 25ndash27 Juli 1985 zum Ge-denken an den 1100 Todestag des hl Methodios Muumlnsterschwarzach 65ndash81

Mircea Ion Radu 2005 Reacutepertoire des manuscrits slaves en Roumanie Auteurs byzantins et slaves

Sofia Moldovan Aleksandr M et al (eds)

2008 Izbornik 1076 goda Vtoroe izdanie pererabotannoe i dopolnenoe Moskva Munitiz Joseph amp Marcel Richard (eds)

2006 Anastasii Sinaitaelig Quaeligstiones et responsiones TurnhoutndashLouvain (= Corpus christianorum series graeligca 59)

Nikolova Svetlina (ed) 1980 Pateričnite razkazi v bălgarskata srednovekovna literatura Sofia

ODB The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 1ndash3 New YorkndashOxford 1991 Pavlova Rumjana (ed)

2000 Die Pandekten des Nikon vom Schwarzen Berge (Nikon Černogorec) in der aumlltesten slavischen Uumlbersetzung Frankfurt

Peeters Paul 1950 Le treacutefonds oriental de lrsquohagiographie byzantine Bruxelles (= Subsidia hagi-

ographica 26) PG JacquesndashPaul Migne Patrologiaelig cursus completus series graeligca 1ndash161

Paris 1857ndash1866 repr in pdf format ltwwwdocumentacatholicaomniaeugt Richard Marcel


1969 Les veacuteritables Questions et Reacuteponses drsquoAnastase le Sinaiumlte Bulletin de lrsquoInstitut de Recherche et drsquohistoire des Textes 14 39ndash56 репр Opera mino-ra 3 Turnhout 1977 64

RottndashŻebrowski Tadeusz 1974a Pismo i fonetyka Izbornika Światosława z 1076 roku na tle pisma i fonetyki

zabytkoacutew ruskix XI w i kanonu starosłowiańskiego Lublin 1974b Ukraińskie cechy głosowe w Izborniku Światosława z 1076 roku Acta Uni-

versitatis Palackianaelig Olomucensis Facultas philosophica Philologica 36 Praha (= Slavistickyacute sborniacutek OlomouckondashLublinskyacute) 167ndash176

Sakkos Στέργιος Σάκκος 1964 Περὶ Ἀναστασίων Σιναϊτῶν Thessaloniki

Sieswerda Douwe Tj 2001 The Σωτήριος the Original of the Izbornik of 1073 Sacris erudiri 40 293ndash

327 2004 PseudondashAnastasius en Anastasius Sinaita Een vergelijking Amsterdam (dis-

sertation) Spasova Marija amp William R Veder

2008 Copying CopyndashEditing Editing and Recollating Three Chrysostomian Len-ten Homilies in Slavonic Polata knigopisnaja 38 in print preliminary Bul-garian version Prepisvane popravjane redaktirane i sverka na slavjanskija prevod na tri Zlatoustovi Velikopostni slova Preslavska knižovna škola 9(2007) 53ndash107

SSS Ralja M Cejtlin et al (eds) Staroslavjanskij slovarrsquo po rukopisjam XndashXI vekov Moskva 1994

Turilov Anatolij A 2000 Katalog slavjanondashrusskix rukopisnyx knig XV veka xranjaščixsja v Ros-

sijskom gosudarstvennom arxive drevnyx aktov Moskva van Wijk Nicolaas

1920ndash26 Zu den altbulgarischen Halbvokalen IndashIII IV V Archiv fuumlr slavische Philo-logie 37 330ndash377 39 15ndash43 40 22ndash43

1931 Zur Chronologie des altbulgarischen Jerumlautes Zeitschrift fuumlr slavische Philologie 8 62ndash67

Veder William R (ed) 1982 Meleckij sbornik i istorija drevnebolgarskoj literatury Palaeobulgarica 63

154ndash165 2005 Hiljada godini kato edin den Životăt na tekstovete v Pravoslavnoto

slavjanstvo Sofia 2008 Knjažij Izbornik za văzpitanie na kanartikina 1ndash2 Veliko Tărnovo in print


Questions and Answers as well as Edifying Histories in addition to the general-ly known (v) i 31ndash36 questions best preserved in the IvanndashAlexandrov sbornik but attested

as early as the Izbornik of 1076 (see Miklas 1991 68ndash69) ii 22 questions (2 unidentified) and 6 histories (2 anonymous) transmitted in

and translated from the Pandect of Nicon of the Black Mount (see Miklas 1991 69)

iii 12ndash15 questions complementary to i best preserved in the printed Kormčaja kniga of 1653 ch 69 but attested as early as the Izbornik of 1076 (see Mi-klas 1991 70ndash71)

iv 37 Anastasian and 3 anonymous histories transmitted in the AlphabeticndashAnonymous Collection of Apophthegmata Patrum and translated into the Az-bučnondashIerusalimskij Paterik (see Miklas 1991 71ndash72)

v 23 PseudondashAnastasian + 65 anonymous questions transmitted in the Σωτήριος and translated into the Symeonic Florilegium

The Transmission

Thanks to the meticulous survey of Miklas 1991 and the equally meticulous textological work of Munitiz 2006 we are now in a position to separate authen-tic Anastasian questions from inauthentic and to relate the Greek transmission of their text with their Slavonic translations

The witnesses to the original collection of 103 Questions and Answers of Anastasius Sinaita (Col 103) fall into two groups family M (fM) and family W (fW) the latter unrelated to Slavonic Of fM a single copy of the full text sur-vives along with three partial copies all other witnesses are compilations The most prolific of these is a dogmatic reelaboration of a selection of questions from the original Col 103 made ca 865 by a Constantinopolitan theologian in the form of 23 questions (23 PsAn ed Sieswerda 2004) with florilegia of Bib-lical and patristic questions added to the answers preserved in a collection with 65 anonymous questions added (Col 88 ed Hervet 1575 in Latin translation) Col 88 was recompiled three times with 56 questions from Col 103 interpo-lated between questions 59 and 60 (col a ed Gretser 16172) with the addition of 10 prolegomena and 25 epilegomena (Σωτήριος3) and 28 of its questions were combined with 55 questions of Col 103 (Col d unrelated to Slavonic) A simple selection of 15 questions from Col 103 is preserved in Col c (see note 2) 2 Gretser himself recompiled Col a by adding 10 questions from Col c (and replacing 5 others see Munitiz 2006 xxvi) 3 The Σωτήριος is being edited for publication in the Corpus christianorum by Douwe Sie-swerda and Lara Sels































































































How to Edit the Questions of Anastasius Sinaita in Slavonic

Documents

Transcript of How to Edit the Questions of Anastasius Sinaita in Slavonic