Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 321 553ndash567

NON SECUNDUM SCIENTIAM READING WHAT IS NOT THERE

WILLIAM R VEDER

The change from a primary to a secondary state in historical linguistics as in archaeligology is the sole source of data on development If the relative chronology of archaeligological strata is rarely open to debate that of linguistic strata is so only in the most evident of cases The diffi-culty of answering the question utrum in alterum abiturum erat which already vexed Eras-mus is exacerbated in a language not of people but of books like Slavonic which does not develop and in which texts are transmitted on the tacit assumption that they are maximally faithful to their orginal In Slavonic change is erratic and usually hails to either an early peri-od when the concept of fidelity had yet to be established or to attempts since the late 14th century to impose fidelity by arbitrary rules varying by area As a result texts diverge and their original state becomes obscured to the point of appearing irretrievable Yet if the textual critic of the 21st century like the archaeligologist were to pay attention to disturbances in the record he might be in a position to glean a great deal more information about the primary state of the text than if he were to confine himself to the positive data both provided by the wit-nesses and by previous scholarship

To the man who has done more than any other to accurately establish the sequence of states in development of the Slavic languages de lrsquouniteacute agrave la pluraliteacute I should like to offer a con-crete specimen of such an approach to seemingly irreconcilable conflicts among witnesses It is in part triggered by the presentation of the records of Slovenian prior to the printed book elaborated under his direction (Mikhailov 1998) Its author notes with some surprise that none of the records attests any form of the dual Yet everywhere the dual should stand there are conflicts of syntactic agreement and not only between different writers but even in records of one and the same writer Here the very fact of disturbance in the record acquires meaning My specimen takes us back to the initial phase of writing in Slavonic the last years of the mission to Morava I trust that our friend and colleague will if not validate the conclusions of my con-siderations then at least enjoy the edification of a story about the woeful consequences when integrity is sacrificed to competition in the name of whichever prendashordained goal

The story is contained in the 5th century Greek collection of monastic sayings and anec-dotes known as Apophthegmata patrum which exists in two forms viz an alphabeticondashanonymous collection (CPG 5560ndash611) and a systematic collection (CPG 55622) The latter

1 The alphabetic part (apophthegms 1ndash1001) is edited by Cotelier 1677 (1ndash948) and Guy 1962 (949ndash1001) the anonymous part (apophthegms 1002ndash1765) by Nau 1905ndash1913 (incomplete complements in French translation by Reacutegnault 1970 1976) Its Slavonic translation (Azbučnondashierusalimskij paterik) is differential hence posterior to the translation of the Scete Patericon its inventory is established in detail by van Wijk 1936ndash37 and Capaldo 1984 its alphabetic part edited by Caldarelli 1996

2

has a Latin translation made before ca AD 560 and a Slavonic translation made before AD 885 and known as the Scete Patericon Of all the translations that can be attributed to St Methodius this one lends itself best to the task of establishing his language and style Its iden-tification with the отьчьскъіѩ кънигъі of Vita Methodii xv leaves little if any room for doubt3 and its witnesses have not undergone the erratic recollation with Greek manuscripts which so mars the tradition of Biblical and liturgical translations Below I present Scete Patericon 15111b4 in a lineated collation of its Greek text (Nau 19125) a Cyrillic reconstruction6 of its Slavonic translation (bold superscript letters mark items to be commented) and its Latin trans-lation (Rosweyde 16287)

11 Ἤσαν 8τινὲς κοσmicroικοὶ εὐλαβεῖς καὶ συmicroφωνήσαντες ἐξῆλθον καὶ γεγόνασι microοναχοί Дъва инаa бѣстеb проста людинаc говѣина и съвѣщавъшаd иꙁидетеe и бꙑсте мъниха Duo quidam erant saeligculares religiosi et colloquentes secum egressi sunt et facti sunt monachi

12 καὶ ζήλῳ φερόmicroενοι κατὰ τὴν εὐαγγελικὴν φωνήν ἀγνοοῦντες δέ εὐνουχίσαν ἑαυτοὺς и рьвьнѹѭща по еванъгельскѹ гласѹ не вѣдѫща же скописте сѧ AEligmulationem autem habentes vocis evangelicaelig sed non secundum scientiam castraverunt se

13 διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν (Mt 1912) сирѣчь цѣсарьствиꙗ ради небесьнаѥго quasi9 propter regna10 cœlorum

14 Καὶ ἀκούσας ὁ ἀρχιεπίσκοπος ἐχώρησεν αὐτούς слꙑшавъ же аръхиепископъ отълѫчи ꙗ отъ црькъве Audiens autem archiepiscopus excommunicavit eos

15 Ἐκεῖνοι δὲ δοκοῦντες ὅτι καλῶς ἐποίησαν ἠγανάκτησαν κατ αὐτοῦ λέγοντεςmiddot 2 This collection compiled after the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) reorders the contents of the earlier alphabet-icondashanonymous collection in 22 thematic chapters of which 1ndash9 are edited by Guy 1993 The Latin translation is edited by Rosweyde 1628 for an inventory of the Slavonic translation see Veder 2005 3 On the отьчьскъіѩ кънигъі and the attribution to St Methodius see Nikolova 1995 Veder 2005 4 The inventory of the chapters is numbered by Guy 1962 according to the most developed state of the text Cod Moskva GIM Singr 452 (Russian translation Vissarion 1874 Bulgarian Stefanov 1994) has this story in the 106th place the Slavonic translation has it in the 93rd place the Latin in the 88th 5 In Naursquos edition the story is identified as nr 334 (b forms its central part) of the anonymous collection The modern standard (Reacutegnault 1976) is to identify it as 1334 by its place in the entire alphabeticondashanonymous col-lection Note that in the alphabeticondashanonymous collection our story is embedded in 1334a and 1334c while in the systematic collection it is preceded by 1319a and followed by 1319b 6 I introduce a uniform verse numbering (emulating Erasmus) leave aside all abbreviations and standardise all spellings to maximal discreteness The reconstruction should ideally be written in Glagolitic script but over a millenium of dictatorship of Cyrillic has so moulded the research tradition of Slavonic that a text printed in Glago-litic would fail to be read even if it were noticed 7 Complements to Rosweydersquos edition were published independently by Nikitin 1915ndash16 and Battle 1971 Note that the Latin version despite its antiquity and the fact that its translators both attained the rank of pontifex maxi-mus is by no means beyond reproach it is defective (20 27 36) explicative (18 23 28 38) and verbose (21) cf for a general appraisal of the work of the two translators Nikitin 1915ndash16 8 I suspect that the single cod Paris BN Coislin 126 published by Nau 1912 simply skipped δύο 9 The Latin quasi and its Slavonic parallel сирѣчь indicate that they have a common Greek source which distanced itself from the all too direct appeal to the authority of the Gospel 10 Why did the Latin translators here and in 16 prefer the pl when St Jerome in the Vulgate already used the sg

3

она же мьнѧща ꙗко добро сътвористе ръпътасте на нь глаголѭща Illi autem putantes quia bene fecissent indignati sunt contra eum dicentes

16 Ἡmicroεῖς εὐνουχίσαmicroεν ἑαυτοὺς διὰ τὴν βασιλεῖαν τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ οὗτος ἐχώρησεν η Jmicroᾶς вѣ скописвѣ сѧ ꙁа цѣсарьствиѥ божиѥ и сь отълѫчилъ наf ѥстъ Nos propter regna cœlorum castravimus nos et hic excommunicavit nos

17 Ἄγωmicroεν ἐντύχωmicroεν κατ αὐτοῦ τὸν ἀρχιεπίσκοπον Ἱεροσολύmicroων нъ идѣвѣ да поимѣвѣg на нь аръхиепископѹ іерѹсалимьскѹh Eamus et interpellemus adversus eum Hierosolymitanorum archiepiscopum

18 Καὶ ἀπελθόντες ἀνήγγειλαν αὐτῷ πάντα καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ ἀρχιεπίσκοποςmiddot шьдъша же въꙁвѣстисте ѥмѹ вьсꙗ и рече има аръхиепископъ Abeuntes ergo indicaverunt ei omnia Et dixit archiepiscopus Hierosolymitanus

19 Κἀγὼ ὑmicroᾶς χωρίζω и аꙁъ отълѫчаѭ ва Et ego vos excommunico

20 Καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦτο λυπηθέντες ἀπῆλθον ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ πρὸς τὸν ἀρχιεπίσκοπον καὶ εἶπον αὐτῷ τὰ καθ ἑαυτούς κἀκεῖνος ἐχώρισεν ἐαυτούς

и на сеi же пакꙑ печаль приимъша идете въ анътиохиѭ къ аръхиепископѹ и рѣсте ѥмѹ ꙗже о себѣ и онъ же отълѫчи ꙗ

Ex quo iterum contristati abierunt in Antiochiam ad archiepiscopum et dixerunt ei omnia quaelig facta fuerunt Et ille similiter excommunicavit eos

21 Λέγουσι πρὸς ἀλλήλουςmiddot и глаголасте къ себѣ Et dixerunt ad seipsos

22 Ἄγωmicroεν εἰς OcircRώmicroην πρὸς τὸν πάπαν κἀκεῖνος ἐκδικεῖ η Jmicroᾶς ἀπὸ πάντων τούτων поидѣвѣ въ римъ къ патриаръхѹ и тъ мьстить наю отъ вьсѣхъ сихъ Eamus Romam ad patriarcham11 et ipse nos vindicabit de omnibus istis

23 Ἀπελθόντες οὖν πρὸς τὸν ἀρχιεπίσκοπον OcircRώmicroης ἀνήγγειλαν αὐτῷ ἃ ἐποίησαν αὐτοῖς οἱ ἀρχιεπίσκοποιmiddot

шьдъша же къ великѹѥмѹ аръхиепископѹ римьскѹ въꙁвѣстисте ѥмѹ ꙗже сътворишѧ има аръхиепископи

Abierunt ergo ad summum archiepiscopum11 Romanaelig civitatis et suggesserunt ei quaelig fecerant eis memorati archiepiscopi

24 Ἤλθοmicroεν δὲ πρὸς σέ ὅτι σὺ εἶ κεφαλὴ πάντων приидовѣ же къ тебѣ сѧтеj ꙗко тꙑ ѥси глава въсѣмъ dicentes Venimus ad te quia tu es caput omnium

25ndash Εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ αὐτόςmiddot Κἀγὼ χωρίζω ὑmicroᾶς καὶ κεχωρισmicroένοι ἐστέ 26 рече же има и тъ и аꙁъ ва отълѫчаѭ и отълѫчена ѥста

11 The Constantinopolitan version published by Nau reduces the titles of the pope preserved in full in the Latin and Slavonic patriarch and great archbishop again an indication that the two translations have a common Greek source of different provenance

4

Dicit autem eis et ipse Ego vos excommunico et segregati estis

27 Ἀπορούmicroενοι δὲ πρὸς ἀλλήλους εἶπον ὅτιmiddot тогда сътѧꙁаѭща сѧ рѣсте къ себѣ Tunc defecerunt excommunicati totius rationis et dixerunt ad semetipsos

28 Εἷς τῷ ἑνὶ χαρίζεται διὰ τὸ ἐν συνόδῳ ἀνάγεσθαι си по себѣ сѫтъ ѥдинъ по ѥдиномь ꙁане въ съньмѣхъ събираѭтъ сѧ Isti episcopi sibi invicem deferunt et consentiunt propter quod in synodis congregantur

29 ἀλλ α [γωmicroεν εἰς τὸν ἅγιον τοῦ Qεοῦ Ἐπιφάνιον τὸν ἐπίσκοπον τῆς Κύπρου ὅτι προφήτης ἐστὶν καὶ οὐ λαmicroβάνει πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπου

нъ идѣвѣ къ свѧтѹѥмѹ епифанию аръхиепскопѹ кѵпрьскѹ ꙗко пророкъ ѥстъ и не обинѹѥтъ сѧ лица чьловѣкѹ

Sed eamus ad illum virum Dei sanctum Epiphanium episcopum de Cypro quia propheta est et personam hominis non accipit

30 Ὡς δὲ ἤγγισαν τῇ πόλει αὐτοῦ ἀπεκαλύφθη αὐτῷ περὶ αὐτῶν καὶ πέmicroψας εἰς ἀπάντησιν αὐτῶν εἶπενmiddot

вънегда же приближисте сѧ градѣk ѥго ꙗви сѧ ѥмѹ о нею и посълавъ въ сърѣтениѥ има рече Cum autem appropinquarent civitati ejus revelatum est ei de ipsis et mittens in occursum

eorum dixit 31ndash Μηδὲ εἰς τὴν πόλιν ταύτην εἰσελθέτωσαν Τότε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς γενόmicroενοι εἶπονmiddot 32 ни въ градъ сь въходита тогда въ себѣ бꙑвъша рѣсте Ne intretis civitatem istam Tunc illi in se reversi dixerunt

33 Ἐπ ἀληθείας η Jmicroεῖς ἐσφάληmicroενmiddot въ рѣснотѫl вѣ съгрѣшиховѣ чьто ѹбо себе оправьдаѥвѣ Pro veritate nos culpabiles sumus ut quid ergo nos ipsos justificamus

34 ἔστω ἐκεῖνοι ἀδίκως η Jmicroᾶς ἐχώρησαν microὴ καὶ ου |τος ὁ προφητήςhellip ἰδοὺ ὁ Qεὸς ἀπεκάλυψεν αὐτῷ περὶ η Jmicroῶν

бѫди ꙗко они бес правьдꙑ на отълѫчишѧ ѥда ѹбо и сь пророкъ се бо богъ ꙗви ѥмѹ о наю Fac etiam quia illi injuste nos excommunicaverunt nunquid et iste propheta Ecce enim Deus

revelavit ei de nobis

35 Καὶ κατέγνωσαν ἑαυτῶν σφόδρα περὶ τοῦ πράγmicroατος ου | ἐποίησαν и ꙁаꙁьрѣсте себѣm о грѣсѣ иже сътвористе Et reprehenderunt semetipsos valde de culpa quam fecerunt

36 Τότε ἰδὼν ὁ καρδιογνώστης Qεὸς ὅτι ἐν ἀληθείᾳ κατέγνωσαν ἑαυτῶν ἐπληροφόρησεν Ἐπιφάνιον ἐπίσκοπον Κύπρου

тогда видѣвъ срьдьцевѣдьць богъ ꙗко въ рѣснотѫ ꙁаꙁьрѣсте себѣ съкаꙁа епископѹ епифанию о нею

Tunc videns qui corda novit quia pro veritate se culpabiles fecerant revelavit episcopo Epiphanio

37 καὶ ἀφ ἑαυτοῦ πέmicroψας ἥνεγκεν αὐτοὺς καὶ παρακαλέσας ἐδέξατο εἰς κοινωνίαν посълавъ же приведе ꙗ и ѹтѣшь приѩтъ ꙗ въ обьщениѥn et ultro misit et adduxit eos et consolatus eos suscepit in communionem

38 καὶ ἔγραψε τῷ ἀρχιεπισκόπῳ Ἀλεξανδρείαςmiddot

5

и написа аръхиепископѹ алеѯанъдрьскѹ глаголѧ Scripsit itaque de his archiepiscopo Alexandriaelig dicens

39 Δέξαι τὰ τέκνα σου microετενόησαν γὰρ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ приими чѧдѣ твои покаꙗсте бо сѧ въ рѣснотѫ Suscipe filios tuos quoniam in veritate pœnitentiam egerunt

Before discussing the problems of establishing Scete Patericon 15111b let me present the 20 witnesses and their stemma (Fig 1) a A1 Dečani 93 (12c UA) α a A2 A3 Moskva GIM Sin 3 (15c RU) SPb RNB Pog 267 (14c RU) γ b B1 Moskva GIM Uvar 483 (1542 UA) b B2 B4 Moskva RGB F178 8240 (1472 RU) RGB F310 219 (16c UA) b B5 Lrsquoviv BAN ASP 56 (16c UA) ε i I1 SPb RNB Tixan 552 (16c RU) ω i I2 Moskva RGB F113 601 (15c RU) ζ o O Moskva GIM Čud 318A (15ndash16c RU) c C1 C2 C4 Moskva GIM Čud 18 (14c RU) RGB F304 703 (14c RU) NBMGU 1310 (15c RU) k K2 SPb BAN Belokr 2 (16c BG) η w W1 W2 W3 Sinai Slav 33 (14c SR) Peć 86 (13c SR) Moskva RGB Popov 93 (14c BG) θ w W4 SPb RNB Hilf 90 (14c SR) w W6 W8 Krka 4 (1345ndash46 BG) Paris BN Slav 10 (14c SR)12

Fig 1 Stemma codicum of the Scete Patericon 15111b13

The Cyrillic hyparchetypes andasho are of East Slavic origin probably made like indashi at Kiev in in the second half of the 11th century kndashw are of South Slavic origin and c may have the same provenance The Glagolitic hyparchetypes αndashε originated around the turn of the 9ndash10th centuries in the PliskandashPreslav area to judge by their individual HunnondashBulgarisms (eg αγ отънѫдь rarr бъхъма passim ε ꙁьрьцало rarr тикъръ 22914) ζη are of later origin and may stem from a different environment15 The reconstruction of ω presented above is based on the fol-lowing considerations of the variation the witnesses exhibit

(a) All occurrences of the indefinite article τις are occasions of deep disturbance in the wit-nesses (are there any CyrillondashMethodian translations where they are not) In 15111b the conflict is αγ oslash εocθW3 етеръ k нѣкъіи W12 дрѹгъ Elsewhere in the Scete Patericon it usually is α ѥдинъ εcθW3 етеръ k нѣкъіинѣкъто W12 дрѹгъ with γ vaccillating between единъ and етеръ and o between етеръ and нѣкъіинѣкъто but any of these readings including oslash can occasionally appear in any of the hyparchetypes in addition we find isolated instances of инъ most notably in k (8 times) but also in α (4 in one case altered rarr ѥдинъ by A3 in an-other by a) γ (3) ε (2) o (1) η (1) and w (1) This begs the question which are variants and which is the original reading of the archetype ω 12 On W6 cf Pileva 2003 W8 is edited by van Wijk 1975 13 Greek sigla Glagolitic hyparchetypes bold Latin sigla Cyrillic hyparchetypes nonndashbold sigla witnesses shaded South Slavic BG = Bulgarian RU = Russian SR = Serbian UA = Ruthenian 14 The Glagolitic hyparchetype ε a compilation also known as the Tixanov Patericon is described in some detail in Veder 2005 15 The Glagolitic hyparchetypes ζ and η show notable loss of text perhaps as the result of transport damage to w or a Glagolitic copy of it they also exhibit a morphological conservatism unknown to αndashε cf Veder 2005

6

Van Wijk 1975 77ndash78 81 knowing the readings only of w and relying in part on the findings of Jagić appointed етеръ to archetypal rank which implies that it should provide a satisfactory explanation for all the variants But can етеръ lsquoarsquo explain a variant дрѹгъ lsquootherrsquo or a fortiori инъ lsquodifferent otherrsquo I think that is only when we take инъ lsquoonersquo as the arche-typal form (best preserved in the second half of the Scete Patericon where the urge to change unfamiliar items gave way to the urge to finish the copy) that all pieces fall into place инъ rarr ѥдинъ (which resolves the quandaries of Vasmer 1967 134) rarr нѣкъіинѣкъто дрѹгъ and even тѹждь (W1 1912) as well as инъ rarr гнь (w 162) иного rarr никого (k 1614) and ини rarr кии (c 203) Its reading in the more recent meaning lsquootherrsquo eventually led to the reinterpreta-tion of инъ етеръ (for τις α[λλος) as lsquootherrsquo + lsquoonersquo and thence to the endowment of the margin-al етеръ with the meaning lsquoonersquo whence its participation in the variation outlined above

(b) For ἤσαν all witnesses read бѣста but the agreement is no reason to raise this reading to archetypal rank The ndashа desinence conflicts with the 3du ndashе desinences listed by van Wijk 1975 83ndash84 for the witness W5 (which does not contain this apophthegm) and which are gen-erally best preserved in the Glagolitic hyparchetype η As in the case of инъ above the ndashе des-inence is a recessive form ie one of those vulnerable forms in the translatorrsquos text which had little currency beyond the area of the original mission and were therefore most widely affected by the interference of the earliest copyists Under the pressure of both the desinence ndashа of the subject and the syncretism of aor23sg αγ fully levelled 3du ndashе rarr ndashа and εζ did so somewhat less consistently η presumably did not and the ndashа desinence must have intruded there at the level of younger hyparchetypes (ww) or manuscripts So we do well to restore бѣсте иꙁидете and бъісте (11) as well as скописте (13) сътвористе (15 35) бъꙁвѣстисте (18 23) идете (20) рѣсте (20 27 32) глаголасте (21) сѧте (24) приближисте (30) ꙁаꙁьрѣсте (35 36) and покаꙗсте (39)

(c) For κοσmicroικός the conflicting readings are αγ простъ людинъ εζη простъ мѫжь (простъ omitted by cW2) In seven other cases the unanimous reading is простъ людинъ (save that k five and o three times replace людинъ rarr чьловѣкъ and that k twice introduces the innovation мирꙗнинъ) but in five more cases the unanimous reading is коꙁъмикъ Conventional wisdom has it that untranslated grecisms are primary to Slavonic expressions but the complementary distribution of коꙁъмикъ (chapters Andash1 and O) and простъ людинъ (5ndash20) prevents us from generalising one at the expense of the other It rather appears that the translatorrsquos lexicon con-tained both the grecism and its Slavonic calque and that the makers of the hyparchetypes had no inkling that they referred to the same concept

(d) For συmicroφονεῖν the witnesses read съвѣщати bζW13 съвѣщати сѧ The reflexive read-ing is absent in 151 (twice) minimally present in 229 (W13) and maximally in 204 (αγζ) The pattern of increase suggests that съвѣщати is a translatorrsquos grecism and that the addition of сѧ in Slavonic like that of secum in Latin is in response to a requirement of the target lan-guage

(e) The pattern of variation of the aorist stems is similar to that in b above Dominant forms in ndash(о)хndash massively displace the recessive rootndash and ndashсndash forms for ἐξῆλθον (11) the witnesses read иꙁидоста (a replaces иꙁndash rarr въꙁndash ε rarr oslash) w иꙁидета for ἀπῆλθον (20) all read идоста for ἤλθοmicroεν (24) приидоховѣ w приидосвѣ for εὐνουχίσαmicroεν (16) скопиховѣ (εW12 replace сndash rarr исndash) k скопивѣ w скописвѣ for εἶπον (20) рекоста εW3 съповѣдаста okθwW2 рѣста c съкаꙁаста W1 гласта for εἶπον (27) рекоста εζwW12 рѣста for εἶπον (32) рекоста

7

αγεζwW12 рѣста (ie repetition in the end favours preservation) Like in b above the arche-typal forms are best preserved in η (cf van Wijk 1975 84ndash85 for W58) We do well to restore иꙁидете (11) идете (20) приидовѣ (24) скописвѣ (20) and рѣсте (20 27 32)

(f) Of the 16 dual forms of pronouns in 15111b two show no variation viz 3du ꙗ (14) and има (18) and ten show one mistake each of b and i plus the attempts of k and W3 to level them to pl forms viz 1du вѣ (16) b мъі W3 ниѥ вѣ (33) W3 ниѥ наю (22) W3 насъ наю (34) k нас and 3du она (15) k они ꙗ (20) kW3 ихъ ꙗ (371) k их W3 них ꙗ (372) ikW3 их има (30) k имъ нею (29) k нихъ Serious conflict affects four forms viz 1duA на (16) εζθW23 нъі на (34) b нас bε наю ζwW23 нъі and 2duA ва (19) γkW3 вас o въі ва (26) εokwW23 въі The fact that witnesses of η very frequently vary in these forms led van Wijk 1975 83 to doubt whether the Adu forms на and ва were archetypal but the fact that in all four cases precisely these readings are preserved by at least α should dispel any doubt for it is im-plausible that archetypal нъі and въі should have been replaced rarr на and rarr ва

(g) For ἐντύχωmicroεν the witnesses give the following readings θ поимевѣ o поемлевѣ αcW2 повѣвѣ γεW1 повѣдаѥвѣ W3 исповѣдаѥвѣ k гливѣ This is the first of five times ἐντυγχάνειν κατά + G is translated as поѩтипоимати на + A and it must have baffled the mak-ers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes αγε (or the maker of the copy of ω they worked from) who replaced ndashѩти rarr ndashвѣдѣтивѣдати (W123 independently reacted in a similar way) The other occurrences show no significant variation (198 oslash kW1 229 a mistake in a) save the replacements 229 rarr бесѣдовати на k 2217 rarr молити сѧ на c or no variation at all (O13) As to the Slavonic verbal aspect either is possible SSS and Miklosich record in this sense only the imperfective but the fact that the extremes of the hyparchetypes agree on the perfective makes that more likely

(h) Where the translator used definite forms of Slavonic adjectives there is no variation only contraction of the compound desinences (in 15111b a not fully contracted desinence is preserved in a ndashѹмѹ 29) but the archetype must have contained the full double desinences as only they can account for the appearance in the witnesses of unwarranted anaphoric pronouns in the vicinity of adjectives which should be definite So we do well to restore небесьнаѥго (13) велилкѹѥмѹ (23) свѧтѹѥмѹ (29)

Where the translator used indefinite forms variation is absent only in adjectives which lack compound desinences eg божиѥ (16) In all other cases there is conflict еванъгельскѹ (12) γεkwW3 def іерѹсалимьскѹ (17) αγεζW13 def римьскѹ (23) aγεθ def кѵпрьскѹ (29) εkW13 def алеѯанъдрьскѹ (38) ckW13 def Here as in e above repetition (ic of desinences) in the end favours preservation The clearndashcut oppositions show that the variation already af-fected the Glagolitic hyparchetypes

(i) For ἐπὶ τοῦτο the witnesses read ε на того (ε in general exhibits a clear preference for тъ above сь) ocθ на сего αγkW23 ѿ сего W1 тако The translator nowhere uses G forms for the A so the shift in connection from the verdict to the judge cannot be imputed to him neither can the replacement of the preposition на rarr отъ I suspect the translatorrsquos grecism на се was either written so that n се could be read as m сь (which is more than likely in Glagolitic) or that the desinence was damaged or that a hendiadys note то (written so that it could be read as го) was added Any of these cases would have called for conjecture already by the makers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes and it is interesting to note that this conjecture is rooted in nonndashMethodian morphology viz mAanim = mG

8

(j) The Greek text lacks a verbum dicendi16 to motivate the direct speech in 24 but the Lat-in and the Slavonic attest its original presence The witnesses read αγε рѣста c рѣша wW123 oslash w сета The latter is the only hitherto known 3du form of this recessive verb Fol-lowing b above we do well to restore its explicit spelling сѧте

(k) For ἐγγίζειν + D the witnesses unanimously read приближити сѧ къ + D Yet it is be-yond doubt that in the archetype the prefix приndash in this verb (as elsewhere) governed the L First in six out of 16 cases L readings are preserved viz 1038 τα πάθη γζW3 похоти αW2 похотьмъ 1159 ἐκείνῳ ε ѡ томь αγζW123 томѹѥмѹ (cf also immediately preceding αγζW3 κολλήθητι ἀνθρώπῳ прилѣпи сѧ чьловѣцѣ W12 чьловѣкѹ) 1195 microοί αcW3 мьнѣ γokwW2 ми and ὑmicroῖν cW2 васъ αγokwW3 вамъ (αγow add къ) 2013 αὐτῷ αow ѥмь εkW2 ѥмѹ γc oslash and O14 (Greek untraced) all боꙁѣ secondly four of the remaining cases exhibit con-flicts similar to the preceding viz 52 σώmicroασι all инѣмъ17 тѣломъ (αkwB2W3 add къ) 11117 σοί aoc ти aγk oslash 1427 τῇ κώmicroῃ αγiokwW3 къ вьси ic до вьси 1541 τῷ Qεῷ all богѹ (αγεocW23 add къ) It appears that the replacement приndash + L rarr [къ +] D started already in the Glagolitic hyparchetypes and that we do well to restore приближити сѧ + L

(l) For ἀληθεία the witnesses in 33 36 read unanimously истина but in 39 W8 reads рѣснота This word like all recessive items is preserved rather by chance than by design in eight more places 10160 W58 1312 o 154 o 184 bbo 187 o 2016 c and J2ndash3 W8 (six adjectival forms are preserved as well in the range of chapters 10ndash18) It is likely that the cases where conflicting readings истина правьда (eg 1312 2016 and elsewhere) or oslash (eg 187 J2ndash3 and elsewhere) are present also betray an archetypal reading рѣснота which we do well to restore

(m) For καταγινώσκειν + G the witnesses read ꙁаꙁьрѣти 35 aγcW23 + L aεokθW1 + A 36 γcwA2W123 + L aεokwA3 + A It could be argued that with the pronoun себе the distinction L ~ A is not as remarkable as with other pronouns or nouns but consider the fact that the dis-tribution of both readings remains fairly stable in ꙁаꙁьрѣти себѣ for microέmicroφεσθαι σεαυτόν 387 bbiwA2W3 + L aiζA3B2W2 + A 1064 γocA3W2 + L aA2W3 + A 1531 γocW23 + L αk + A With other pronouns or nouns we find ꙁаꙁьрѣти (for both καταγινώσκειν and microέmicroφεσθαι) in 369 all своѥи немощи 103 W3 имь αγεζθcW2 oslash 1531 αγ чьловѣче (V) ζW3 чьловѣкѹ w чьловѣкомъ W3 чьловѣчьсцѣи 15111a αγoθ братѣ ckW13 братѹ εW2 oslash 1826 all вьсѣхъ In all instances at least part of the witnesses preserve the L and in 1531 the V and the adjective point precisely to the L чьловѣцѣ as the source of the disturbance As in k above the L rection must be considered archetypal and the variation shows that this type of rection was unfamiliar already to the makers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes (we may safely assume that for them the L had lost its autonomy)

(n) For κοινωνία in 15111b the witnesses read αγεζwW123 причѧстиѥ w обьщениѥ The latter word is unanimously used in 1842 it occurs also for προσφορά (203 c стое тѣло и кровь хса ба нашего) and as a translatorrsquos explication implying προσφορά (184 unanimous 1846 c тѣло хсво) which is normally rendered as приношениѥ (9 times in chapters 4ndash20 four unanimous two with c replacing rarr комъканиѥ three c rarr oslash) It appears that the translator dis- 16 Was φασάν or ἔφησαν omitted accidentally or was it obscure to the 10ndash11th century copyist of cod Paris BN Coislin 126 17 This of course is another instance of инъ as indefinite article (cf a above)

9

tinguished обьщениѥ lsquothe act of dispensing or partaking of the Eucharistic elementsrsquo (to which 203 pertains) and приношениѥ lsquothe consecration of the elementsrsquo lsquothe consecrated elementsrsquo Both причѧстиѥ and комъканиѥ are foreign intrusions the former not originally endowed with a liturgical meaning (cf Scete Patericon J98ndash100 microέτοχος причѧстьница) the latter like its Alpine Latin fellow traveler въсѫдъ (Schaeken 1988) kept out of the translation18

Our effort to restore the initial state of this translation by St Methodius ie to close the circle de la pluraliteacute agrave lrsquouniteacute has led us six times to read what is not there In doing so we found that the scribes of the extant witnesses rarely read what was not in their exemplar while those of the Cyrillic hyparchetypes did so more often (especially c the only purposeful edition of the text secundum scientiam and k) But the fundamental variation from the exemplar belongs to the makers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes We see αγ most noticeably and εζ to a lesser degree reading what is not in ω and even ηθ in some cases vary from their exemplar The var-iation in the Cyrillic renderings of Glagolitic exemplars need not surprise us The differences between W1 W2 and W3 who in the 14th century independently read η speak eloquently of the difficulties in deciphering the message of a text written in Glagolitic What should exercise us is the reception of a text known to be if not of St Methodius himself at least of venerable provenance by the scribes αndashε in the PliskandashPreslav area and ζndashη at some remove from them They were conversant with Glagolitic both receptively and productively Aleksandr V Bondarko has aptly called their attitude toward the text svojskoe lsquoas if they owned itrsquo Was it because the translatorrsquos language was theirs The problems discussed above should discourage such an explanation19 We should I venture to suggest rather consider these men of letters as recent converts to that rank not encumbered with either prior generations of skill and scholar-ship or any prendashordained concept of fidelity but ingenuously inspired by the task to assimilate and accomplish what the illndashfated mission to Morava (AD 863ndash885) aimed to do

Deerfield IL

REFERENCES

Battle Columba M 1971 Vetera Nova Vorlaumlufige kritische Ausgabe bei Rosweyde fehlender Vaumlterspruumlche Fest-

schrift fur Bernhard Bischoff Stuttgart 32ndash42

18 The translator took great care not to burden his translation with specific liturgical terms cf Guergova 2003 Whether комъканиѥ (the standard translation for κοινwνία and προσφορά in the Egyptian Patericon translated in the PliskandashPreslav area at the turn of the 9ndash10th centuries from a conflation of the Historia monachorum in AEliggyp-to CPG 6063 and the Historia Lausiaca CPG 6038 with the De Bragmanibus CPG 5820) andor въсѫдъ be-longed to his lexicon but were suppressed owing to this design requires further research 19 A differential study of the grammars of the translator and his first close readers will become possible when JG van der Tak and WR Veder produce their edition of the Greek text its early Latin translations and the reconstruc-tion of the Slavonic translation in the Bollandistsrsquo Subsidia hagiographica (Brussels) The machinendashreadable cop-ies of the Slavonic witnesses to the Scete Patericon and the full collation of their text (copies of which are in pos-session of many departments of Slavic Studies including that of the University of Leiden) will provide all the source data required

10

Caldarelli Raffaele 1996 Il Paterik alfabeticondashanonimo in traduzione slavondashecclesiastica Roma (Diss La Sapienza)

Capaldo Mario 1984 LrsquoAzbučnondashierusalimskij paterik (collection alphabeacuteticondashanonyme slave des Apophthegmata

patrum) Polata knigopisnaja 4 26ndash50 Cotelier JeanndashBaptiste

1677 Ecclesiaelig graeligcaelig monumenta 1 [Paris] repr in JacquesndashPaul Migne (ed) Patrologiaelig cursus completus Series graeligca 65 75ndash440

CPG Maurits Geerard (ed) Clavis patrum graeligcorum 1ndash5 Turnhout Brepols 1974ndash1987 Guergova Emilia William R Veder

2003 Bogoslužebnite posledovanija spored Skitskija paterik (predvaritelni beležki) Anisava Mil-tenova et al (eds) Pěti dostoitъ Sbornik v pamet na Stefan Kožuxarov Sofia Bojan Penev 95ndash111

Guy JeanndashClaude 1962 Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite des Apophthegmata patrum (Subsidia hagiographica

36) Bruxelles Socieacuteteacute des Bollandistes (2nd rev ed 1984) 1993 Les Apophtegravegmes des Pegraveres Collection systeacutematique chapitres 1ndash9 (Sources chreacutetiennes 387)

Paris Editions du Cerf Mikhailov Nikolaj

1998 Fruumlhslowenische Sprachdenkmaumller (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 26) Amster-dam Rodopi

Miklosich Franz von Miklosich Lexicon palaeligoslovenicondashgraeligcondashlatinum emendatum auctum Wien 1865 repr Aalen 1963

Nau Franccedilois 1905 Le chapitre Pερὶ ἀναχωρητῶν ἁγίων et les sources de la vie de St Paul de Thegravebes Revue de

lrsquoorient chreacutetien 10(1905) 387ndash417 1907ndash1913 Histoires des solitaires eacutegyptiens Revue de lrsquoorient chreacutetien 12(1907) 43ndash69 171ndash193 393ndash

413 13(1908) 47ndash66 266ndash297 14(1909) 357ndash379 17(1912) 204ndash211 294ndash301 18(1913) 137ndash144

Nikitin Petr V 1915ndash16 Grečeskij Skitskij paterik i ego drevnij latinskij perevod Vizantijskij vremennik 22 127ndash173

Nikolova Svetlina 1995 Otečeski knigi In Petăr Dinekov et al (eds) KirilondashMetodievska enciklopedija 2 Sofia

BAN 886ndash891 Pileva Stefka

2003 An Important Witness to Old Slavic Monastic Miscellanies Krka 4 (1346) Budapest CEU (Diss)

Reacutegnault Dom Lucien 1970 Les sentences des pegraveres du deacutesert Nouveau recueil Solesmes 1976 Les sentences des pegraveres du deacutesert Troisiegraveme recueil et tables Solesmes

Rosweyde Heribert 1628 Vitaelig patrum De vita et verbis seniorum libri x Antwerpen (1st ed 1615) Libri vndashvi repr in

JacquesndashPaul Migne (ed) Patrologiaelig cursus completus Series latina 73 855ndash1022 Schaeken Joseph

1995 Nochmals aksl vъsǫdъ vъsǫdьnъ Die Welt der Slaven 331 87ndash101 SSS Ralja M Cejtlin et al (eds) Staroslavjanskij slovarrsquo (po rukopisjam XndashXI vekov) Moskva

Russkij jazyk 1994 Stefanov ieromonax Pavel

1994 Dreven paterik ili duxovnata mădrost na otcite na pustinjata Sofia Monarxičeskondashkonser-vativen săjuz

van Wijk Nicolaas 1936ndash37 Podrobnyj obzor cerkovnoslavjanskogo perevoda Bolrsquošogo Limonarija Byzantinoslavica

6(1936ndash1937) 38ndash84

11

1975 The Old Church Slavic Translation of the Ἀνδρων ἁγίων βίβλος The Hague Mouton Vasmer [Fasmer] Max

1967 Etimologičeskij slovarrsquo russkogo jazyka 2 Perevod s nemeckogo s dopolnenijami ON Trubačeva Moskva Progress

Veder [Feder] William R 2005 Hiljada godini kato edin den Životăt na tekstovete v Pravoslavnoto slavjanstvo Sofia BAN in

print [Vissarion episkop]

1874 Drevnij paterik izložennyj po glavam Moskva (3rd ed 1892)

2

has a Latin translation made before ca AD 560 and a Slavonic translation made before AD 885 and known as the Scete Patericon Of all the translations that can be attributed to St Methodius this one lends itself best to the task of establishing his language and style Its iden-tification with the отьчьскъіѩ кънигъі of Vita Methodii xv leaves little if any room for doubt3 and its witnesses have not undergone the erratic recollation with Greek manuscripts which so mars the tradition of Biblical and liturgical translations Below I present Scete Patericon 15111b4 in a lineated collation of its Greek text (Nau 19125) a Cyrillic reconstruction6 of its Slavonic translation (bold superscript letters mark items to be commented) and its Latin trans-lation (Rosweyde 16287)

11 Ἤσαν 8τινὲς κοσmicroικοὶ εὐλαβεῖς καὶ συmicroφωνήσαντες ἐξῆλθον καὶ γεγόνασι microοναχοί Дъва инаa бѣстеb проста людинаc говѣина и съвѣщавъшаd иꙁидетеe и бꙑсте мъниха Duo quidam erant saeligculares religiosi et colloquentes secum egressi sunt et facti sunt monachi

12 καὶ ζήλῳ φερόmicroενοι κατὰ τὴν εὐαγγελικὴν φωνήν ἀγνοοῦντες δέ εὐνουχίσαν ἑαυτοὺς и рьвьнѹѭща по еванъгельскѹ гласѹ не вѣдѫща же скописте сѧ AEligmulationem autem habentes vocis evangelicaelig sed non secundum scientiam castraverunt se

13 διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν (Mt 1912) сирѣчь цѣсарьствиꙗ ради небесьнаѥго quasi9 propter regna10 cœlorum

14 Καὶ ἀκούσας ὁ ἀρχιεπίσκοπος ἐχώρησεν αὐτούς слꙑшавъ же аръхиепископъ отълѫчи ꙗ отъ црькъве Audiens autem archiepiscopus excommunicavit eos

15 Ἐκεῖνοι δὲ δοκοῦντες ὅτι καλῶς ἐποίησαν ἠγανάκτησαν κατ αὐτοῦ λέγοντεςmiddot 2 This collection compiled after the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) reorders the contents of the earlier alphabet-icondashanonymous collection in 22 thematic chapters of which 1ndash9 are edited by Guy 1993 The Latin translation is edited by Rosweyde 1628 for an inventory of the Slavonic translation see Veder 2005 3 On the отьчьскъіѩ кънигъі and the attribution to St Methodius see Nikolova 1995 Veder 2005 4 The inventory of the chapters is numbered by Guy 1962 according to the most developed state of the text Cod Moskva GIM Singr 452 (Russian translation Vissarion 1874 Bulgarian Stefanov 1994) has this story in the 106th place the Slavonic translation has it in the 93rd place the Latin in the 88th 5 In Naursquos edition the story is identified as nr 334 (b forms its central part) of the anonymous collection The modern standard (Reacutegnault 1976) is to identify it as 1334 by its place in the entire alphabeticondashanonymous col-lection Note that in the alphabeticondashanonymous collection our story is embedded in 1334a and 1334c while in the systematic collection it is preceded by 1319a and followed by 1319b 6 I introduce a uniform verse numbering (emulating Erasmus) leave aside all abbreviations and standardise all spellings to maximal discreteness The reconstruction should ideally be written in Glagolitic script but over a millenium of dictatorship of Cyrillic has so moulded the research tradition of Slavonic that a text printed in Glago-litic would fail to be read even if it were noticed 7 Complements to Rosweydersquos edition were published independently by Nikitin 1915ndash16 and Battle 1971 Note that the Latin version despite its antiquity and the fact that its translators both attained the rank of pontifex maxi-mus is by no means beyond reproach it is defective (20 27 36) explicative (18 23 28 38) and verbose (21) cf for a general appraisal of the work of the two translators Nikitin 1915ndash16 8 I suspect that the single cod Paris BN Coislin 126 published by Nau 1912 simply skipped δύο 9 The Latin quasi and its Slavonic parallel сирѣчь indicate that they have a common Greek source which distanced itself from the all too direct appeal to the authority of the Gospel 10 Why did the Latin translators here and in 16 prefer the pl when St Jerome in the Vulgate already used the sg

3

она же мьнѧща ꙗко добро сътвористе ръпътасте на нь глаголѭща Illi autem putantes quia bene fecissent indignati sunt contra eum dicentes

16 Ἡmicroεῖς εὐνουχίσαmicroεν ἑαυτοὺς διὰ τὴν βασιλεῖαν τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ οὗτος ἐχώρησεν η Jmicroᾶς вѣ скописвѣ сѧ ꙁа цѣсарьствиѥ божиѥ и сь отълѫчилъ наf ѥстъ Nos propter regna cœlorum castravimus nos et hic excommunicavit nos

17 Ἄγωmicroεν ἐντύχωmicroεν κατ αὐτοῦ τὸν ἀρχιεπίσκοπον Ἱεροσολύmicroων нъ идѣвѣ да поимѣвѣg на нь аръхиепископѹ іерѹсалимьскѹh Eamus et interpellemus adversus eum Hierosolymitanorum archiepiscopum

18 Καὶ ἀπελθόντες ἀνήγγειλαν αὐτῷ πάντα καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ ἀρχιεπίσκοποςmiddot шьдъша же въꙁвѣстисте ѥмѹ вьсꙗ и рече има аръхиепископъ Abeuntes ergo indicaverunt ei omnia Et dixit archiepiscopus Hierosolymitanus

19 Κἀγὼ ὑmicroᾶς χωρίζω и аꙁъ отълѫчаѭ ва Et ego vos excommunico

20 Καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦτο λυπηθέντες ἀπῆλθον ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ πρὸς τὸν ἀρχιεπίσκοπον καὶ εἶπον αὐτῷ τὰ καθ ἑαυτούς κἀκεῖνος ἐχώρισεν ἐαυτούς

и на сеi же пакꙑ печаль приимъша идете въ анътиохиѭ къ аръхиепископѹ и рѣсте ѥмѹ ꙗже о себѣ и онъ же отълѫчи ꙗ

Ex quo iterum contristati abierunt in Antiochiam ad archiepiscopum et dixerunt ei omnia quaelig facta fuerunt Et ille similiter excommunicavit eos

21 Λέγουσι πρὸς ἀλλήλουςmiddot и глаголасте къ себѣ Et dixerunt ad seipsos

22 Ἄγωmicroεν εἰς OcircRώmicroην πρὸς τὸν πάπαν κἀκεῖνος ἐκδικεῖ η Jmicroᾶς ἀπὸ πάντων τούτων поидѣвѣ въ римъ къ патриаръхѹ и тъ мьстить наю отъ вьсѣхъ сихъ Eamus Romam ad patriarcham11 et ipse nos vindicabit de omnibus istis

23 Ἀπελθόντες οὖν πρὸς τὸν ἀρχιεπίσκοπον OcircRώmicroης ἀνήγγειλαν αὐτῷ ἃ ἐποίησαν αὐτοῖς οἱ ἀρχιεπίσκοποιmiddot

шьдъша же къ великѹѥмѹ аръхиепископѹ римьскѹ въꙁвѣстисте ѥмѹ ꙗже сътворишѧ има аръхиепископи

Abierunt ergo ad summum archiepiscopum11 Romanaelig civitatis et suggesserunt ei quaelig fecerant eis memorati archiepiscopi

24 Ἤλθοmicroεν δὲ πρὸς σέ ὅτι σὺ εἶ κεφαλὴ πάντων приидовѣ же къ тебѣ сѧтеj ꙗко тꙑ ѥси глава въсѣмъ dicentes Venimus ad te quia tu es caput omnium

25ndash Εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ αὐτόςmiddot Κἀγὼ χωρίζω ὑmicroᾶς καὶ κεχωρισmicroένοι ἐστέ 26 рече же има и тъ и аꙁъ ва отълѫчаѭ и отълѫчена ѥста

11 The Constantinopolitan version published by Nau reduces the titles of the pope preserved in full in the Latin and Slavonic patriarch and great archbishop again an indication that the two translations have a common Greek source of different provenance

4

Dicit autem eis et ipse Ego vos excommunico et segregati estis

27 Ἀπορούmicroενοι δὲ πρὸς ἀλλήλους εἶπον ὅτιmiddot тогда сътѧꙁаѭща сѧ рѣсте къ себѣ Tunc defecerunt excommunicati totius rationis et dixerunt ad semetipsos

28 Εἷς τῷ ἑνὶ χαρίζεται διὰ τὸ ἐν συνόδῳ ἀνάγεσθαι си по себѣ сѫтъ ѥдинъ по ѥдиномь ꙁане въ съньмѣхъ събираѭтъ сѧ Isti episcopi sibi invicem deferunt et consentiunt propter quod in synodis congregantur

29 ἀλλ α [γωmicroεν εἰς τὸν ἅγιον τοῦ Qεοῦ Ἐπιφάνιον τὸν ἐπίσκοπον τῆς Κύπρου ὅτι προφήτης ἐστὶν καὶ οὐ λαmicroβάνει πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπου

нъ идѣвѣ къ свѧтѹѥмѹ епифанию аръхиепскопѹ кѵпрьскѹ ꙗко пророкъ ѥстъ и не обинѹѥтъ сѧ лица чьловѣкѹ

Sed eamus ad illum virum Dei sanctum Epiphanium episcopum de Cypro quia propheta est et personam hominis non accipit

30 Ὡς δὲ ἤγγισαν τῇ πόλει αὐτοῦ ἀπεκαλύφθη αὐτῷ περὶ αὐτῶν καὶ πέmicroψας εἰς ἀπάντησιν αὐτῶν εἶπενmiddot

вънегда же приближисте сѧ градѣk ѥго ꙗви сѧ ѥмѹ о нею и посълавъ въ сърѣтениѥ има рече Cum autem appropinquarent civitati ejus revelatum est ei de ipsis et mittens in occursum

eorum dixit 31ndash Μηδὲ εἰς τὴν πόλιν ταύτην εἰσελθέτωσαν Τότε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς γενόmicroενοι εἶπονmiddot 32 ни въ градъ сь въходита тогда въ себѣ бꙑвъша рѣсте Ne intretis civitatem istam Tunc illi in se reversi dixerunt

33 Ἐπ ἀληθείας η Jmicroεῖς ἐσφάληmicroενmiddot въ рѣснотѫl вѣ съгрѣшиховѣ чьто ѹбо себе оправьдаѥвѣ Pro veritate nos culpabiles sumus ut quid ergo nos ipsos justificamus

34 ἔστω ἐκεῖνοι ἀδίκως η Jmicroᾶς ἐχώρησαν microὴ καὶ ου |τος ὁ προφητήςhellip ἰδοὺ ὁ Qεὸς ἀπεκάλυψεν αὐτῷ περὶ η Jmicroῶν

бѫди ꙗко они бес правьдꙑ на отълѫчишѧ ѥда ѹбо и сь пророкъ се бо богъ ꙗви ѥмѹ о наю Fac etiam quia illi injuste nos excommunicaverunt nunquid et iste propheta Ecce enim Deus

revelavit ei de nobis

35 Καὶ κατέγνωσαν ἑαυτῶν σφόδρα περὶ τοῦ πράγmicroατος ου | ἐποίησαν и ꙁаꙁьрѣсте себѣm о грѣсѣ иже сътвористе Et reprehenderunt semetipsos valde de culpa quam fecerunt

36 Τότε ἰδὼν ὁ καρδιογνώστης Qεὸς ὅτι ἐν ἀληθείᾳ κατέγνωσαν ἑαυτῶν ἐπληροφόρησεν Ἐπιφάνιον ἐπίσκοπον Κύπρου

тогда видѣвъ срьдьцевѣдьць богъ ꙗко въ рѣснотѫ ꙁаꙁьрѣсте себѣ съкаꙁа епископѹ епифанию о нею

Tunc videns qui corda novit quia pro veritate se culpabiles fecerant revelavit episcopo Epiphanio

37 καὶ ἀφ ἑαυτοῦ πέmicroψας ἥνεγκεν αὐτοὺς καὶ παρακαλέσας ἐδέξατο εἰς κοινωνίαν посълавъ же приведе ꙗ и ѹтѣшь приѩтъ ꙗ въ обьщениѥn et ultro misit et adduxit eos et consolatus eos suscepit in communionem

38 καὶ ἔγραψε τῷ ἀρχιεπισκόπῳ Ἀλεξανδρείαςmiddot

5

и написа аръхиепископѹ алеѯанъдрьскѹ глаголѧ Scripsit itaque de his archiepiscopo Alexandriaelig dicens

39 Δέξαι τὰ τέκνα σου microετενόησαν γὰρ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ приими чѧдѣ твои покаꙗсте бо сѧ въ рѣснотѫ Suscipe filios tuos quoniam in veritate pœnitentiam egerunt

Before discussing the problems of establishing Scete Patericon 15111b let me present the 20 witnesses and their stemma (Fig 1) a A1 Dečani 93 (12c UA) α a A2 A3 Moskva GIM Sin 3 (15c RU) SPb RNB Pog 267 (14c RU) γ b B1 Moskva GIM Uvar 483 (1542 UA) b B2 B4 Moskva RGB F178 8240 (1472 RU) RGB F310 219 (16c UA) b B5 Lrsquoviv BAN ASP 56 (16c UA) ε i I1 SPb RNB Tixan 552 (16c RU) ω i I2 Moskva RGB F113 601 (15c RU) ζ o O Moskva GIM Čud 318A (15ndash16c RU) c C1 C2 C4 Moskva GIM Čud 18 (14c RU) RGB F304 703 (14c RU) NBMGU 1310 (15c RU) k K2 SPb BAN Belokr 2 (16c BG) η w W1 W2 W3 Sinai Slav 33 (14c SR) Peć 86 (13c SR) Moskva RGB Popov 93 (14c BG) θ w W4 SPb RNB Hilf 90 (14c SR) w W6 W8 Krka 4 (1345ndash46 BG) Paris BN Slav 10 (14c SR)12

Fig 1 Stemma codicum of the Scete Patericon 15111b13

The Cyrillic hyparchetypes andasho are of East Slavic origin probably made like indashi at Kiev in in the second half of the 11th century kndashw are of South Slavic origin and c may have the same provenance The Glagolitic hyparchetypes αndashε originated around the turn of the 9ndash10th centuries in the PliskandashPreslav area to judge by their individual HunnondashBulgarisms (eg αγ отънѫдь rarr бъхъма passim ε ꙁьрьцало rarr тикъръ 22914) ζη are of later origin and may stem from a different environment15 The reconstruction of ω presented above is based on the fol-lowing considerations of the variation the witnesses exhibit

(a) All occurrences of the indefinite article τις are occasions of deep disturbance in the wit-nesses (are there any CyrillondashMethodian translations where they are not) In 15111b the conflict is αγ oslash εocθW3 етеръ k нѣкъіи W12 дрѹгъ Elsewhere in the Scete Patericon it usually is α ѥдинъ εcθW3 етеръ k нѣкъіинѣкъто W12 дрѹгъ with γ vaccillating between единъ and етеръ and o between етеръ and нѣкъіинѣкъто but any of these readings including oslash can occasionally appear in any of the hyparchetypes in addition we find isolated instances of инъ most notably in k (8 times) but also in α (4 in one case altered rarr ѥдинъ by A3 in an-other by a) γ (3) ε (2) o (1) η (1) and w (1) This begs the question which are variants and which is the original reading of the archetype ω 12 On W6 cf Pileva 2003 W8 is edited by van Wijk 1975 13 Greek sigla Glagolitic hyparchetypes bold Latin sigla Cyrillic hyparchetypes nonndashbold sigla witnesses shaded South Slavic BG = Bulgarian RU = Russian SR = Serbian UA = Ruthenian 14 The Glagolitic hyparchetype ε a compilation also known as the Tixanov Patericon is described in some detail in Veder 2005 15 The Glagolitic hyparchetypes ζ and η show notable loss of text perhaps as the result of transport damage to w or a Glagolitic copy of it they also exhibit a morphological conservatism unknown to αndashε cf Veder 2005

6

Van Wijk 1975 77ndash78 81 knowing the readings only of w and relying in part on the findings of Jagić appointed етеръ to archetypal rank which implies that it should provide a satisfactory explanation for all the variants But can етеръ lsquoarsquo explain a variant дрѹгъ lsquootherrsquo or a fortiori инъ lsquodifferent otherrsquo I think that is only when we take инъ lsquoonersquo as the arche-typal form (best preserved in the second half of the Scete Patericon where the urge to change unfamiliar items gave way to the urge to finish the copy) that all pieces fall into place инъ rarr ѥдинъ (which resolves the quandaries of Vasmer 1967 134) rarr нѣкъіинѣкъто дрѹгъ and even тѹждь (W1 1912) as well as инъ rarr гнь (w 162) иного rarr никого (k 1614) and ини rarr кии (c 203) Its reading in the more recent meaning lsquootherrsquo eventually led to the reinterpreta-tion of инъ етеръ (for τις α[λλος) as lsquootherrsquo + lsquoonersquo and thence to the endowment of the margin-al етеръ with the meaning lsquoonersquo whence its participation in the variation outlined above

(b) For ἤσαν all witnesses read бѣста but the agreement is no reason to raise this reading to archetypal rank The ndashа desinence conflicts with the 3du ndashе desinences listed by van Wijk 1975 83ndash84 for the witness W5 (which does not contain this apophthegm) and which are gen-erally best preserved in the Glagolitic hyparchetype η As in the case of инъ above the ndashе des-inence is a recessive form ie one of those vulnerable forms in the translatorrsquos text which had little currency beyond the area of the original mission and were therefore most widely affected by the interference of the earliest copyists Under the pressure of both the desinence ndashа of the subject and the syncretism of aor23sg αγ fully levelled 3du ndashе rarr ndashа and εζ did so somewhat less consistently η presumably did not and the ndashа desinence must have intruded there at the level of younger hyparchetypes (ww) or manuscripts So we do well to restore бѣсте иꙁидете and бъісте (11) as well as скописте (13) сътвористе (15 35) бъꙁвѣстисте (18 23) идете (20) рѣсте (20 27 32) глаголасте (21) сѧте (24) приближисте (30) ꙁаꙁьрѣсте (35 36) and покаꙗсте (39)

(c) For κοσmicroικός the conflicting readings are αγ простъ людинъ εζη простъ мѫжь (простъ omitted by cW2) In seven other cases the unanimous reading is простъ людинъ (save that k five and o three times replace людинъ rarr чьловѣкъ and that k twice introduces the innovation мирꙗнинъ) but in five more cases the unanimous reading is коꙁъмикъ Conventional wisdom has it that untranslated grecisms are primary to Slavonic expressions but the complementary distribution of коꙁъмикъ (chapters Andash1 and O) and простъ людинъ (5ndash20) prevents us from generalising one at the expense of the other It rather appears that the translatorrsquos lexicon con-tained both the grecism and its Slavonic calque and that the makers of the hyparchetypes had no inkling that they referred to the same concept

(d) For συmicroφονεῖν the witnesses read съвѣщати bζW13 съвѣщати сѧ The reflexive read-ing is absent in 151 (twice) minimally present in 229 (W13) and maximally in 204 (αγζ) The pattern of increase suggests that съвѣщати is a translatorrsquos grecism and that the addition of сѧ in Slavonic like that of secum in Latin is in response to a requirement of the target lan-guage

(e) The pattern of variation of the aorist stems is similar to that in b above Dominant forms in ndash(о)хndash massively displace the recessive rootndash and ndashсndash forms for ἐξῆλθον (11) the witnesses read иꙁидоста (a replaces иꙁndash rarr въꙁndash ε rarr oslash) w иꙁидета for ἀπῆλθον (20) all read идоста for ἤλθοmicroεν (24) приидоховѣ w приидосвѣ for εὐνουχίσαmicroεν (16) скопиховѣ (εW12 replace сndash rarr исndash) k скопивѣ w скописвѣ for εἶπον (20) рекоста εW3 съповѣдаста okθwW2 рѣста c съкаꙁаста W1 гласта for εἶπον (27) рекоста εζwW12 рѣста for εἶπον (32) рекоста

7

αγεζwW12 рѣста (ie repetition in the end favours preservation) Like in b above the arche-typal forms are best preserved in η (cf van Wijk 1975 84ndash85 for W58) We do well to restore иꙁидете (11) идете (20) приидовѣ (24) скописвѣ (20) and рѣсте (20 27 32)

(f) Of the 16 dual forms of pronouns in 15111b two show no variation viz 3du ꙗ (14) and има (18) and ten show one mistake each of b and i plus the attempts of k and W3 to level them to pl forms viz 1du вѣ (16) b мъі W3 ниѥ вѣ (33) W3 ниѥ наю (22) W3 насъ наю (34) k нас and 3du она (15) k они ꙗ (20) kW3 ихъ ꙗ (371) k их W3 них ꙗ (372) ikW3 их има (30) k имъ нею (29) k нихъ Serious conflict affects four forms viz 1duA на (16) εζθW23 нъі на (34) b нас bε наю ζwW23 нъі and 2duA ва (19) γkW3 вас o въі ва (26) εokwW23 въі The fact that witnesses of η very frequently vary in these forms led van Wijk 1975 83 to doubt whether the Adu forms на and ва were archetypal but the fact that in all four cases precisely these readings are preserved by at least α should dispel any doubt for it is im-plausible that archetypal нъі and въі should have been replaced rarr на and rarr ва

(g) For ἐντύχωmicroεν the witnesses give the following readings θ поимевѣ o поемлевѣ αcW2 повѣвѣ γεW1 повѣдаѥвѣ W3 исповѣдаѥвѣ k гливѣ This is the first of five times ἐντυγχάνειν κατά + G is translated as поѩтипоимати на + A and it must have baffled the mak-ers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes αγε (or the maker of the copy of ω they worked from) who replaced ndashѩти rarr ndashвѣдѣтивѣдати (W123 independently reacted in a similar way) The other occurrences show no significant variation (198 oslash kW1 229 a mistake in a) save the replacements 229 rarr бесѣдовати на k 2217 rarr молити сѧ на c or no variation at all (O13) As to the Slavonic verbal aspect either is possible SSS and Miklosich record in this sense only the imperfective but the fact that the extremes of the hyparchetypes agree on the perfective makes that more likely

(h) Where the translator used definite forms of Slavonic adjectives there is no variation only contraction of the compound desinences (in 15111b a not fully contracted desinence is preserved in a ndashѹмѹ 29) but the archetype must have contained the full double desinences as only they can account for the appearance in the witnesses of unwarranted anaphoric pronouns in the vicinity of adjectives which should be definite So we do well to restore небесьнаѥго (13) велилкѹѥмѹ (23) свѧтѹѥмѹ (29)

Where the translator used indefinite forms variation is absent only in adjectives which lack compound desinences eg божиѥ (16) In all other cases there is conflict еванъгельскѹ (12) γεkwW3 def іерѹсалимьскѹ (17) αγεζW13 def римьскѹ (23) aγεθ def кѵпрьскѹ (29) εkW13 def алеѯанъдрьскѹ (38) ckW13 def Here as in e above repetition (ic of desinences) in the end favours preservation The clearndashcut oppositions show that the variation already af-fected the Glagolitic hyparchetypes

(i) For ἐπὶ τοῦτο the witnesses read ε на того (ε in general exhibits a clear preference for тъ above сь) ocθ на сего αγkW23 ѿ сего W1 тако The translator nowhere uses G forms for the A so the shift in connection from the verdict to the judge cannot be imputed to him neither can the replacement of the preposition на rarr отъ I suspect the translatorrsquos grecism на се was either written so that n се could be read as m сь (which is more than likely in Glagolitic) or that the desinence was damaged or that a hendiadys note то (written so that it could be read as го) was added Any of these cases would have called for conjecture already by the makers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes and it is interesting to note that this conjecture is rooted in nonndashMethodian morphology viz mAanim = mG

8

(j) The Greek text lacks a verbum dicendi16 to motivate the direct speech in 24 but the Lat-in and the Slavonic attest its original presence The witnesses read αγε рѣста c рѣша wW123 oslash w сета The latter is the only hitherto known 3du form of this recessive verb Fol-lowing b above we do well to restore its explicit spelling сѧте

(k) For ἐγγίζειν + D the witnesses unanimously read приближити сѧ къ + D Yet it is be-yond doubt that in the archetype the prefix приndash in this verb (as elsewhere) governed the L First in six out of 16 cases L readings are preserved viz 1038 τα πάθη γζW3 похоти αW2 похотьмъ 1159 ἐκείνῳ ε ѡ томь αγζW123 томѹѥмѹ (cf also immediately preceding αγζW3 κολλήθητι ἀνθρώπῳ прилѣпи сѧ чьловѣцѣ W12 чьловѣкѹ) 1195 microοί αcW3 мьнѣ γokwW2 ми and ὑmicroῖν cW2 васъ αγokwW3 вамъ (αγow add къ) 2013 αὐτῷ αow ѥмь εkW2 ѥмѹ γc oslash and O14 (Greek untraced) all боꙁѣ secondly four of the remaining cases exhibit con-flicts similar to the preceding viz 52 σώmicroασι all инѣмъ17 тѣломъ (αkwB2W3 add къ) 11117 σοί aoc ти aγk oslash 1427 τῇ κώmicroῃ αγiokwW3 къ вьси ic до вьси 1541 τῷ Qεῷ all богѹ (αγεocW23 add къ) It appears that the replacement приndash + L rarr [къ +] D started already in the Glagolitic hyparchetypes and that we do well to restore приближити сѧ + L

(l) For ἀληθεία the witnesses in 33 36 read unanimously истина but in 39 W8 reads рѣснота This word like all recessive items is preserved rather by chance than by design in eight more places 10160 W58 1312 o 154 o 184 bbo 187 o 2016 c and J2ndash3 W8 (six adjectival forms are preserved as well in the range of chapters 10ndash18) It is likely that the cases where conflicting readings истина правьда (eg 1312 2016 and elsewhere) or oslash (eg 187 J2ndash3 and elsewhere) are present also betray an archetypal reading рѣснота which we do well to restore

(m) For καταγινώσκειν + G the witnesses read ꙁаꙁьрѣти 35 aγcW23 + L aεokθW1 + A 36 γcwA2W123 + L aεokwA3 + A It could be argued that with the pronoun себе the distinction L ~ A is not as remarkable as with other pronouns or nouns but consider the fact that the dis-tribution of both readings remains fairly stable in ꙁаꙁьрѣти себѣ for microέmicroφεσθαι σεαυτόν 387 bbiwA2W3 + L aiζA3B2W2 + A 1064 γocA3W2 + L aA2W3 + A 1531 γocW23 + L αk + A With other pronouns or nouns we find ꙁаꙁьрѣти (for both καταγινώσκειν and microέmicroφεσθαι) in 369 all своѥи немощи 103 W3 имь αγεζθcW2 oslash 1531 αγ чьловѣче (V) ζW3 чьловѣкѹ w чьловѣкомъ W3 чьловѣчьсцѣи 15111a αγoθ братѣ ckW13 братѹ εW2 oslash 1826 all вьсѣхъ In all instances at least part of the witnesses preserve the L and in 1531 the V and the adjective point precisely to the L чьловѣцѣ as the source of the disturbance As in k above the L rection must be considered archetypal and the variation shows that this type of rection was unfamiliar already to the makers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes (we may safely assume that for them the L had lost its autonomy)

(n) For κοινωνία in 15111b the witnesses read αγεζwW123 причѧстиѥ w обьщениѥ The latter word is unanimously used in 1842 it occurs also for προσφορά (203 c стое тѣло и кровь хса ба нашего) and as a translatorrsquos explication implying προσφορά (184 unanimous 1846 c тѣло хсво) which is normally rendered as приношениѥ (9 times in chapters 4ndash20 four unanimous two with c replacing rarr комъканиѥ three c rarr oslash) It appears that the translator dis- 16 Was φασάν or ἔφησαν omitted accidentally or was it obscure to the 10ndash11th century copyist of cod Paris BN Coislin 126 17 This of course is another instance of инъ as indefinite article (cf a above)

9

tinguished обьщениѥ lsquothe act of dispensing or partaking of the Eucharistic elementsrsquo (to which 203 pertains) and приношениѥ lsquothe consecration of the elementsrsquo lsquothe consecrated elementsrsquo Both причѧстиѥ and комъканиѥ are foreign intrusions the former not originally endowed with a liturgical meaning (cf Scete Patericon J98ndash100 microέτοχος причѧстьница) the latter like its Alpine Latin fellow traveler въсѫдъ (Schaeken 1988) kept out of the translation18

Our effort to restore the initial state of this translation by St Methodius ie to close the circle de la pluraliteacute agrave lrsquouniteacute has led us six times to read what is not there In doing so we found that the scribes of the extant witnesses rarely read what was not in their exemplar while those of the Cyrillic hyparchetypes did so more often (especially c the only purposeful edition of the text secundum scientiam and k) But the fundamental variation from the exemplar belongs to the makers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes We see αγ most noticeably and εζ to a lesser degree reading what is not in ω and even ηθ in some cases vary from their exemplar The var-iation in the Cyrillic renderings of Glagolitic exemplars need not surprise us The differences between W1 W2 and W3 who in the 14th century independently read η speak eloquently of the difficulties in deciphering the message of a text written in Glagolitic What should exercise us is the reception of a text known to be if not of St Methodius himself at least of venerable provenance by the scribes αndashε in the PliskandashPreslav area and ζndashη at some remove from them They were conversant with Glagolitic both receptively and productively Aleksandr V Bondarko has aptly called their attitude toward the text svojskoe lsquoas if they owned itrsquo Was it because the translatorrsquos language was theirs The problems discussed above should discourage such an explanation19 We should I venture to suggest rather consider these men of letters as recent converts to that rank not encumbered with either prior generations of skill and scholar-ship or any prendashordained concept of fidelity but ingenuously inspired by the task to assimilate and accomplish what the illndashfated mission to Morava (AD 863ndash885) aimed to do

Deerfield IL

REFERENCES

Battle Columba M 1971 Vetera Nova Vorlaumlufige kritische Ausgabe bei Rosweyde fehlender Vaumlterspruumlche Fest-

schrift fur Bernhard Bischoff Stuttgart 32ndash42

18 The translator took great care not to burden his translation with specific liturgical terms cf Guergova 2003 Whether комъканиѥ (the standard translation for κοινwνία and προσφορά in the Egyptian Patericon translated in the PliskandashPreslav area at the turn of the 9ndash10th centuries from a conflation of the Historia monachorum in AEliggyp-to CPG 6063 and the Historia Lausiaca CPG 6038 with the De Bragmanibus CPG 5820) andor въсѫдъ be-longed to his lexicon but were suppressed owing to this design requires further research 19 A differential study of the grammars of the translator and his first close readers will become possible when JG van der Tak and WR Veder produce their edition of the Greek text its early Latin translations and the reconstruc-tion of the Slavonic translation in the Bollandistsrsquo Subsidia hagiographica (Brussels) The machinendashreadable cop-ies of the Slavonic witnesses to the Scete Patericon and the full collation of their text (copies of which are in pos-session of many departments of Slavic Studies including that of the University of Leiden) will provide all the source data required

10

Caldarelli Raffaele 1996 Il Paterik alfabeticondashanonimo in traduzione slavondashecclesiastica Roma (Diss La Sapienza)

Capaldo Mario 1984 LrsquoAzbučnondashierusalimskij paterik (collection alphabeacuteticondashanonyme slave des Apophthegmata

patrum) Polata knigopisnaja 4 26ndash50 Cotelier JeanndashBaptiste

1677 Ecclesiaelig graeligcaelig monumenta 1 [Paris] repr in JacquesndashPaul Migne (ed) Patrologiaelig cursus completus Series graeligca 65 75ndash440

CPG Maurits Geerard (ed) Clavis patrum graeligcorum 1ndash5 Turnhout Brepols 1974ndash1987 Guergova Emilia William R Veder

2003 Bogoslužebnite posledovanija spored Skitskija paterik (predvaritelni beležki) Anisava Mil-tenova et al (eds) Pěti dostoitъ Sbornik v pamet na Stefan Kožuxarov Sofia Bojan Penev 95ndash111

Guy JeanndashClaude 1962 Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite des Apophthegmata patrum (Subsidia hagiographica

36) Bruxelles Socieacuteteacute des Bollandistes (2nd rev ed 1984) 1993 Les Apophtegravegmes des Pegraveres Collection systeacutematique chapitres 1ndash9 (Sources chreacutetiennes 387)

Paris Editions du Cerf Mikhailov Nikolaj

1998 Fruumlhslowenische Sprachdenkmaumller (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 26) Amster-dam Rodopi

Miklosich Franz von Miklosich Lexicon palaeligoslovenicondashgraeligcondashlatinum emendatum auctum Wien 1865 repr Aalen 1963

Nau Franccedilois 1905 Le chapitre Pερὶ ἀναχωρητῶν ἁγίων et les sources de la vie de St Paul de Thegravebes Revue de

lrsquoorient chreacutetien 10(1905) 387ndash417 1907ndash1913 Histoires des solitaires eacutegyptiens Revue de lrsquoorient chreacutetien 12(1907) 43ndash69 171ndash193 393ndash

413 13(1908) 47ndash66 266ndash297 14(1909) 357ndash379 17(1912) 204ndash211 294ndash301 18(1913) 137ndash144

Nikitin Petr V 1915ndash16 Grečeskij Skitskij paterik i ego drevnij latinskij perevod Vizantijskij vremennik 22 127ndash173

Nikolova Svetlina 1995 Otečeski knigi In Petăr Dinekov et al (eds) KirilondashMetodievska enciklopedija 2 Sofia

BAN 886ndash891 Pileva Stefka

2003 An Important Witness to Old Slavic Monastic Miscellanies Krka 4 (1346) Budapest CEU (Diss)

Reacutegnault Dom Lucien 1970 Les sentences des pegraveres du deacutesert Nouveau recueil Solesmes 1976 Les sentences des pegraveres du deacutesert Troisiegraveme recueil et tables Solesmes

Rosweyde Heribert 1628 Vitaelig patrum De vita et verbis seniorum libri x Antwerpen (1st ed 1615) Libri vndashvi repr in

JacquesndashPaul Migne (ed) Patrologiaelig cursus completus Series latina 73 855ndash1022 Schaeken Joseph

1995 Nochmals aksl vъsǫdъ vъsǫdьnъ Die Welt der Slaven 331 87ndash101 SSS Ralja M Cejtlin et al (eds) Staroslavjanskij slovarrsquo (po rukopisjam XndashXI vekov) Moskva

Russkij jazyk 1994 Stefanov ieromonax Pavel

1994 Dreven paterik ili duxovnata mădrost na otcite na pustinjata Sofia Monarxičeskondashkonser-vativen săjuz

van Wijk Nicolaas 1936ndash37 Podrobnyj obzor cerkovnoslavjanskogo perevoda Bolrsquošogo Limonarija Byzantinoslavica

6(1936ndash1937) 38ndash84

11

1975 The Old Church Slavic Translation of the Ἀνδρων ἁγίων βίβλος The Hague Mouton Vasmer [Fasmer] Max

1967 Etimologičeskij slovarrsquo russkogo jazyka 2 Perevod s nemeckogo s dopolnenijami ON Trubačeva Moskva Progress

Veder [Feder] William R 2005 Hiljada godini kato edin den Životăt na tekstovete v Pravoslavnoto slavjanstvo Sofia BAN in

print [Vissarion episkop]

1874 Drevnij paterik izložennyj po glavam Moskva (3rd ed 1892)

3

она же мьнѧща ꙗко добро сътвористе ръпътасте на нь глаголѭща Illi autem putantes quia bene fecissent indignati sunt contra eum dicentes

16 Ἡmicroεῖς εὐνουχίσαmicroεν ἑαυτοὺς διὰ τὴν βασιλεῖαν τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ οὗτος ἐχώρησεν η Jmicroᾶς вѣ скописвѣ сѧ ꙁа цѣсарьствиѥ божиѥ и сь отълѫчилъ наf ѥстъ Nos propter regna cœlorum castravimus nos et hic excommunicavit nos

17 Ἄγωmicroεν ἐντύχωmicroεν κατ αὐτοῦ τὸν ἀρχιεπίσκοπον Ἱεροσολύmicroων нъ идѣвѣ да поимѣвѣg на нь аръхиепископѹ іерѹсалимьскѹh Eamus et interpellemus adversus eum Hierosolymitanorum archiepiscopum

18 Καὶ ἀπελθόντες ἀνήγγειλαν αὐτῷ πάντα καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ ἀρχιεπίσκοποςmiddot шьдъша же въꙁвѣстисте ѥмѹ вьсꙗ и рече има аръхиепископъ Abeuntes ergo indicaverunt ei omnia Et dixit archiepiscopus Hierosolymitanus

19 Κἀγὼ ὑmicroᾶς χωρίζω и аꙁъ отълѫчаѭ ва Et ego vos excommunico

20 Καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦτο λυπηθέντες ἀπῆλθον ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ πρὸς τὸν ἀρχιεπίσκοπον καὶ εἶπον αὐτῷ τὰ καθ ἑαυτούς κἀκεῖνος ἐχώρισεν ἐαυτούς

и на сеi же пакꙑ печаль приимъша идете въ анътиохиѭ къ аръхиепископѹ и рѣсте ѥмѹ ꙗже о себѣ и онъ же отълѫчи ꙗ

Ex quo iterum contristati abierunt in Antiochiam ad archiepiscopum et dixerunt ei omnia quaelig facta fuerunt Et ille similiter excommunicavit eos

21 Λέγουσι πρὸς ἀλλήλουςmiddot и глаголасте къ себѣ Et dixerunt ad seipsos

22 Ἄγωmicroεν εἰς OcircRώmicroην πρὸς τὸν πάπαν κἀκεῖνος ἐκδικεῖ η Jmicroᾶς ἀπὸ πάντων τούτων поидѣвѣ въ римъ къ патриаръхѹ и тъ мьстить наю отъ вьсѣхъ сихъ Eamus Romam ad patriarcham11 et ipse nos vindicabit de omnibus istis

23 Ἀπελθόντες οὖν πρὸς τὸν ἀρχιεπίσκοπον OcircRώmicroης ἀνήγγειλαν αὐτῷ ἃ ἐποίησαν αὐτοῖς οἱ ἀρχιεπίσκοποιmiddot

шьдъша же къ великѹѥмѹ аръхиепископѹ римьскѹ въꙁвѣстисте ѥмѹ ꙗже сътворишѧ има аръхиепископи

Abierunt ergo ad summum archiepiscopum11 Romanaelig civitatis et suggesserunt ei quaelig fecerant eis memorati archiepiscopi

24 Ἤλθοmicroεν δὲ πρὸς σέ ὅτι σὺ εἶ κεφαλὴ πάντων приидовѣ же къ тебѣ сѧтеj ꙗко тꙑ ѥси глава въсѣмъ dicentes Venimus ad te quia tu es caput omnium

25ndash Εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ αὐτόςmiddot Κἀγὼ χωρίζω ὑmicroᾶς καὶ κεχωρισmicroένοι ἐστέ 26 рече же има и тъ и аꙁъ ва отълѫчаѭ и отълѫчена ѥста

11 The Constantinopolitan version published by Nau reduces the titles of the pope preserved in full in the Latin and Slavonic patriarch and great archbishop again an indication that the two translations have a common Greek source of different provenance

4

Dicit autem eis et ipse Ego vos excommunico et segregati estis

27 Ἀπορούmicroενοι δὲ πρὸς ἀλλήλους εἶπον ὅτιmiddot тогда сътѧꙁаѭща сѧ рѣсте къ себѣ Tunc defecerunt excommunicati totius rationis et dixerunt ad semetipsos

28 Εἷς τῷ ἑνὶ χαρίζεται διὰ τὸ ἐν συνόδῳ ἀνάγεσθαι си по себѣ сѫтъ ѥдинъ по ѥдиномь ꙁане въ съньмѣхъ събираѭтъ сѧ Isti episcopi sibi invicem deferunt et consentiunt propter quod in synodis congregantur

29 ἀλλ α [γωmicroεν εἰς τὸν ἅγιον τοῦ Qεοῦ Ἐπιφάνιον τὸν ἐπίσκοπον τῆς Κύπρου ὅτι προφήτης ἐστὶν καὶ οὐ λαmicroβάνει πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπου

нъ идѣвѣ къ свѧтѹѥмѹ епифанию аръхиепскопѹ кѵпрьскѹ ꙗко пророкъ ѥстъ и не обинѹѥтъ сѧ лица чьловѣкѹ

Sed eamus ad illum virum Dei sanctum Epiphanium episcopum de Cypro quia propheta est et personam hominis non accipit

30 Ὡς δὲ ἤγγισαν τῇ πόλει αὐτοῦ ἀπεκαλύφθη αὐτῷ περὶ αὐτῶν καὶ πέmicroψας εἰς ἀπάντησιν αὐτῶν εἶπενmiddot

вънегда же приближисте сѧ градѣk ѥго ꙗви сѧ ѥмѹ о нею и посълавъ въ сърѣтениѥ има рече Cum autem appropinquarent civitati ejus revelatum est ei de ipsis et mittens in occursum

eorum dixit 31ndash Μηδὲ εἰς τὴν πόλιν ταύτην εἰσελθέτωσαν Τότε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς γενόmicroενοι εἶπονmiddot 32 ни въ градъ сь въходита тогда въ себѣ бꙑвъша рѣсте Ne intretis civitatem istam Tunc illi in se reversi dixerunt

33 Ἐπ ἀληθείας η Jmicroεῖς ἐσφάληmicroενmiddot въ рѣснотѫl вѣ съгрѣшиховѣ чьто ѹбо себе оправьдаѥвѣ Pro veritate nos culpabiles sumus ut quid ergo nos ipsos justificamus

34 ἔστω ἐκεῖνοι ἀδίκως η Jmicroᾶς ἐχώρησαν microὴ καὶ ου |τος ὁ προφητήςhellip ἰδοὺ ὁ Qεὸς ἀπεκάλυψεν αὐτῷ περὶ η Jmicroῶν

бѫди ꙗко они бес правьдꙑ на отълѫчишѧ ѥда ѹбо и сь пророкъ се бо богъ ꙗви ѥмѹ о наю Fac etiam quia illi injuste nos excommunicaverunt nunquid et iste propheta Ecce enim Deus

revelavit ei de nobis

35 Καὶ κατέγνωσαν ἑαυτῶν σφόδρα περὶ τοῦ πράγmicroατος ου | ἐποίησαν и ꙁаꙁьрѣсте себѣm о грѣсѣ иже сътвористе Et reprehenderunt semetipsos valde de culpa quam fecerunt

36 Τότε ἰδὼν ὁ καρδιογνώστης Qεὸς ὅτι ἐν ἀληθείᾳ κατέγνωσαν ἑαυτῶν ἐπληροφόρησεν Ἐπιφάνιον ἐπίσκοπον Κύπρου

тогда видѣвъ срьдьцевѣдьць богъ ꙗко въ рѣснотѫ ꙁаꙁьрѣсте себѣ съкаꙁа епископѹ епифанию о нею

Tunc videns qui corda novit quia pro veritate se culpabiles fecerant revelavit episcopo Epiphanio

37 καὶ ἀφ ἑαυτοῦ πέmicroψας ἥνεγκεν αὐτοὺς καὶ παρακαλέσας ἐδέξατο εἰς κοινωνίαν посълавъ же приведе ꙗ и ѹтѣшь приѩтъ ꙗ въ обьщениѥn et ultro misit et adduxit eos et consolatus eos suscepit in communionem

38 καὶ ἔγραψε τῷ ἀρχιεπισκόπῳ Ἀλεξανδρείαςmiddot

5

и написа аръхиепископѹ алеѯанъдрьскѹ глаголѧ Scripsit itaque de his archiepiscopo Alexandriaelig dicens

39 Δέξαι τὰ τέκνα σου microετενόησαν γὰρ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ приими чѧдѣ твои покаꙗсте бо сѧ въ рѣснотѫ Suscipe filios tuos quoniam in veritate pœnitentiam egerunt

Before discussing the problems of establishing Scete Patericon 15111b let me present the 20 witnesses and their stemma (Fig 1) a A1 Dečani 93 (12c UA) α a A2 A3 Moskva GIM Sin 3 (15c RU) SPb RNB Pog 267 (14c RU) γ b B1 Moskva GIM Uvar 483 (1542 UA) b B2 B4 Moskva RGB F178 8240 (1472 RU) RGB F310 219 (16c UA) b B5 Lrsquoviv BAN ASP 56 (16c UA) ε i I1 SPb RNB Tixan 552 (16c RU) ω i I2 Moskva RGB F113 601 (15c RU) ζ o O Moskva GIM Čud 318A (15ndash16c RU) c C1 C2 C4 Moskva GIM Čud 18 (14c RU) RGB F304 703 (14c RU) NBMGU 1310 (15c RU) k K2 SPb BAN Belokr 2 (16c BG) η w W1 W2 W3 Sinai Slav 33 (14c SR) Peć 86 (13c SR) Moskva RGB Popov 93 (14c BG) θ w W4 SPb RNB Hilf 90 (14c SR) w W6 W8 Krka 4 (1345ndash46 BG) Paris BN Slav 10 (14c SR)12

Fig 1 Stemma codicum of the Scete Patericon 15111b13

The Cyrillic hyparchetypes andasho are of East Slavic origin probably made like indashi at Kiev in in the second half of the 11th century kndashw are of South Slavic origin and c may have the same provenance The Glagolitic hyparchetypes αndashε originated around the turn of the 9ndash10th centuries in the PliskandashPreslav area to judge by their individual HunnondashBulgarisms (eg αγ отънѫдь rarr бъхъма passim ε ꙁьрьцало rarr тикъръ 22914) ζη are of later origin and may stem from a different environment15 The reconstruction of ω presented above is based on the fol-lowing considerations of the variation the witnesses exhibit

(a) All occurrences of the indefinite article τις are occasions of deep disturbance in the wit-nesses (are there any CyrillondashMethodian translations where they are not) In 15111b the conflict is αγ oslash εocθW3 етеръ k нѣкъіи W12 дрѹгъ Elsewhere in the Scete Patericon it usually is α ѥдинъ εcθW3 етеръ k нѣкъіинѣкъто W12 дрѹгъ with γ vaccillating between единъ and етеръ and o between етеръ and нѣкъіинѣкъто but any of these readings including oslash can occasionally appear in any of the hyparchetypes in addition we find isolated instances of инъ most notably in k (8 times) but also in α (4 in one case altered rarr ѥдинъ by A3 in an-other by a) γ (3) ε (2) o (1) η (1) and w (1) This begs the question which are variants and which is the original reading of the archetype ω 12 On W6 cf Pileva 2003 W8 is edited by van Wijk 1975 13 Greek sigla Glagolitic hyparchetypes bold Latin sigla Cyrillic hyparchetypes nonndashbold sigla witnesses shaded South Slavic BG = Bulgarian RU = Russian SR = Serbian UA = Ruthenian 14 The Glagolitic hyparchetype ε a compilation also known as the Tixanov Patericon is described in some detail in Veder 2005 15 The Glagolitic hyparchetypes ζ and η show notable loss of text perhaps as the result of transport damage to w or a Glagolitic copy of it they also exhibit a morphological conservatism unknown to αndashε cf Veder 2005

6

Van Wijk 1975 77ndash78 81 knowing the readings only of w and relying in part on the findings of Jagić appointed етеръ to archetypal rank which implies that it should provide a satisfactory explanation for all the variants But can етеръ lsquoarsquo explain a variant дрѹгъ lsquootherrsquo or a fortiori инъ lsquodifferent otherrsquo I think that is only when we take инъ lsquoonersquo as the arche-typal form (best preserved in the second half of the Scete Patericon where the urge to change unfamiliar items gave way to the urge to finish the copy) that all pieces fall into place инъ rarr ѥдинъ (which resolves the quandaries of Vasmer 1967 134) rarr нѣкъіинѣкъто дрѹгъ and even тѹждь (W1 1912) as well as инъ rarr гнь (w 162) иного rarr никого (k 1614) and ини rarr кии (c 203) Its reading in the more recent meaning lsquootherrsquo eventually led to the reinterpreta-tion of инъ етеръ (for τις α[λλος) as lsquootherrsquo + lsquoonersquo and thence to the endowment of the margin-al етеръ with the meaning lsquoonersquo whence its participation in the variation outlined above

(b) For ἤσαν all witnesses read бѣста but the agreement is no reason to raise this reading to archetypal rank The ndashа desinence conflicts with the 3du ndashе desinences listed by van Wijk 1975 83ndash84 for the witness W5 (which does not contain this apophthegm) and which are gen-erally best preserved in the Glagolitic hyparchetype η As in the case of инъ above the ndashе des-inence is a recessive form ie one of those vulnerable forms in the translatorrsquos text which had little currency beyond the area of the original mission and were therefore most widely affected by the interference of the earliest copyists Under the pressure of both the desinence ndashа of the subject and the syncretism of aor23sg αγ fully levelled 3du ndashе rarr ndashа and εζ did so somewhat less consistently η presumably did not and the ndashа desinence must have intruded there at the level of younger hyparchetypes (ww) or manuscripts So we do well to restore бѣсте иꙁидете and бъісте (11) as well as скописте (13) сътвористе (15 35) бъꙁвѣстисте (18 23) идете (20) рѣсте (20 27 32) глаголасте (21) сѧте (24) приближисте (30) ꙁаꙁьрѣсте (35 36) and покаꙗсте (39)

(c) For κοσmicroικός the conflicting readings are αγ простъ людинъ εζη простъ мѫжь (простъ omitted by cW2) In seven other cases the unanimous reading is простъ людинъ (save that k five and o three times replace людинъ rarr чьловѣкъ and that k twice introduces the innovation мирꙗнинъ) but in five more cases the unanimous reading is коꙁъмикъ Conventional wisdom has it that untranslated grecisms are primary to Slavonic expressions but the complementary distribution of коꙁъмикъ (chapters Andash1 and O) and простъ людинъ (5ndash20) prevents us from generalising one at the expense of the other It rather appears that the translatorrsquos lexicon con-tained both the grecism and its Slavonic calque and that the makers of the hyparchetypes had no inkling that they referred to the same concept

(d) For συmicroφονεῖν the witnesses read съвѣщати bζW13 съвѣщати сѧ The reflexive read-ing is absent in 151 (twice) minimally present in 229 (W13) and maximally in 204 (αγζ) The pattern of increase suggests that съвѣщати is a translatorrsquos grecism and that the addition of сѧ in Slavonic like that of secum in Latin is in response to a requirement of the target lan-guage

(e) The pattern of variation of the aorist stems is similar to that in b above Dominant forms in ndash(о)хndash massively displace the recessive rootndash and ndashсndash forms for ἐξῆλθον (11) the witnesses read иꙁидоста (a replaces иꙁndash rarr въꙁndash ε rarr oslash) w иꙁидета for ἀπῆλθον (20) all read идоста for ἤλθοmicroεν (24) приидоховѣ w приидосвѣ for εὐνουχίσαmicroεν (16) скопиховѣ (εW12 replace сndash rarr исndash) k скопивѣ w скописвѣ for εἶπον (20) рекоста εW3 съповѣдаста okθwW2 рѣста c съкаꙁаста W1 гласта for εἶπον (27) рекоста εζwW12 рѣста for εἶπον (32) рекоста

7

αγεζwW12 рѣста (ie repetition in the end favours preservation) Like in b above the arche-typal forms are best preserved in η (cf van Wijk 1975 84ndash85 for W58) We do well to restore иꙁидете (11) идете (20) приидовѣ (24) скописвѣ (20) and рѣсте (20 27 32)

(f) Of the 16 dual forms of pronouns in 15111b two show no variation viz 3du ꙗ (14) and има (18) and ten show one mistake each of b and i plus the attempts of k and W3 to level them to pl forms viz 1du вѣ (16) b мъі W3 ниѥ вѣ (33) W3 ниѥ наю (22) W3 насъ наю (34) k нас and 3du она (15) k они ꙗ (20) kW3 ихъ ꙗ (371) k их W3 них ꙗ (372) ikW3 их има (30) k имъ нею (29) k нихъ Serious conflict affects four forms viz 1duA на (16) εζθW23 нъі на (34) b нас bε наю ζwW23 нъі and 2duA ва (19) γkW3 вас o въі ва (26) εokwW23 въі The fact that witnesses of η very frequently vary in these forms led van Wijk 1975 83 to doubt whether the Adu forms на and ва were archetypal but the fact that in all four cases precisely these readings are preserved by at least α should dispel any doubt for it is im-plausible that archetypal нъі and въі should have been replaced rarr на and rarr ва

(g) For ἐντύχωmicroεν the witnesses give the following readings θ поимевѣ o поемлевѣ αcW2 повѣвѣ γεW1 повѣдаѥвѣ W3 исповѣдаѥвѣ k гливѣ This is the first of five times ἐντυγχάνειν κατά + G is translated as поѩтипоимати на + A and it must have baffled the mak-ers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes αγε (or the maker of the copy of ω they worked from) who replaced ndashѩти rarr ndashвѣдѣтивѣдати (W123 independently reacted in a similar way) The other occurrences show no significant variation (198 oslash kW1 229 a mistake in a) save the replacements 229 rarr бесѣдовати на k 2217 rarr молити сѧ на c or no variation at all (O13) As to the Slavonic verbal aspect either is possible SSS and Miklosich record in this sense only the imperfective but the fact that the extremes of the hyparchetypes agree on the perfective makes that more likely

(h) Where the translator used definite forms of Slavonic adjectives there is no variation only contraction of the compound desinences (in 15111b a not fully contracted desinence is preserved in a ndashѹмѹ 29) but the archetype must have contained the full double desinences as only they can account for the appearance in the witnesses of unwarranted anaphoric pronouns in the vicinity of adjectives which should be definite So we do well to restore небесьнаѥго (13) велилкѹѥмѹ (23) свѧтѹѥмѹ (29)

Where the translator used indefinite forms variation is absent only in adjectives which lack compound desinences eg божиѥ (16) In all other cases there is conflict еванъгельскѹ (12) γεkwW3 def іерѹсалимьскѹ (17) αγεζW13 def римьскѹ (23) aγεθ def кѵпрьскѹ (29) εkW13 def алеѯанъдрьскѹ (38) ckW13 def Here as in e above repetition (ic of desinences) in the end favours preservation The clearndashcut oppositions show that the variation already af-fected the Glagolitic hyparchetypes

(i) For ἐπὶ τοῦτο the witnesses read ε на того (ε in general exhibits a clear preference for тъ above сь) ocθ на сего αγkW23 ѿ сего W1 тако The translator nowhere uses G forms for the A so the shift in connection from the verdict to the judge cannot be imputed to him neither can the replacement of the preposition на rarr отъ I suspect the translatorrsquos grecism на се was either written so that n се could be read as m сь (which is more than likely in Glagolitic) or that the desinence was damaged or that a hendiadys note то (written so that it could be read as го) was added Any of these cases would have called for conjecture already by the makers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes and it is interesting to note that this conjecture is rooted in nonndashMethodian morphology viz mAanim = mG

8

(j) The Greek text lacks a verbum dicendi16 to motivate the direct speech in 24 but the Lat-in and the Slavonic attest its original presence The witnesses read αγε рѣста c рѣша wW123 oslash w сета The latter is the only hitherto known 3du form of this recessive verb Fol-lowing b above we do well to restore its explicit spelling сѧте

(k) For ἐγγίζειν + D the witnesses unanimously read приближити сѧ къ + D Yet it is be-yond doubt that in the archetype the prefix приndash in this verb (as elsewhere) governed the L First in six out of 16 cases L readings are preserved viz 1038 τα πάθη γζW3 похоти αW2 похотьмъ 1159 ἐκείνῳ ε ѡ томь αγζW123 томѹѥмѹ (cf also immediately preceding αγζW3 κολλήθητι ἀνθρώπῳ прилѣпи сѧ чьловѣцѣ W12 чьловѣкѹ) 1195 microοί αcW3 мьнѣ γokwW2 ми and ὑmicroῖν cW2 васъ αγokwW3 вамъ (αγow add къ) 2013 αὐτῷ αow ѥмь εkW2 ѥмѹ γc oslash and O14 (Greek untraced) all боꙁѣ secondly four of the remaining cases exhibit con-flicts similar to the preceding viz 52 σώmicroασι all инѣмъ17 тѣломъ (αkwB2W3 add къ) 11117 σοί aoc ти aγk oslash 1427 τῇ κώmicroῃ αγiokwW3 къ вьси ic до вьси 1541 τῷ Qεῷ all богѹ (αγεocW23 add къ) It appears that the replacement приndash + L rarr [къ +] D started already in the Glagolitic hyparchetypes and that we do well to restore приближити сѧ + L

(l) For ἀληθεία the witnesses in 33 36 read unanimously истина but in 39 W8 reads рѣснота This word like all recessive items is preserved rather by chance than by design in eight more places 10160 W58 1312 o 154 o 184 bbo 187 o 2016 c and J2ndash3 W8 (six adjectival forms are preserved as well in the range of chapters 10ndash18) It is likely that the cases where conflicting readings истина правьда (eg 1312 2016 and elsewhere) or oslash (eg 187 J2ndash3 and elsewhere) are present also betray an archetypal reading рѣснота which we do well to restore

(m) For καταγινώσκειν + G the witnesses read ꙁаꙁьрѣти 35 aγcW23 + L aεokθW1 + A 36 γcwA2W123 + L aεokwA3 + A It could be argued that with the pronoun себе the distinction L ~ A is not as remarkable as with other pronouns or nouns but consider the fact that the dis-tribution of both readings remains fairly stable in ꙁаꙁьрѣти себѣ for microέmicroφεσθαι σεαυτόν 387 bbiwA2W3 + L aiζA3B2W2 + A 1064 γocA3W2 + L aA2W3 + A 1531 γocW23 + L αk + A With other pronouns or nouns we find ꙁаꙁьрѣти (for both καταγινώσκειν and microέmicroφεσθαι) in 369 all своѥи немощи 103 W3 имь αγεζθcW2 oslash 1531 αγ чьловѣче (V) ζW3 чьловѣкѹ w чьловѣкомъ W3 чьловѣчьсцѣи 15111a αγoθ братѣ ckW13 братѹ εW2 oslash 1826 all вьсѣхъ In all instances at least part of the witnesses preserve the L and in 1531 the V and the adjective point precisely to the L чьловѣцѣ as the source of the disturbance As in k above the L rection must be considered archetypal and the variation shows that this type of rection was unfamiliar already to the makers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes (we may safely assume that for them the L had lost its autonomy)

(n) For κοινωνία in 15111b the witnesses read αγεζwW123 причѧстиѥ w обьщениѥ The latter word is unanimously used in 1842 it occurs also for προσφορά (203 c стое тѣло и кровь хса ба нашего) and as a translatorrsquos explication implying προσφορά (184 unanimous 1846 c тѣло хсво) which is normally rendered as приношениѥ (9 times in chapters 4ndash20 four unanimous two with c replacing rarr комъканиѥ three c rarr oslash) It appears that the translator dis- 16 Was φασάν or ἔφησαν omitted accidentally or was it obscure to the 10ndash11th century copyist of cod Paris BN Coislin 126 17 This of course is another instance of инъ as indefinite article (cf a above)

9

tinguished обьщениѥ lsquothe act of dispensing or partaking of the Eucharistic elementsrsquo (to which 203 pertains) and приношениѥ lsquothe consecration of the elementsrsquo lsquothe consecrated elementsrsquo Both причѧстиѥ and комъканиѥ are foreign intrusions the former not originally endowed with a liturgical meaning (cf Scete Patericon J98ndash100 microέτοχος причѧстьница) the latter like its Alpine Latin fellow traveler въсѫдъ (Schaeken 1988) kept out of the translation18

Our effort to restore the initial state of this translation by St Methodius ie to close the circle de la pluraliteacute agrave lrsquouniteacute has led us six times to read what is not there In doing so we found that the scribes of the extant witnesses rarely read what was not in their exemplar while those of the Cyrillic hyparchetypes did so more often (especially c the only purposeful edition of the text secundum scientiam and k) But the fundamental variation from the exemplar belongs to the makers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes We see αγ most noticeably and εζ to a lesser degree reading what is not in ω and even ηθ in some cases vary from their exemplar The var-iation in the Cyrillic renderings of Glagolitic exemplars need not surprise us The differences between W1 W2 and W3 who in the 14th century independently read η speak eloquently of the difficulties in deciphering the message of a text written in Glagolitic What should exercise us is the reception of a text known to be if not of St Methodius himself at least of venerable provenance by the scribes αndashε in the PliskandashPreslav area and ζndashη at some remove from them They were conversant with Glagolitic both receptively and productively Aleksandr V Bondarko has aptly called their attitude toward the text svojskoe lsquoas if they owned itrsquo Was it because the translatorrsquos language was theirs The problems discussed above should discourage such an explanation19 We should I venture to suggest rather consider these men of letters as recent converts to that rank not encumbered with either prior generations of skill and scholar-ship or any prendashordained concept of fidelity but ingenuously inspired by the task to assimilate and accomplish what the illndashfated mission to Morava (AD 863ndash885) aimed to do

Deerfield IL

REFERENCES

Battle Columba M 1971 Vetera Nova Vorlaumlufige kritische Ausgabe bei Rosweyde fehlender Vaumlterspruumlche Fest-

schrift fur Bernhard Bischoff Stuttgart 32ndash42

18 The translator took great care not to burden his translation with specific liturgical terms cf Guergova 2003 Whether комъканиѥ (the standard translation for κοινwνία and προσφορά in the Egyptian Patericon translated in the PliskandashPreslav area at the turn of the 9ndash10th centuries from a conflation of the Historia monachorum in AEliggyp-to CPG 6063 and the Historia Lausiaca CPG 6038 with the De Bragmanibus CPG 5820) andor въсѫдъ be-longed to his lexicon but were suppressed owing to this design requires further research 19 A differential study of the grammars of the translator and his first close readers will become possible when JG van der Tak and WR Veder produce their edition of the Greek text its early Latin translations and the reconstruc-tion of the Slavonic translation in the Bollandistsrsquo Subsidia hagiographica (Brussels) The machinendashreadable cop-ies of the Slavonic witnesses to the Scete Patericon and the full collation of their text (copies of which are in pos-session of many departments of Slavic Studies including that of the University of Leiden) will provide all the source data required

10

Caldarelli Raffaele 1996 Il Paterik alfabeticondashanonimo in traduzione slavondashecclesiastica Roma (Diss La Sapienza)

Capaldo Mario 1984 LrsquoAzbučnondashierusalimskij paterik (collection alphabeacuteticondashanonyme slave des Apophthegmata

patrum) Polata knigopisnaja 4 26ndash50 Cotelier JeanndashBaptiste

1677 Ecclesiaelig graeligcaelig monumenta 1 [Paris] repr in JacquesndashPaul Migne (ed) Patrologiaelig cursus completus Series graeligca 65 75ndash440

CPG Maurits Geerard (ed) Clavis patrum graeligcorum 1ndash5 Turnhout Brepols 1974ndash1987 Guergova Emilia William R Veder

2003 Bogoslužebnite posledovanija spored Skitskija paterik (predvaritelni beležki) Anisava Mil-tenova et al (eds) Pěti dostoitъ Sbornik v pamet na Stefan Kožuxarov Sofia Bojan Penev 95ndash111

Guy JeanndashClaude 1962 Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite des Apophthegmata patrum (Subsidia hagiographica

36) Bruxelles Socieacuteteacute des Bollandistes (2nd rev ed 1984) 1993 Les Apophtegravegmes des Pegraveres Collection systeacutematique chapitres 1ndash9 (Sources chreacutetiennes 387)

Paris Editions du Cerf Mikhailov Nikolaj

1998 Fruumlhslowenische Sprachdenkmaumller (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 26) Amster-dam Rodopi

Miklosich Franz von Miklosich Lexicon palaeligoslovenicondashgraeligcondashlatinum emendatum auctum Wien 1865 repr Aalen 1963

Nau Franccedilois 1905 Le chapitre Pερὶ ἀναχωρητῶν ἁγίων et les sources de la vie de St Paul de Thegravebes Revue de

lrsquoorient chreacutetien 10(1905) 387ndash417 1907ndash1913 Histoires des solitaires eacutegyptiens Revue de lrsquoorient chreacutetien 12(1907) 43ndash69 171ndash193 393ndash

413 13(1908) 47ndash66 266ndash297 14(1909) 357ndash379 17(1912) 204ndash211 294ndash301 18(1913) 137ndash144

Nikitin Petr V 1915ndash16 Grečeskij Skitskij paterik i ego drevnij latinskij perevod Vizantijskij vremennik 22 127ndash173

Nikolova Svetlina 1995 Otečeski knigi In Petăr Dinekov et al (eds) KirilondashMetodievska enciklopedija 2 Sofia

BAN 886ndash891 Pileva Stefka

2003 An Important Witness to Old Slavic Monastic Miscellanies Krka 4 (1346) Budapest CEU (Diss)

Reacutegnault Dom Lucien 1970 Les sentences des pegraveres du deacutesert Nouveau recueil Solesmes 1976 Les sentences des pegraveres du deacutesert Troisiegraveme recueil et tables Solesmes

Rosweyde Heribert 1628 Vitaelig patrum De vita et verbis seniorum libri x Antwerpen (1st ed 1615) Libri vndashvi repr in

JacquesndashPaul Migne (ed) Patrologiaelig cursus completus Series latina 73 855ndash1022 Schaeken Joseph

1995 Nochmals aksl vъsǫdъ vъsǫdьnъ Die Welt der Slaven 331 87ndash101 SSS Ralja M Cejtlin et al (eds) Staroslavjanskij slovarrsquo (po rukopisjam XndashXI vekov) Moskva

Russkij jazyk 1994 Stefanov ieromonax Pavel

1994 Dreven paterik ili duxovnata mădrost na otcite na pustinjata Sofia Monarxičeskondashkonser-vativen săjuz

van Wijk Nicolaas 1936ndash37 Podrobnyj obzor cerkovnoslavjanskogo perevoda Bolrsquošogo Limonarija Byzantinoslavica

6(1936ndash1937) 38ndash84

11

1975 The Old Church Slavic Translation of the Ἀνδρων ἁγίων βίβλος The Hague Mouton Vasmer [Fasmer] Max

1967 Etimologičeskij slovarrsquo russkogo jazyka 2 Perevod s nemeckogo s dopolnenijami ON Trubačeva Moskva Progress

Veder [Feder] William R 2005 Hiljada godini kato edin den Životăt na tekstovete v Pravoslavnoto slavjanstvo Sofia BAN in

print [Vissarion episkop]

1874 Drevnij paterik izložennyj po glavam Moskva (3rd ed 1892)

4

Dicit autem eis et ipse Ego vos excommunico et segregati estis

27 Ἀπορούmicroενοι δὲ πρὸς ἀλλήλους εἶπον ὅτιmiddot тогда сътѧꙁаѭща сѧ рѣсте къ себѣ Tunc defecerunt excommunicati totius rationis et dixerunt ad semetipsos

28 Εἷς τῷ ἑνὶ χαρίζεται διὰ τὸ ἐν συνόδῳ ἀνάγεσθαι си по себѣ сѫтъ ѥдинъ по ѥдиномь ꙁане въ съньмѣхъ събираѭтъ сѧ Isti episcopi sibi invicem deferunt et consentiunt propter quod in synodis congregantur

29 ἀλλ α [γωmicroεν εἰς τὸν ἅγιον τοῦ Qεοῦ Ἐπιφάνιον τὸν ἐπίσκοπον τῆς Κύπρου ὅτι προφήτης ἐστὶν καὶ οὐ λαmicroβάνει πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπου

нъ идѣвѣ къ свѧтѹѥмѹ епифанию аръхиепскопѹ кѵпрьскѹ ꙗко пророкъ ѥстъ и не обинѹѥтъ сѧ лица чьловѣкѹ

Sed eamus ad illum virum Dei sanctum Epiphanium episcopum de Cypro quia propheta est et personam hominis non accipit

30 Ὡς δὲ ἤγγισαν τῇ πόλει αὐτοῦ ἀπεκαλύφθη αὐτῷ περὶ αὐτῶν καὶ πέmicroψας εἰς ἀπάντησιν αὐτῶν εἶπενmiddot

вънегда же приближисте сѧ градѣk ѥго ꙗви сѧ ѥмѹ о нею и посълавъ въ сърѣтениѥ има рече Cum autem appropinquarent civitati ejus revelatum est ei de ipsis et mittens in occursum

eorum dixit 31ndash Μηδὲ εἰς τὴν πόλιν ταύτην εἰσελθέτωσαν Τότε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς γενόmicroενοι εἶπονmiddot 32 ни въ градъ сь въходита тогда въ себѣ бꙑвъша рѣсте Ne intretis civitatem istam Tunc illi in se reversi dixerunt

33 Ἐπ ἀληθείας η Jmicroεῖς ἐσφάληmicroενmiddot въ рѣснотѫl вѣ съгрѣшиховѣ чьто ѹбо себе оправьдаѥвѣ Pro veritate nos culpabiles sumus ut quid ergo nos ipsos justificamus

34 ἔστω ἐκεῖνοι ἀδίκως η Jmicroᾶς ἐχώρησαν microὴ καὶ ου |τος ὁ προφητήςhellip ἰδοὺ ὁ Qεὸς ἀπεκάλυψεν αὐτῷ περὶ η Jmicroῶν

бѫди ꙗко они бес правьдꙑ на отълѫчишѧ ѥда ѹбо и сь пророкъ се бо богъ ꙗви ѥмѹ о наю Fac etiam quia illi injuste nos excommunicaverunt nunquid et iste propheta Ecce enim Deus

revelavit ei de nobis

35 Καὶ κατέγνωσαν ἑαυτῶν σφόδρα περὶ τοῦ πράγmicroατος ου | ἐποίησαν и ꙁаꙁьрѣсте себѣm о грѣсѣ иже сътвористе Et reprehenderunt semetipsos valde de culpa quam fecerunt

36 Τότε ἰδὼν ὁ καρδιογνώστης Qεὸς ὅτι ἐν ἀληθείᾳ κατέγνωσαν ἑαυτῶν ἐπληροφόρησεν Ἐπιφάνιον ἐπίσκοπον Κύπρου

тогда видѣвъ срьдьцевѣдьць богъ ꙗко въ рѣснотѫ ꙁаꙁьрѣсте себѣ съкаꙁа епископѹ епифанию о нею

Tunc videns qui corda novit quia pro veritate se culpabiles fecerant revelavit episcopo Epiphanio

37 καὶ ἀφ ἑαυτοῦ πέmicroψας ἥνεγκεν αὐτοὺς καὶ παρακαλέσας ἐδέξατο εἰς κοινωνίαν посълавъ же приведе ꙗ и ѹтѣшь приѩтъ ꙗ въ обьщениѥn et ultro misit et adduxit eos et consolatus eos suscepit in communionem

38 καὶ ἔγραψε τῷ ἀρχιεπισκόπῳ Ἀλεξανδρείαςmiddot

5

и написа аръхиепископѹ алеѯанъдрьскѹ глаголѧ Scripsit itaque de his archiepiscopo Alexandriaelig dicens

39 Δέξαι τὰ τέκνα σου microετενόησαν γὰρ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ приими чѧдѣ твои покаꙗсте бо сѧ въ рѣснотѫ Suscipe filios tuos quoniam in veritate pœnitentiam egerunt

Before discussing the problems of establishing Scete Patericon 15111b let me present the 20 witnesses and their stemma (Fig 1) a A1 Dečani 93 (12c UA) α a A2 A3 Moskva GIM Sin 3 (15c RU) SPb RNB Pog 267 (14c RU) γ b B1 Moskva GIM Uvar 483 (1542 UA) b B2 B4 Moskva RGB F178 8240 (1472 RU) RGB F310 219 (16c UA) b B5 Lrsquoviv BAN ASP 56 (16c UA) ε i I1 SPb RNB Tixan 552 (16c RU) ω i I2 Moskva RGB F113 601 (15c RU) ζ o O Moskva GIM Čud 318A (15ndash16c RU) c C1 C2 C4 Moskva GIM Čud 18 (14c RU) RGB F304 703 (14c RU) NBMGU 1310 (15c RU) k K2 SPb BAN Belokr 2 (16c BG) η w W1 W2 W3 Sinai Slav 33 (14c SR) Peć 86 (13c SR) Moskva RGB Popov 93 (14c BG) θ w W4 SPb RNB Hilf 90 (14c SR) w W6 W8 Krka 4 (1345ndash46 BG) Paris BN Slav 10 (14c SR)12

Fig 1 Stemma codicum of the Scete Patericon 15111b13

The Cyrillic hyparchetypes andasho are of East Slavic origin probably made like indashi at Kiev in in the second half of the 11th century kndashw are of South Slavic origin and c may have the same provenance The Glagolitic hyparchetypes αndashε originated around the turn of the 9ndash10th centuries in the PliskandashPreslav area to judge by their individual HunnondashBulgarisms (eg αγ отънѫдь rarr бъхъма passim ε ꙁьрьцало rarr тикъръ 22914) ζη are of later origin and may stem from a different environment15 The reconstruction of ω presented above is based on the fol-lowing considerations of the variation the witnesses exhibit

(a) All occurrences of the indefinite article τις are occasions of deep disturbance in the wit-nesses (are there any CyrillondashMethodian translations where they are not) In 15111b the conflict is αγ oslash εocθW3 етеръ k нѣкъіи W12 дрѹгъ Elsewhere in the Scete Patericon it usually is α ѥдинъ εcθW3 етеръ k нѣкъіинѣкъто W12 дрѹгъ with γ vaccillating between единъ and етеръ and o between етеръ and нѣкъіинѣкъто but any of these readings including oslash can occasionally appear in any of the hyparchetypes in addition we find isolated instances of инъ most notably in k (8 times) but also in α (4 in one case altered rarr ѥдинъ by A3 in an-other by a) γ (3) ε (2) o (1) η (1) and w (1) This begs the question which are variants and which is the original reading of the archetype ω 12 On W6 cf Pileva 2003 W8 is edited by van Wijk 1975 13 Greek sigla Glagolitic hyparchetypes bold Latin sigla Cyrillic hyparchetypes nonndashbold sigla witnesses shaded South Slavic BG = Bulgarian RU = Russian SR = Serbian UA = Ruthenian 14 The Glagolitic hyparchetype ε a compilation also known as the Tixanov Patericon is described in some detail in Veder 2005 15 The Glagolitic hyparchetypes ζ and η show notable loss of text perhaps as the result of transport damage to w or a Glagolitic copy of it they also exhibit a morphological conservatism unknown to αndashε cf Veder 2005

6

Van Wijk 1975 77ndash78 81 knowing the readings only of w and relying in part on the findings of Jagić appointed етеръ to archetypal rank which implies that it should provide a satisfactory explanation for all the variants But can етеръ lsquoarsquo explain a variant дрѹгъ lsquootherrsquo or a fortiori инъ lsquodifferent otherrsquo I think that is only when we take инъ lsquoonersquo as the arche-typal form (best preserved in the second half of the Scete Patericon where the urge to change unfamiliar items gave way to the urge to finish the copy) that all pieces fall into place инъ rarr ѥдинъ (which resolves the quandaries of Vasmer 1967 134) rarr нѣкъіинѣкъто дрѹгъ and even тѹждь (W1 1912) as well as инъ rarr гнь (w 162) иного rarr никого (k 1614) and ини rarr кии (c 203) Its reading in the more recent meaning lsquootherrsquo eventually led to the reinterpreta-tion of инъ етеръ (for τις α[λλος) as lsquootherrsquo + lsquoonersquo and thence to the endowment of the margin-al етеръ with the meaning lsquoonersquo whence its participation in the variation outlined above

(b) For ἤσαν all witnesses read бѣста but the agreement is no reason to raise this reading to archetypal rank The ndashа desinence conflicts with the 3du ndashе desinences listed by van Wijk 1975 83ndash84 for the witness W5 (which does not contain this apophthegm) and which are gen-erally best preserved in the Glagolitic hyparchetype η As in the case of инъ above the ndashе des-inence is a recessive form ie one of those vulnerable forms in the translatorrsquos text which had little currency beyond the area of the original mission and were therefore most widely affected by the interference of the earliest copyists Under the pressure of both the desinence ndashа of the subject and the syncretism of aor23sg αγ fully levelled 3du ndashе rarr ndashа and εζ did so somewhat less consistently η presumably did not and the ndashа desinence must have intruded there at the level of younger hyparchetypes (ww) or manuscripts So we do well to restore бѣсте иꙁидете and бъісте (11) as well as скописте (13) сътвористе (15 35) бъꙁвѣстисте (18 23) идете (20) рѣсте (20 27 32) глаголасте (21) сѧте (24) приближисте (30) ꙁаꙁьрѣсте (35 36) and покаꙗсте (39)

(c) For κοσmicroικός the conflicting readings are αγ простъ людинъ εζη простъ мѫжь (простъ omitted by cW2) In seven other cases the unanimous reading is простъ людинъ (save that k five and o three times replace людинъ rarr чьловѣкъ and that k twice introduces the innovation мирꙗнинъ) but in five more cases the unanimous reading is коꙁъмикъ Conventional wisdom has it that untranslated grecisms are primary to Slavonic expressions but the complementary distribution of коꙁъмикъ (chapters Andash1 and O) and простъ людинъ (5ndash20) prevents us from generalising one at the expense of the other It rather appears that the translatorrsquos lexicon con-tained both the grecism and its Slavonic calque and that the makers of the hyparchetypes had no inkling that they referred to the same concept

(d) For συmicroφονεῖν the witnesses read съвѣщати bζW13 съвѣщати сѧ The reflexive read-ing is absent in 151 (twice) minimally present in 229 (W13) and maximally in 204 (αγζ) The pattern of increase suggests that съвѣщати is a translatorrsquos grecism and that the addition of сѧ in Slavonic like that of secum in Latin is in response to a requirement of the target lan-guage

(e) The pattern of variation of the aorist stems is similar to that in b above Dominant forms in ndash(о)хndash massively displace the recessive rootndash and ndashсndash forms for ἐξῆλθον (11) the witnesses read иꙁидоста (a replaces иꙁndash rarr въꙁndash ε rarr oslash) w иꙁидета for ἀπῆλθον (20) all read идоста for ἤλθοmicroεν (24) приидоховѣ w приидосвѣ for εὐνουχίσαmicroεν (16) скопиховѣ (εW12 replace сndash rarr исndash) k скопивѣ w скописвѣ for εἶπον (20) рекоста εW3 съповѣдаста okθwW2 рѣста c съкаꙁаста W1 гласта for εἶπον (27) рекоста εζwW12 рѣста for εἶπον (32) рекоста

7

αγεζwW12 рѣста (ie repetition in the end favours preservation) Like in b above the arche-typal forms are best preserved in η (cf van Wijk 1975 84ndash85 for W58) We do well to restore иꙁидете (11) идете (20) приидовѣ (24) скописвѣ (20) and рѣсте (20 27 32)

(f) Of the 16 dual forms of pronouns in 15111b two show no variation viz 3du ꙗ (14) and има (18) and ten show one mistake each of b and i plus the attempts of k and W3 to level them to pl forms viz 1du вѣ (16) b мъі W3 ниѥ вѣ (33) W3 ниѥ наю (22) W3 насъ наю (34) k нас and 3du она (15) k они ꙗ (20) kW3 ихъ ꙗ (371) k их W3 них ꙗ (372) ikW3 их има (30) k имъ нею (29) k нихъ Serious conflict affects four forms viz 1duA на (16) εζθW23 нъі на (34) b нас bε наю ζwW23 нъі and 2duA ва (19) γkW3 вас o въі ва (26) εokwW23 въі The fact that witnesses of η very frequently vary in these forms led van Wijk 1975 83 to doubt whether the Adu forms на and ва were archetypal but the fact that in all four cases precisely these readings are preserved by at least α should dispel any doubt for it is im-plausible that archetypal нъі and въі should have been replaced rarr на and rarr ва

(g) For ἐντύχωmicroεν the witnesses give the following readings θ поимевѣ o поемлевѣ αcW2 повѣвѣ γεW1 повѣдаѥвѣ W3 исповѣдаѥвѣ k гливѣ This is the first of five times ἐντυγχάνειν κατά + G is translated as поѩтипоимати на + A and it must have baffled the mak-ers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes αγε (or the maker of the copy of ω they worked from) who replaced ndashѩти rarr ndashвѣдѣтивѣдати (W123 independently reacted in a similar way) The other occurrences show no significant variation (198 oslash kW1 229 a mistake in a) save the replacements 229 rarr бесѣдовати на k 2217 rarr молити сѧ на c or no variation at all (O13) As to the Slavonic verbal aspect either is possible SSS and Miklosich record in this sense only the imperfective but the fact that the extremes of the hyparchetypes agree on the perfective makes that more likely

(h) Where the translator used definite forms of Slavonic adjectives there is no variation only contraction of the compound desinences (in 15111b a not fully contracted desinence is preserved in a ndashѹмѹ 29) but the archetype must have contained the full double desinences as only they can account for the appearance in the witnesses of unwarranted anaphoric pronouns in the vicinity of adjectives which should be definite So we do well to restore небесьнаѥго (13) велилкѹѥмѹ (23) свѧтѹѥмѹ (29)

Where the translator used indefinite forms variation is absent only in adjectives which lack compound desinences eg божиѥ (16) In all other cases there is conflict еванъгельскѹ (12) γεkwW3 def іерѹсалимьскѹ (17) αγεζW13 def римьскѹ (23) aγεθ def кѵпрьскѹ (29) εkW13 def алеѯанъдрьскѹ (38) ckW13 def Here as in e above repetition (ic of desinences) in the end favours preservation The clearndashcut oppositions show that the variation already af-fected the Glagolitic hyparchetypes

(i) For ἐπὶ τοῦτο the witnesses read ε на того (ε in general exhibits a clear preference for тъ above сь) ocθ на сего αγkW23 ѿ сего W1 тако The translator nowhere uses G forms for the A so the shift in connection from the verdict to the judge cannot be imputed to him neither can the replacement of the preposition на rarr отъ I suspect the translatorrsquos grecism на се was either written so that n се could be read as m сь (which is more than likely in Glagolitic) or that the desinence was damaged or that a hendiadys note то (written so that it could be read as го) was added Any of these cases would have called for conjecture already by the makers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes and it is interesting to note that this conjecture is rooted in nonndashMethodian morphology viz mAanim = mG

8

(j) The Greek text lacks a verbum dicendi16 to motivate the direct speech in 24 but the Lat-in and the Slavonic attest its original presence The witnesses read αγε рѣста c рѣша wW123 oslash w сета The latter is the only hitherto known 3du form of this recessive verb Fol-lowing b above we do well to restore its explicit spelling сѧте

(k) For ἐγγίζειν + D the witnesses unanimously read приближити сѧ къ + D Yet it is be-yond doubt that in the archetype the prefix приndash in this verb (as elsewhere) governed the L First in six out of 16 cases L readings are preserved viz 1038 τα πάθη γζW3 похоти αW2 похотьмъ 1159 ἐκείνῳ ε ѡ томь αγζW123 томѹѥмѹ (cf also immediately preceding αγζW3 κολλήθητι ἀνθρώπῳ прилѣпи сѧ чьловѣцѣ W12 чьловѣкѹ) 1195 microοί αcW3 мьнѣ γokwW2 ми and ὑmicroῖν cW2 васъ αγokwW3 вамъ (αγow add къ) 2013 αὐτῷ αow ѥмь εkW2 ѥмѹ γc oslash and O14 (Greek untraced) all боꙁѣ secondly four of the remaining cases exhibit con-flicts similar to the preceding viz 52 σώmicroασι all инѣмъ17 тѣломъ (αkwB2W3 add къ) 11117 σοί aoc ти aγk oslash 1427 τῇ κώmicroῃ αγiokwW3 къ вьси ic до вьси 1541 τῷ Qεῷ all богѹ (αγεocW23 add къ) It appears that the replacement приndash + L rarr [къ +] D started already in the Glagolitic hyparchetypes and that we do well to restore приближити сѧ + L

(l) For ἀληθεία the witnesses in 33 36 read unanimously истина but in 39 W8 reads рѣснота This word like all recessive items is preserved rather by chance than by design in eight more places 10160 W58 1312 o 154 o 184 bbo 187 o 2016 c and J2ndash3 W8 (six adjectival forms are preserved as well in the range of chapters 10ndash18) It is likely that the cases where conflicting readings истина правьда (eg 1312 2016 and elsewhere) or oslash (eg 187 J2ndash3 and elsewhere) are present also betray an archetypal reading рѣснота which we do well to restore

(m) For καταγινώσκειν + G the witnesses read ꙁаꙁьрѣти 35 aγcW23 + L aεokθW1 + A 36 γcwA2W123 + L aεokwA3 + A It could be argued that with the pronoun себе the distinction L ~ A is not as remarkable as with other pronouns or nouns but consider the fact that the dis-tribution of both readings remains fairly stable in ꙁаꙁьрѣти себѣ for microέmicroφεσθαι σεαυτόν 387 bbiwA2W3 + L aiζA3B2W2 + A 1064 γocA3W2 + L aA2W3 + A 1531 γocW23 + L αk + A With other pronouns or nouns we find ꙁаꙁьрѣти (for both καταγινώσκειν and microέmicroφεσθαι) in 369 all своѥи немощи 103 W3 имь αγεζθcW2 oslash 1531 αγ чьловѣче (V) ζW3 чьловѣкѹ w чьловѣкомъ W3 чьловѣчьсцѣи 15111a αγoθ братѣ ckW13 братѹ εW2 oslash 1826 all вьсѣхъ In all instances at least part of the witnesses preserve the L and in 1531 the V and the adjective point precisely to the L чьловѣцѣ as the source of the disturbance As in k above the L rection must be considered archetypal and the variation shows that this type of rection was unfamiliar already to the makers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes (we may safely assume that for them the L had lost its autonomy)

(n) For κοινωνία in 15111b the witnesses read αγεζwW123 причѧстиѥ w обьщениѥ The latter word is unanimously used in 1842 it occurs also for προσφορά (203 c стое тѣло и кровь хса ба нашего) and as a translatorrsquos explication implying προσφορά (184 unanimous 1846 c тѣло хсво) which is normally rendered as приношениѥ (9 times in chapters 4ndash20 four unanimous two with c replacing rarr комъканиѥ three c rarr oslash) It appears that the translator dis- 16 Was φασάν or ἔφησαν omitted accidentally or was it obscure to the 10ndash11th century copyist of cod Paris BN Coislin 126 17 This of course is another instance of инъ as indefinite article (cf a above)

9

tinguished обьщениѥ lsquothe act of dispensing or partaking of the Eucharistic elementsrsquo (to which 203 pertains) and приношениѥ lsquothe consecration of the elementsrsquo lsquothe consecrated elementsrsquo Both причѧстиѥ and комъканиѥ are foreign intrusions the former not originally endowed with a liturgical meaning (cf Scete Patericon J98ndash100 microέτοχος причѧстьница) the latter like its Alpine Latin fellow traveler въсѫдъ (Schaeken 1988) kept out of the translation18

Our effort to restore the initial state of this translation by St Methodius ie to close the circle de la pluraliteacute agrave lrsquouniteacute has led us six times to read what is not there In doing so we found that the scribes of the extant witnesses rarely read what was not in their exemplar while those of the Cyrillic hyparchetypes did so more often (especially c the only purposeful edition of the text secundum scientiam and k) But the fundamental variation from the exemplar belongs to the makers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes We see αγ most noticeably and εζ to a lesser degree reading what is not in ω and even ηθ in some cases vary from their exemplar The var-iation in the Cyrillic renderings of Glagolitic exemplars need not surprise us The differences between W1 W2 and W3 who in the 14th century independently read η speak eloquently of the difficulties in deciphering the message of a text written in Glagolitic What should exercise us is the reception of a text known to be if not of St Methodius himself at least of venerable provenance by the scribes αndashε in the PliskandashPreslav area and ζndashη at some remove from them They were conversant with Glagolitic both receptively and productively Aleksandr V Bondarko has aptly called their attitude toward the text svojskoe lsquoas if they owned itrsquo Was it because the translatorrsquos language was theirs The problems discussed above should discourage such an explanation19 We should I venture to suggest rather consider these men of letters as recent converts to that rank not encumbered with either prior generations of skill and scholar-ship or any prendashordained concept of fidelity but ingenuously inspired by the task to assimilate and accomplish what the illndashfated mission to Morava (AD 863ndash885) aimed to do

Deerfield IL

REFERENCES

Battle Columba M 1971 Vetera Nova Vorlaumlufige kritische Ausgabe bei Rosweyde fehlender Vaumlterspruumlche Fest-

schrift fur Bernhard Bischoff Stuttgart 32ndash42

18 The translator took great care not to burden his translation with specific liturgical terms cf Guergova 2003 Whether комъканиѥ (the standard translation for κοινwνία and προσφορά in the Egyptian Patericon translated in the PliskandashPreslav area at the turn of the 9ndash10th centuries from a conflation of the Historia monachorum in AEliggyp-to CPG 6063 and the Historia Lausiaca CPG 6038 with the De Bragmanibus CPG 5820) andor въсѫдъ be-longed to his lexicon but were suppressed owing to this design requires further research 19 A differential study of the grammars of the translator and his first close readers will become possible when JG van der Tak and WR Veder produce their edition of the Greek text its early Latin translations and the reconstruc-tion of the Slavonic translation in the Bollandistsrsquo Subsidia hagiographica (Brussels) The machinendashreadable cop-ies of the Slavonic witnesses to the Scete Patericon and the full collation of their text (copies of which are in pos-session of many departments of Slavic Studies including that of the University of Leiden) will provide all the source data required

10

Caldarelli Raffaele 1996 Il Paterik alfabeticondashanonimo in traduzione slavondashecclesiastica Roma (Diss La Sapienza)

Capaldo Mario 1984 LrsquoAzbučnondashierusalimskij paterik (collection alphabeacuteticondashanonyme slave des Apophthegmata

patrum) Polata knigopisnaja 4 26ndash50 Cotelier JeanndashBaptiste

1677 Ecclesiaelig graeligcaelig monumenta 1 [Paris] repr in JacquesndashPaul Migne (ed) Patrologiaelig cursus completus Series graeligca 65 75ndash440

CPG Maurits Geerard (ed) Clavis patrum graeligcorum 1ndash5 Turnhout Brepols 1974ndash1987 Guergova Emilia William R Veder

2003 Bogoslužebnite posledovanija spored Skitskija paterik (predvaritelni beležki) Anisava Mil-tenova et al (eds) Pěti dostoitъ Sbornik v pamet na Stefan Kožuxarov Sofia Bojan Penev 95ndash111

Guy JeanndashClaude 1962 Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite des Apophthegmata patrum (Subsidia hagiographica

36) Bruxelles Socieacuteteacute des Bollandistes (2nd rev ed 1984) 1993 Les Apophtegravegmes des Pegraveres Collection systeacutematique chapitres 1ndash9 (Sources chreacutetiennes 387)

Paris Editions du Cerf Mikhailov Nikolaj

1998 Fruumlhslowenische Sprachdenkmaumller (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 26) Amster-dam Rodopi

Miklosich Franz von Miklosich Lexicon palaeligoslovenicondashgraeligcondashlatinum emendatum auctum Wien 1865 repr Aalen 1963

Nau Franccedilois 1905 Le chapitre Pερὶ ἀναχωρητῶν ἁγίων et les sources de la vie de St Paul de Thegravebes Revue de

lrsquoorient chreacutetien 10(1905) 387ndash417 1907ndash1913 Histoires des solitaires eacutegyptiens Revue de lrsquoorient chreacutetien 12(1907) 43ndash69 171ndash193 393ndash

413 13(1908) 47ndash66 266ndash297 14(1909) 357ndash379 17(1912) 204ndash211 294ndash301 18(1913) 137ndash144

Nikitin Petr V 1915ndash16 Grečeskij Skitskij paterik i ego drevnij latinskij perevod Vizantijskij vremennik 22 127ndash173

Nikolova Svetlina 1995 Otečeski knigi In Petăr Dinekov et al (eds) KirilondashMetodievska enciklopedija 2 Sofia

BAN 886ndash891 Pileva Stefka

2003 An Important Witness to Old Slavic Monastic Miscellanies Krka 4 (1346) Budapest CEU (Diss)

Reacutegnault Dom Lucien 1970 Les sentences des pegraveres du deacutesert Nouveau recueil Solesmes 1976 Les sentences des pegraveres du deacutesert Troisiegraveme recueil et tables Solesmes

Rosweyde Heribert 1628 Vitaelig patrum De vita et verbis seniorum libri x Antwerpen (1st ed 1615) Libri vndashvi repr in

JacquesndashPaul Migne (ed) Patrologiaelig cursus completus Series latina 73 855ndash1022 Schaeken Joseph

1995 Nochmals aksl vъsǫdъ vъsǫdьnъ Die Welt der Slaven 331 87ndash101 SSS Ralja M Cejtlin et al (eds) Staroslavjanskij slovarrsquo (po rukopisjam XndashXI vekov) Moskva

Russkij jazyk 1994 Stefanov ieromonax Pavel

1994 Dreven paterik ili duxovnata mădrost na otcite na pustinjata Sofia Monarxičeskondashkonser-vativen săjuz

van Wijk Nicolaas 1936ndash37 Podrobnyj obzor cerkovnoslavjanskogo perevoda Bolrsquošogo Limonarija Byzantinoslavica

6(1936ndash1937) 38ndash84

11

1975 The Old Church Slavic Translation of the Ἀνδρων ἁγίων βίβλος The Hague Mouton Vasmer [Fasmer] Max

1967 Etimologičeskij slovarrsquo russkogo jazyka 2 Perevod s nemeckogo s dopolnenijami ON Trubačeva Moskva Progress

Veder [Feder] William R 2005 Hiljada godini kato edin den Životăt na tekstovete v Pravoslavnoto slavjanstvo Sofia BAN in

print [Vissarion episkop]

1874 Drevnij paterik izložennyj po glavam Moskva (3rd ed 1892)

5

и написа аръхиепископѹ алеѯанъдрьскѹ глаголѧ Scripsit itaque de his archiepiscopo Alexandriaelig dicens

39 Δέξαι τὰ τέκνα σου microετενόησαν γὰρ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ приими чѧдѣ твои покаꙗсте бо сѧ въ рѣснотѫ Suscipe filios tuos quoniam in veritate pœnitentiam egerunt

Before discussing the problems of establishing Scete Patericon 15111b let me present the 20 witnesses and their stemma (Fig 1) a A1 Dečani 93 (12c UA) α a A2 A3 Moskva GIM Sin 3 (15c RU) SPb RNB Pog 267 (14c RU) γ b B1 Moskva GIM Uvar 483 (1542 UA) b B2 B4 Moskva RGB F178 8240 (1472 RU) RGB F310 219 (16c UA) b B5 Lrsquoviv BAN ASP 56 (16c UA) ε i I1 SPb RNB Tixan 552 (16c RU) ω i I2 Moskva RGB F113 601 (15c RU) ζ o O Moskva GIM Čud 318A (15ndash16c RU) c C1 C2 C4 Moskva GIM Čud 18 (14c RU) RGB F304 703 (14c RU) NBMGU 1310 (15c RU) k K2 SPb BAN Belokr 2 (16c BG) η w W1 W2 W3 Sinai Slav 33 (14c SR) Peć 86 (13c SR) Moskva RGB Popov 93 (14c BG) θ w W4 SPb RNB Hilf 90 (14c SR) w W6 W8 Krka 4 (1345ndash46 BG) Paris BN Slav 10 (14c SR)12

Fig 1 Stemma codicum of the Scete Patericon 15111b13

The Cyrillic hyparchetypes andasho are of East Slavic origin probably made like indashi at Kiev in in the second half of the 11th century kndashw are of South Slavic origin and c may have the same provenance The Glagolitic hyparchetypes αndashε originated around the turn of the 9ndash10th centuries in the PliskandashPreslav area to judge by their individual HunnondashBulgarisms (eg αγ отънѫдь rarr бъхъма passim ε ꙁьрьцало rarr тикъръ 22914) ζη are of later origin and may stem from a different environment15 The reconstruction of ω presented above is based on the fol-lowing considerations of the variation the witnesses exhibit

(a) All occurrences of the indefinite article τις are occasions of deep disturbance in the wit-nesses (are there any CyrillondashMethodian translations where they are not) In 15111b the conflict is αγ oslash εocθW3 етеръ k нѣкъіи W12 дрѹгъ Elsewhere in the Scete Patericon it usually is α ѥдинъ εcθW3 етеръ k нѣкъіинѣкъто W12 дрѹгъ with γ vaccillating between единъ and етеръ and o between етеръ and нѣкъіинѣкъто but any of these readings including oslash can occasionally appear in any of the hyparchetypes in addition we find isolated instances of инъ most notably in k (8 times) but also in α (4 in one case altered rarr ѥдинъ by A3 in an-other by a) γ (3) ε (2) o (1) η (1) and w (1) This begs the question which are variants and which is the original reading of the archetype ω 12 On W6 cf Pileva 2003 W8 is edited by van Wijk 1975 13 Greek sigla Glagolitic hyparchetypes bold Latin sigla Cyrillic hyparchetypes nonndashbold sigla witnesses shaded South Slavic BG = Bulgarian RU = Russian SR = Serbian UA = Ruthenian 14 The Glagolitic hyparchetype ε a compilation also known as the Tixanov Patericon is described in some detail in Veder 2005 15 The Glagolitic hyparchetypes ζ and η show notable loss of text perhaps as the result of transport damage to w or a Glagolitic copy of it they also exhibit a morphological conservatism unknown to αndashε cf Veder 2005

6

Van Wijk 1975 77ndash78 81 knowing the readings only of w and relying in part on the findings of Jagić appointed етеръ to archetypal rank which implies that it should provide a satisfactory explanation for all the variants But can етеръ lsquoarsquo explain a variant дрѹгъ lsquootherrsquo or a fortiori инъ lsquodifferent otherrsquo I think that is only when we take инъ lsquoonersquo as the arche-typal form (best preserved in the second half of the Scete Patericon where the urge to change unfamiliar items gave way to the urge to finish the copy) that all pieces fall into place инъ rarr ѥдинъ (which resolves the quandaries of Vasmer 1967 134) rarr нѣкъіинѣкъто дрѹгъ and even тѹждь (W1 1912) as well as инъ rarr гнь (w 162) иного rarr никого (k 1614) and ини rarr кии (c 203) Its reading in the more recent meaning lsquootherrsquo eventually led to the reinterpreta-tion of инъ етеръ (for τις α[λλος) as lsquootherrsquo + lsquoonersquo and thence to the endowment of the margin-al етеръ with the meaning lsquoonersquo whence its participation in the variation outlined above

(b) For ἤσαν all witnesses read бѣста but the agreement is no reason to raise this reading to archetypal rank The ndashа desinence conflicts with the 3du ndashе desinences listed by van Wijk 1975 83ndash84 for the witness W5 (which does not contain this apophthegm) and which are gen-erally best preserved in the Glagolitic hyparchetype η As in the case of инъ above the ndashе des-inence is a recessive form ie one of those vulnerable forms in the translatorrsquos text which had little currency beyond the area of the original mission and were therefore most widely affected by the interference of the earliest copyists Under the pressure of both the desinence ndashа of the subject and the syncretism of aor23sg αγ fully levelled 3du ndashе rarr ndashа and εζ did so somewhat less consistently η presumably did not and the ndashа desinence must have intruded there at the level of younger hyparchetypes (ww) or manuscripts So we do well to restore бѣсте иꙁидете and бъісте (11) as well as скописте (13) сътвористе (15 35) бъꙁвѣстисте (18 23) идете (20) рѣсте (20 27 32) глаголасте (21) сѧте (24) приближисте (30) ꙁаꙁьрѣсте (35 36) and покаꙗсте (39)

(c) For κοσmicroικός the conflicting readings are αγ простъ людинъ εζη простъ мѫжь (простъ omitted by cW2) In seven other cases the unanimous reading is простъ людинъ (save that k five and o three times replace людинъ rarr чьловѣкъ and that k twice introduces the innovation мирꙗнинъ) but in five more cases the unanimous reading is коꙁъмикъ Conventional wisdom has it that untranslated grecisms are primary to Slavonic expressions but the complementary distribution of коꙁъмикъ (chapters Andash1 and O) and простъ людинъ (5ndash20) prevents us from generalising one at the expense of the other It rather appears that the translatorrsquos lexicon con-tained both the grecism and its Slavonic calque and that the makers of the hyparchetypes had no inkling that they referred to the same concept

(d) For συmicroφονεῖν the witnesses read съвѣщати bζW13 съвѣщати сѧ The reflexive read-ing is absent in 151 (twice) minimally present in 229 (W13) and maximally in 204 (αγζ) The pattern of increase suggests that съвѣщати is a translatorrsquos grecism and that the addition of сѧ in Slavonic like that of secum in Latin is in response to a requirement of the target lan-guage

(e) The pattern of variation of the aorist stems is similar to that in b above Dominant forms in ndash(о)хndash massively displace the recessive rootndash and ndashсndash forms for ἐξῆλθον (11) the witnesses read иꙁидоста (a replaces иꙁndash rarr въꙁndash ε rarr oslash) w иꙁидета for ἀπῆλθον (20) all read идоста for ἤλθοmicroεν (24) приидоховѣ w приидосвѣ for εὐνουχίσαmicroεν (16) скопиховѣ (εW12 replace сndash rarr исndash) k скопивѣ w скописвѣ for εἶπον (20) рекоста εW3 съповѣдаста okθwW2 рѣста c съкаꙁаста W1 гласта for εἶπον (27) рекоста εζwW12 рѣста for εἶπον (32) рекоста

7

αγεζwW12 рѣста (ie repetition in the end favours preservation) Like in b above the arche-typal forms are best preserved in η (cf van Wijk 1975 84ndash85 for W58) We do well to restore иꙁидете (11) идете (20) приидовѣ (24) скописвѣ (20) and рѣсте (20 27 32)

(f) Of the 16 dual forms of pronouns in 15111b two show no variation viz 3du ꙗ (14) and има (18) and ten show one mistake each of b and i plus the attempts of k and W3 to level them to pl forms viz 1du вѣ (16) b мъі W3 ниѥ вѣ (33) W3 ниѥ наю (22) W3 насъ наю (34) k нас and 3du она (15) k они ꙗ (20) kW3 ихъ ꙗ (371) k их W3 них ꙗ (372) ikW3 их има (30) k имъ нею (29) k нихъ Serious conflict affects four forms viz 1duA на (16) εζθW23 нъі на (34) b нас bε наю ζwW23 нъі and 2duA ва (19) γkW3 вас o въі ва (26) εokwW23 въі The fact that witnesses of η very frequently vary in these forms led van Wijk 1975 83 to doubt whether the Adu forms на and ва were archetypal but the fact that in all four cases precisely these readings are preserved by at least α should dispel any doubt for it is im-plausible that archetypal нъі and въі should have been replaced rarr на and rarr ва

(g) For ἐντύχωmicroεν the witnesses give the following readings θ поимевѣ o поемлевѣ αcW2 повѣвѣ γεW1 повѣдаѥвѣ W3 исповѣдаѥвѣ k гливѣ This is the first of five times ἐντυγχάνειν κατά + G is translated as поѩтипоимати на + A and it must have baffled the mak-ers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes αγε (or the maker of the copy of ω they worked from) who replaced ndashѩти rarr ndashвѣдѣтивѣдати (W123 independently reacted in a similar way) The other occurrences show no significant variation (198 oslash kW1 229 a mistake in a) save the replacements 229 rarr бесѣдовати на k 2217 rarr молити сѧ на c or no variation at all (O13) As to the Slavonic verbal aspect either is possible SSS and Miklosich record in this sense only the imperfective but the fact that the extremes of the hyparchetypes agree on the perfective makes that more likely

(h) Where the translator used definite forms of Slavonic adjectives there is no variation only contraction of the compound desinences (in 15111b a not fully contracted desinence is preserved in a ndashѹмѹ 29) but the archetype must have contained the full double desinences as only they can account for the appearance in the witnesses of unwarranted anaphoric pronouns in the vicinity of adjectives which should be definite So we do well to restore небесьнаѥго (13) велилкѹѥмѹ (23) свѧтѹѥмѹ (29)

Where the translator used indefinite forms variation is absent only in adjectives which lack compound desinences eg божиѥ (16) In all other cases there is conflict еванъгельскѹ (12) γεkwW3 def іерѹсалимьскѹ (17) αγεζW13 def римьскѹ (23) aγεθ def кѵпрьскѹ (29) εkW13 def алеѯанъдрьскѹ (38) ckW13 def Here as in e above repetition (ic of desinences) in the end favours preservation The clearndashcut oppositions show that the variation already af-fected the Glagolitic hyparchetypes

(i) For ἐπὶ τοῦτο the witnesses read ε на того (ε in general exhibits a clear preference for тъ above сь) ocθ на сего αγkW23 ѿ сего W1 тако The translator nowhere uses G forms for the A so the shift in connection from the verdict to the judge cannot be imputed to him neither can the replacement of the preposition на rarr отъ I suspect the translatorrsquos grecism на се was either written so that n се could be read as m сь (which is more than likely in Glagolitic) or that the desinence was damaged or that a hendiadys note то (written so that it could be read as го) was added Any of these cases would have called for conjecture already by the makers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes and it is interesting to note that this conjecture is rooted in nonndashMethodian morphology viz mAanim = mG

8

(j) The Greek text lacks a verbum dicendi16 to motivate the direct speech in 24 but the Lat-in and the Slavonic attest its original presence The witnesses read αγε рѣста c рѣша wW123 oslash w сета The latter is the only hitherto known 3du form of this recessive verb Fol-lowing b above we do well to restore its explicit spelling сѧте

(k) For ἐγγίζειν + D the witnesses unanimously read приближити сѧ къ + D Yet it is be-yond doubt that in the archetype the prefix приndash in this verb (as elsewhere) governed the L First in six out of 16 cases L readings are preserved viz 1038 τα πάθη γζW3 похоти αW2 похотьмъ 1159 ἐκείνῳ ε ѡ томь αγζW123 томѹѥмѹ (cf also immediately preceding αγζW3 κολλήθητι ἀνθρώπῳ прилѣпи сѧ чьловѣцѣ W12 чьловѣкѹ) 1195 microοί αcW3 мьнѣ γokwW2 ми and ὑmicroῖν cW2 васъ αγokwW3 вамъ (αγow add къ) 2013 αὐτῷ αow ѥмь εkW2 ѥмѹ γc oslash and O14 (Greek untraced) all боꙁѣ secondly four of the remaining cases exhibit con-flicts similar to the preceding viz 52 σώmicroασι all инѣмъ17 тѣломъ (αkwB2W3 add къ) 11117 σοί aoc ти aγk oslash 1427 τῇ κώmicroῃ αγiokwW3 къ вьси ic до вьси 1541 τῷ Qεῷ all богѹ (αγεocW23 add къ) It appears that the replacement приndash + L rarr [къ +] D started already in the Glagolitic hyparchetypes and that we do well to restore приближити сѧ + L

(l) For ἀληθεία the witnesses in 33 36 read unanimously истина but in 39 W8 reads рѣснота This word like all recessive items is preserved rather by chance than by design in eight more places 10160 W58 1312 o 154 o 184 bbo 187 o 2016 c and J2ndash3 W8 (six adjectival forms are preserved as well in the range of chapters 10ndash18) It is likely that the cases where conflicting readings истина правьда (eg 1312 2016 and elsewhere) or oslash (eg 187 J2ndash3 and elsewhere) are present also betray an archetypal reading рѣснота which we do well to restore

(m) For καταγινώσκειν + G the witnesses read ꙁаꙁьрѣти 35 aγcW23 + L aεokθW1 + A 36 γcwA2W123 + L aεokwA3 + A It could be argued that with the pronoun себе the distinction L ~ A is not as remarkable as with other pronouns or nouns but consider the fact that the dis-tribution of both readings remains fairly stable in ꙁаꙁьрѣти себѣ for microέmicroφεσθαι σεαυτόν 387 bbiwA2W3 + L aiζA3B2W2 + A 1064 γocA3W2 + L aA2W3 + A 1531 γocW23 + L αk + A With other pronouns or nouns we find ꙁаꙁьрѣти (for both καταγινώσκειν and microέmicroφεσθαι) in 369 all своѥи немощи 103 W3 имь αγεζθcW2 oslash 1531 αγ чьловѣче (V) ζW3 чьловѣкѹ w чьловѣкомъ W3 чьловѣчьсцѣи 15111a αγoθ братѣ ckW13 братѹ εW2 oslash 1826 all вьсѣхъ In all instances at least part of the witnesses preserve the L and in 1531 the V and the adjective point precisely to the L чьловѣцѣ as the source of the disturbance As in k above the L rection must be considered archetypal and the variation shows that this type of rection was unfamiliar already to the makers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes (we may safely assume that for them the L had lost its autonomy)

(n) For κοινωνία in 15111b the witnesses read αγεζwW123 причѧстиѥ w обьщениѥ The latter word is unanimously used in 1842 it occurs also for προσφορά (203 c стое тѣло и кровь хса ба нашего) and as a translatorrsquos explication implying προσφορά (184 unanimous 1846 c тѣло хсво) which is normally rendered as приношениѥ (9 times in chapters 4ndash20 four unanimous two with c replacing rarr комъканиѥ three c rarr oslash) It appears that the translator dis- 16 Was φασάν or ἔφησαν omitted accidentally or was it obscure to the 10ndash11th century copyist of cod Paris BN Coislin 126 17 This of course is another instance of инъ as indefinite article (cf a above)

9

tinguished обьщениѥ lsquothe act of dispensing or partaking of the Eucharistic elementsrsquo (to which 203 pertains) and приношениѥ lsquothe consecration of the elementsrsquo lsquothe consecrated elementsrsquo Both причѧстиѥ and комъканиѥ are foreign intrusions the former not originally endowed with a liturgical meaning (cf Scete Patericon J98ndash100 microέτοχος причѧстьница) the latter like its Alpine Latin fellow traveler въсѫдъ (Schaeken 1988) kept out of the translation18

Our effort to restore the initial state of this translation by St Methodius ie to close the circle de la pluraliteacute agrave lrsquouniteacute has led us six times to read what is not there In doing so we found that the scribes of the extant witnesses rarely read what was not in their exemplar while those of the Cyrillic hyparchetypes did so more often (especially c the only purposeful edition of the text secundum scientiam and k) But the fundamental variation from the exemplar belongs to the makers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes We see αγ most noticeably and εζ to a lesser degree reading what is not in ω and even ηθ in some cases vary from their exemplar The var-iation in the Cyrillic renderings of Glagolitic exemplars need not surprise us The differences between W1 W2 and W3 who in the 14th century independently read η speak eloquently of the difficulties in deciphering the message of a text written in Glagolitic What should exercise us is the reception of a text known to be if not of St Methodius himself at least of venerable provenance by the scribes αndashε in the PliskandashPreslav area and ζndashη at some remove from them They were conversant with Glagolitic both receptively and productively Aleksandr V Bondarko has aptly called their attitude toward the text svojskoe lsquoas if they owned itrsquo Was it because the translatorrsquos language was theirs The problems discussed above should discourage such an explanation19 We should I venture to suggest rather consider these men of letters as recent converts to that rank not encumbered with either prior generations of skill and scholar-ship or any prendashordained concept of fidelity but ingenuously inspired by the task to assimilate and accomplish what the illndashfated mission to Morava (AD 863ndash885) aimed to do

Deerfield IL

REFERENCES

Battle Columba M 1971 Vetera Nova Vorlaumlufige kritische Ausgabe bei Rosweyde fehlender Vaumlterspruumlche Fest-

schrift fur Bernhard Bischoff Stuttgart 32ndash42

18 The translator took great care not to burden his translation with specific liturgical terms cf Guergova 2003 Whether комъканиѥ (the standard translation for κοινwνία and προσφορά in the Egyptian Patericon translated in the PliskandashPreslav area at the turn of the 9ndash10th centuries from a conflation of the Historia monachorum in AEliggyp-to CPG 6063 and the Historia Lausiaca CPG 6038 with the De Bragmanibus CPG 5820) andor въсѫдъ be-longed to his lexicon but were suppressed owing to this design requires further research 19 A differential study of the grammars of the translator and his first close readers will become possible when JG van der Tak and WR Veder produce their edition of the Greek text its early Latin translations and the reconstruc-tion of the Slavonic translation in the Bollandistsrsquo Subsidia hagiographica (Brussels) The machinendashreadable cop-ies of the Slavonic witnesses to the Scete Patericon and the full collation of their text (copies of which are in pos-session of many departments of Slavic Studies including that of the University of Leiden) will provide all the source data required

10

Caldarelli Raffaele 1996 Il Paterik alfabeticondashanonimo in traduzione slavondashecclesiastica Roma (Diss La Sapienza)

Capaldo Mario 1984 LrsquoAzbučnondashierusalimskij paterik (collection alphabeacuteticondashanonyme slave des Apophthegmata

patrum) Polata knigopisnaja 4 26ndash50 Cotelier JeanndashBaptiste

1677 Ecclesiaelig graeligcaelig monumenta 1 [Paris] repr in JacquesndashPaul Migne (ed) Patrologiaelig cursus completus Series graeligca 65 75ndash440

CPG Maurits Geerard (ed) Clavis patrum graeligcorum 1ndash5 Turnhout Brepols 1974ndash1987 Guergova Emilia William R Veder

2003 Bogoslužebnite posledovanija spored Skitskija paterik (predvaritelni beležki) Anisava Mil-tenova et al (eds) Pěti dostoitъ Sbornik v pamet na Stefan Kožuxarov Sofia Bojan Penev 95ndash111

Guy JeanndashClaude 1962 Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite des Apophthegmata patrum (Subsidia hagiographica

36) Bruxelles Socieacuteteacute des Bollandistes (2nd rev ed 1984) 1993 Les Apophtegravegmes des Pegraveres Collection systeacutematique chapitres 1ndash9 (Sources chreacutetiennes 387)

Paris Editions du Cerf Mikhailov Nikolaj

1998 Fruumlhslowenische Sprachdenkmaumller (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 26) Amster-dam Rodopi

Miklosich Franz von Miklosich Lexicon palaeligoslovenicondashgraeligcondashlatinum emendatum auctum Wien 1865 repr Aalen 1963

Nau Franccedilois 1905 Le chapitre Pερὶ ἀναχωρητῶν ἁγίων et les sources de la vie de St Paul de Thegravebes Revue de

lrsquoorient chreacutetien 10(1905) 387ndash417 1907ndash1913 Histoires des solitaires eacutegyptiens Revue de lrsquoorient chreacutetien 12(1907) 43ndash69 171ndash193 393ndash

413 13(1908) 47ndash66 266ndash297 14(1909) 357ndash379 17(1912) 204ndash211 294ndash301 18(1913) 137ndash144

Nikitin Petr V 1915ndash16 Grečeskij Skitskij paterik i ego drevnij latinskij perevod Vizantijskij vremennik 22 127ndash173

Nikolova Svetlina 1995 Otečeski knigi In Petăr Dinekov et al (eds) KirilondashMetodievska enciklopedija 2 Sofia

BAN 886ndash891 Pileva Stefka

2003 An Important Witness to Old Slavic Monastic Miscellanies Krka 4 (1346) Budapest CEU (Diss)

Reacutegnault Dom Lucien 1970 Les sentences des pegraveres du deacutesert Nouveau recueil Solesmes 1976 Les sentences des pegraveres du deacutesert Troisiegraveme recueil et tables Solesmes

Rosweyde Heribert 1628 Vitaelig patrum De vita et verbis seniorum libri x Antwerpen (1st ed 1615) Libri vndashvi repr in

JacquesndashPaul Migne (ed) Patrologiaelig cursus completus Series latina 73 855ndash1022 Schaeken Joseph

1995 Nochmals aksl vъsǫdъ vъsǫdьnъ Die Welt der Slaven 331 87ndash101 SSS Ralja M Cejtlin et al (eds) Staroslavjanskij slovarrsquo (po rukopisjam XndashXI vekov) Moskva

Russkij jazyk 1994 Stefanov ieromonax Pavel

1994 Dreven paterik ili duxovnata mădrost na otcite na pustinjata Sofia Monarxičeskondashkonser-vativen săjuz

van Wijk Nicolaas 1936ndash37 Podrobnyj obzor cerkovnoslavjanskogo perevoda Bolrsquošogo Limonarija Byzantinoslavica

6(1936ndash1937) 38ndash84

11

1975 The Old Church Slavic Translation of the Ἀνδρων ἁγίων βίβλος The Hague Mouton Vasmer [Fasmer] Max

1967 Etimologičeskij slovarrsquo russkogo jazyka 2 Perevod s nemeckogo s dopolnenijami ON Trubačeva Moskva Progress

Veder [Feder] William R 2005 Hiljada godini kato edin den Životăt na tekstovete v Pravoslavnoto slavjanstvo Sofia BAN in

print [Vissarion episkop]

1874 Drevnij paterik izložennyj po glavam Moskva (3rd ed 1892)

6

Van Wijk 1975 77ndash78 81 knowing the readings only of w and relying in part on the findings of Jagić appointed етеръ to archetypal rank which implies that it should provide a satisfactory explanation for all the variants But can етеръ lsquoarsquo explain a variant дрѹгъ lsquootherrsquo or a fortiori инъ lsquodifferent otherrsquo I think that is only when we take инъ lsquoonersquo as the arche-typal form (best preserved in the second half of the Scete Patericon where the urge to change unfamiliar items gave way to the urge to finish the copy) that all pieces fall into place инъ rarr ѥдинъ (which resolves the quandaries of Vasmer 1967 134) rarr нѣкъіинѣкъто дрѹгъ and even тѹждь (W1 1912) as well as инъ rarr гнь (w 162) иного rarr никого (k 1614) and ини rarr кии (c 203) Its reading in the more recent meaning lsquootherrsquo eventually led to the reinterpreta-tion of инъ етеръ (for τις α[λλος) as lsquootherrsquo + lsquoonersquo and thence to the endowment of the margin-al етеръ with the meaning lsquoonersquo whence its participation in the variation outlined above

(b) For ἤσαν all witnesses read бѣста but the agreement is no reason to raise this reading to archetypal rank The ndashа desinence conflicts with the 3du ndashе desinences listed by van Wijk 1975 83ndash84 for the witness W5 (which does not contain this apophthegm) and which are gen-erally best preserved in the Glagolitic hyparchetype η As in the case of инъ above the ndashе des-inence is a recessive form ie one of those vulnerable forms in the translatorrsquos text which had little currency beyond the area of the original mission and were therefore most widely affected by the interference of the earliest copyists Under the pressure of both the desinence ndashа of the subject and the syncretism of aor23sg αγ fully levelled 3du ndashе rarr ndashа and εζ did so somewhat less consistently η presumably did not and the ndashа desinence must have intruded there at the level of younger hyparchetypes (ww) or manuscripts So we do well to restore бѣсте иꙁидете and бъісте (11) as well as скописте (13) сътвористе (15 35) бъꙁвѣстисте (18 23) идете (20) рѣсте (20 27 32) глаголасте (21) сѧте (24) приближисте (30) ꙁаꙁьрѣсте (35 36) and покаꙗсте (39)

(c) For κοσmicroικός the conflicting readings are αγ простъ людинъ εζη простъ мѫжь (простъ omitted by cW2) In seven other cases the unanimous reading is простъ людинъ (save that k five and o three times replace людинъ rarr чьловѣкъ and that k twice introduces the innovation мирꙗнинъ) but in five more cases the unanimous reading is коꙁъмикъ Conventional wisdom has it that untranslated grecisms are primary to Slavonic expressions but the complementary distribution of коꙁъмикъ (chapters Andash1 and O) and простъ людинъ (5ndash20) prevents us from generalising one at the expense of the other It rather appears that the translatorrsquos lexicon con-tained both the grecism and its Slavonic calque and that the makers of the hyparchetypes had no inkling that they referred to the same concept

(d) For συmicroφονεῖν the witnesses read съвѣщати bζW13 съвѣщати сѧ The reflexive read-ing is absent in 151 (twice) minimally present in 229 (W13) and maximally in 204 (αγζ) The pattern of increase suggests that съвѣщати is a translatorrsquos grecism and that the addition of сѧ in Slavonic like that of secum in Latin is in response to a requirement of the target lan-guage

(e) The pattern of variation of the aorist stems is similar to that in b above Dominant forms in ndash(о)хndash massively displace the recessive rootndash and ndashсndash forms for ἐξῆλθον (11) the witnesses read иꙁидоста (a replaces иꙁndash rarr въꙁndash ε rarr oslash) w иꙁидета for ἀπῆλθον (20) all read идоста for ἤλθοmicroεν (24) приидоховѣ w приидосвѣ for εὐνουχίσαmicroεν (16) скопиховѣ (εW12 replace сndash rarr исndash) k скопивѣ w скописвѣ for εἶπον (20) рекоста εW3 съповѣдаста okθwW2 рѣста c съкаꙁаста W1 гласта for εἶπον (27) рекоста εζwW12 рѣста for εἶπον (32) рекоста

7

αγεζwW12 рѣста (ie repetition in the end favours preservation) Like in b above the arche-typal forms are best preserved in η (cf van Wijk 1975 84ndash85 for W58) We do well to restore иꙁидете (11) идете (20) приидовѣ (24) скописвѣ (20) and рѣсте (20 27 32)

(f) Of the 16 dual forms of pronouns in 15111b two show no variation viz 3du ꙗ (14) and има (18) and ten show one mistake each of b and i plus the attempts of k and W3 to level them to pl forms viz 1du вѣ (16) b мъі W3 ниѥ вѣ (33) W3 ниѥ наю (22) W3 насъ наю (34) k нас and 3du она (15) k они ꙗ (20) kW3 ихъ ꙗ (371) k их W3 них ꙗ (372) ikW3 их има (30) k имъ нею (29) k нихъ Serious conflict affects four forms viz 1duA на (16) εζθW23 нъі на (34) b нас bε наю ζwW23 нъі and 2duA ва (19) γkW3 вас o въі ва (26) εokwW23 въі The fact that witnesses of η very frequently vary in these forms led van Wijk 1975 83 to doubt whether the Adu forms на and ва were archetypal but the fact that in all four cases precisely these readings are preserved by at least α should dispel any doubt for it is im-plausible that archetypal нъі and въі should have been replaced rarr на and rarr ва

(g) For ἐντύχωmicroεν the witnesses give the following readings θ поимевѣ o поемлевѣ αcW2 повѣвѣ γεW1 повѣдаѥвѣ W3 исповѣдаѥвѣ k гливѣ This is the first of five times ἐντυγχάνειν κατά + G is translated as поѩтипоимати на + A and it must have baffled the mak-ers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes αγε (or the maker of the copy of ω they worked from) who replaced ndashѩти rarr ndashвѣдѣтивѣдати (W123 independently reacted in a similar way) The other occurrences show no significant variation (198 oslash kW1 229 a mistake in a) save the replacements 229 rarr бесѣдовати на k 2217 rarr молити сѧ на c or no variation at all (O13) As to the Slavonic verbal aspect either is possible SSS and Miklosich record in this sense only the imperfective but the fact that the extremes of the hyparchetypes agree on the perfective makes that more likely

(h) Where the translator used definite forms of Slavonic adjectives there is no variation only contraction of the compound desinences (in 15111b a not fully contracted desinence is preserved in a ndashѹмѹ 29) but the archetype must have contained the full double desinences as only they can account for the appearance in the witnesses of unwarranted anaphoric pronouns in the vicinity of adjectives which should be definite So we do well to restore небесьнаѥго (13) велилкѹѥмѹ (23) свѧтѹѥмѹ (29)

Where the translator used indefinite forms variation is absent only in adjectives which lack compound desinences eg божиѥ (16) In all other cases there is conflict еванъгельскѹ (12) γεkwW3 def іерѹсалимьскѹ (17) αγεζW13 def римьскѹ (23) aγεθ def кѵпрьскѹ (29) εkW13 def алеѯанъдрьскѹ (38) ckW13 def Here as in e above repetition (ic of desinences) in the end favours preservation The clearndashcut oppositions show that the variation already af-fected the Glagolitic hyparchetypes

(i) For ἐπὶ τοῦτο the witnesses read ε на того (ε in general exhibits a clear preference for тъ above сь) ocθ на сего αγkW23 ѿ сего W1 тако The translator nowhere uses G forms for the A so the shift in connection from the verdict to the judge cannot be imputed to him neither can the replacement of the preposition на rarr отъ I suspect the translatorrsquos grecism на се was either written so that n се could be read as m сь (which is more than likely in Glagolitic) or that the desinence was damaged or that a hendiadys note то (written so that it could be read as го) was added Any of these cases would have called for conjecture already by the makers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes and it is interesting to note that this conjecture is rooted in nonndashMethodian morphology viz mAanim = mG

8

(j) The Greek text lacks a verbum dicendi16 to motivate the direct speech in 24 but the Lat-in and the Slavonic attest its original presence The witnesses read αγε рѣста c рѣша wW123 oslash w сета The latter is the only hitherto known 3du form of this recessive verb Fol-lowing b above we do well to restore its explicit spelling сѧте

(k) For ἐγγίζειν + D the witnesses unanimously read приближити сѧ къ + D Yet it is be-yond doubt that in the archetype the prefix приndash in this verb (as elsewhere) governed the L First in six out of 16 cases L readings are preserved viz 1038 τα πάθη γζW3 похоти αW2 похотьмъ 1159 ἐκείνῳ ε ѡ томь αγζW123 томѹѥмѹ (cf also immediately preceding αγζW3 κολλήθητι ἀνθρώπῳ прилѣпи сѧ чьловѣцѣ W12 чьловѣкѹ) 1195 microοί αcW3 мьнѣ γokwW2 ми and ὑmicroῖν cW2 васъ αγokwW3 вамъ (αγow add къ) 2013 αὐτῷ αow ѥмь εkW2 ѥмѹ γc oslash and O14 (Greek untraced) all боꙁѣ secondly four of the remaining cases exhibit con-flicts similar to the preceding viz 52 σώmicroασι all инѣмъ17 тѣломъ (αkwB2W3 add къ) 11117 σοί aoc ти aγk oslash 1427 τῇ κώmicroῃ αγiokwW3 къ вьси ic до вьси 1541 τῷ Qεῷ all богѹ (αγεocW23 add къ) It appears that the replacement приndash + L rarr [къ +] D started already in the Glagolitic hyparchetypes and that we do well to restore приближити сѧ + L

(l) For ἀληθεία the witnesses in 33 36 read unanimously истина but in 39 W8 reads рѣснота This word like all recessive items is preserved rather by chance than by design in eight more places 10160 W58 1312 o 154 o 184 bbo 187 o 2016 c and J2ndash3 W8 (six adjectival forms are preserved as well in the range of chapters 10ndash18) It is likely that the cases where conflicting readings истина правьда (eg 1312 2016 and elsewhere) or oslash (eg 187 J2ndash3 and elsewhere) are present also betray an archetypal reading рѣснота which we do well to restore

(m) For καταγινώσκειν + G the witnesses read ꙁаꙁьрѣти 35 aγcW23 + L aεokθW1 + A 36 γcwA2W123 + L aεokwA3 + A It could be argued that with the pronoun себе the distinction L ~ A is not as remarkable as with other pronouns or nouns but consider the fact that the dis-tribution of both readings remains fairly stable in ꙁаꙁьрѣти себѣ for microέmicroφεσθαι σεαυτόν 387 bbiwA2W3 + L aiζA3B2W2 + A 1064 γocA3W2 + L aA2W3 + A 1531 γocW23 + L αk + A With other pronouns or nouns we find ꙁаꙁьрѣти (for both καταγινώσκειν and microέmicroφεσθαι) in 369 all своѥи немощи 103 W3 имь αγεζθcW2 oslash 1531 αγ чьловѣче (V) ζW3 чьловѣкѹ w чьловѣкомъ W3 чьловѣчьсцѣи 15111a αγoθ братѣ ckW13 братѹ εW2 oslash 1826 all вьсѣхъ In all instances at least part of the witnesses preserve the L and in 1531 the V and the adjective point precisely to the L чьловѣцѣ as the source of the disturbance As in k above the L rection must be considered archetypal and the variation shows that this type of rection was unfamiliar already to the makers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes (we may safely assume that for them the L had lost its autonomy)

(n) For κοινωνία in 15111b the witnesses read αγεζwW123 причѧстиѥ w обьщениѥ The latter word is unanimously used in 1842 it occurs also for προσφορά (203 c стое тѣло и кровь хса ба нашего) and as a translatorrsquos explication implying προσφορά (184 unanimous 1846 c тѣло хсво) which is normally rendered as приношениѥ (9 times in chapters 4ndash20 four unanimous two with c replacing rarr комъканиѥ three c rarr oslash) It appears that the translator dis- 16 Was φασάν or ἔφησαν omitted accidentally or was it obscure to the 10ndash11th century copyist of cod Paris BN Coislin 126 17 This of course is another instance of инъ as indefinite article (cf a above)

9

tinguished обьщениѥ lsquothe act of dispensing or partaking of the Eucharistic elementsrsquo (to which 203 pertains) and приношениѥ lsquothe consecration of the elementsrsquo lsquothe consecrated elementsrsquo Both причѧстиѥ and комъканиѥ are foreign intrusions the former not originally endowed with a liturgical meaning (cf Scete Patericon J98ndash100 microέτοχος причѧстьница) the latter like its Alpine Latin fellow traveler въсѫдъ (Schaeken 1988) kept out of the translation18

Our effort to restore the initial state of this translation by St Methodius ie to close the circle de la pluraliteacute agrave lrsquouniteacute has led us six times to read what is not there In doing so we found that the scribes of the extant witnesses rarely read what was not in their exemplar while those of the Cyrillic hyparchetypes did so more often (especially c the only purposeful edition of the text secundum scientiam and k) But the fundamental variation from the exemplar belongs to the makers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes We see αγ most noticeably and εζ to a lesser degree reading what is not in ω and even ηθ in some cases vary from their exemplar The var-iation in the Cyrillic renderings of Glagolitic exemplars need not surprise us The differences between W1 W2 and W3 who in the 14th century independently read η speak eloquently of the difficulties in deciphering the message of a text written in Glagolitic What should exercise us is the reception of a text known to be if not of St Methodius himself at least of venerable provenance by the scribes αndashε in the PliskandashPreslav area and ζndashη at some remove from them They were conversant with Glagolitic both receptively and productively Aleksandr V Bondarko has aptly called their attitude toward the text svojskoe lsquoas if they owned itrsquo Was it because the translatorrsquos language was theirs The problems discussed above should discourage such an explanation19 We should I venture to suggest rather consider these men of letters as recent converts to that rank not encumbered with either prior generations of skill and scholar-ship or any prendashordained concept of fidelity but ingenuously inspired by the task to assimilate and accomplish what the illndashfated mission to Morava (AD 863ndash885) aimed to do

Deerfield IL

REFERENCES

Battle Columba M 1971 Vetera Nova Vorlaumlufige kritische Ausgabe bei Rosweyde fehlender Vaumlterspruumlche Fest-

schrift fur Bernhard Bischoff Stuttgart 32ndash42

18 The translator took great care not to burden his translation with specific liturgical terms cf Guergova 2003 Whether комъканиѥ (the standard translation for κοινwνία and προσφορά in the Egyptian Patericon translated in the PliskandashPreslav area at the turn of the 9ndash10th centuries from a conflation of the Historia monachorum in AEliggyp-to CPG 6063 and the Historia Lausiaca CPG 6038 with the De Bragmanibus CPG 5820) andor въсѫдъ be-longed to his lexicon but were suppressed owing to this design requires further research 19 A differential study of the grammars of the translator and his first close readers will become possible when JG van der Tak and WR Veder produce their edition of the Greek text its early Latin translations and the reconstruc-tion of the Slavonic translation in the Bollandistsrsquo Subsidia hagiographica (Brussels) The machinendashreadable cop-ies of the Slavonic witnesses to the Scete Patericon and the full collation of their text (copies of which are in pos-session of many departments of Slavic Studies including that of the University of Leiden) will provide all the source data required

10

Caldarelli Raffaele 1996 Il Paterik alfabeticondashanonimo in traduzione slavondashecclesiastica Roma (Diss La Sapienza)

Capaldo Mario 1984 LrsquoAzbučnondashierusalimskij paterik (collection alphabeacuteticondashanonyme slave des Apophthegmata

patrum) Polata knigopisnaja 4 26ndash50 Cotelier JeanndashBaptiste

1677 Ecclesiaelig graeligcaelig monumenta 1 [Paris] repr in JacquesndashPaul Migne (ed) Patrologiaelig cursus completus Series graeligca 65 75ndash440

CPG Maurits Geerard (ed) Clavis patrum graeligcorum 1ndash5 Turnhout Brepols 1974ndash1987 Guergova Emilia William R Veder

2003 Bogoslužebnite posledovanija spored Skitskija paterik (predvaritelni beležki) Anisava Mil-tenova et al (eds) Pěti dostoitъ Sbornik v pamet na Stefan Kožuxarov Sofia Bojan Penev 95ndash111

Guy JeanndashClaude 1962 Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite des Apophthegmata patrum (Subsidia hagiographica

36) Bruxelles Socieacuteteacute des Bollandistes (2nd rev ed 1984) 1993 Les Apophtegravegmes des Pegraveres Collection systeacutematique chapitres 1ndash9 (Sources chreacutetiennes 387)

Paris Editions du Cerf Mikhailov Nikolaj

1998 Fruumlhslowenische Sprachdenkmaumller (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 26) Amster-dam Rodopi

Miklosich Franz von Miklosich Lexicon palaeligoslovenicondashgraeligcondashlatinum emendatum auctum Wien 1865 repr Aalen 1963

Nau Franccedilois 1905 Le chapitre Pερὶ ἀναχωρητῶν ἁγίων et les sources de la vie de St Paul de Thegravebes Revue de

lrsquoorient chreacutetien 10(1905) 387ndash417 1907ndash1913 Histoires des solitaires eacutegyptiens Revue de lrsquoorient chreacutetien 12(1907) 43ndash69 171ndash193 393ndash

413 13(1908) 47ndash66 266ndash297 14(1909) 357ndash379 17(1912) 204ndash211 294ndash301 18(1913) 137ndash144

Nikitin Petr V 1915ndash16 Grečeskij Skitskij paterik i ego drevnij latinskij perevod Vizantijskij vremennik 22 127ndash173

Nikolova Svetlina 1995 Otečeski knigi In Petăr Dinekov et al (eds) KirilondashMetodievska enciklopedija 2 Sofia

BAN 886ndash891 Pileva Stefka

2003 An Important Witness to Old Slavic Monastic Miscellanies Krka 4 (1346) Budapest CEU (Diss)

Reacutegnault Dom Lucien 1970 Les sentences des pegraveres du deacutesert Nouveau recueil Solesmes 1976 Les sentences des pegraveres du deacutesert Troisiegraveme recueil et tables Solesmes

Rosweyde Heribert 1628 Vitaelig patrum De vita et verbis seniorum libri x Antwerpen (1st ed 1615) Libri vndashvi repr in

JacquesndashPaul Migne (ed) Patrologiaelig cursus completus Series latina 73 855ndash1022 Schaeken Joseph

1995 Nochmals aksl vъsǫdъ vъsǫdьnъ Die Welt der Slaven 331 87ndash101 SSS Ralja M Cejtlin et al (eds) Staroslavjanskij slovarrsquo (po rukopisjam XndashXI vekov) Moskva

Russkij jazyk 1994 Stefanov ieromonax Pavel

1994 Dreven paterik ili duxovnata mădrost na otcite na pustinjata Sofia Monarxičeskondashkonser-vativen săjuz

van Wijk Nicolaas 1936ndash37 Podrobnyj obzor cerkovnoslavjanskogo perevoda Bolrsquošogo Limonarija Byzantinoslavica

6(1936ndash1937) 38ndash84

11

1975 The Old Church Slavic Translation of the Ἀνδρων ἁγίων βίβλος The Hague Mouton Vasmer [Fasmer] Max

1967 Etimologičeskij slovarrsquo russkogo jazyka 2 Perevod s nemeckogo s dopolnenijami ON Trubačeva Moskva Progress

Veder [Feder] William R 2005 Hiljada godini kato edin den Životăt na tekstovete v Pravoslavnoto slavjanstvo Sofia BAN in

print [Vissarion episkop]

1874 Drevnij paterik izložennyj po glavam Moskva (3rd ed 1892)

7

αγεζwW12 рѣста (ie repetition in the end favours preservation) Like in b above the arche-typal forms are best preserved in η (cf van Wijk 1975 84ndash85 for W58) We do well to restore иꙁидете (11) идете (20) приидовѣ (24) скописвѣ (20) and рѣсте (20 27 32)

(f) Of the 16 dual forms of pronouns in 15111b two show no variation viz 3du ꙗ (14) and има (18) and ten show one mistake each of b and i plus the attempts of k and W3 to level them to pl forms viz 1du вѣ (16) b мъі W3 ниѥ вѣ (33) W3 ниѥ наю (22) W3 насъ наю (34) k нас and 3du она (15) k они ꙗ (20) kW3 ихъ ꙗ (371) k их W3 них ꙗ (372) ikW3 их има (30) k имъ нею (29) k нихъ Serious conflict affects four forms viz 1duA на (16) εζθW23 нъі на (34) b нас bε наю ζwW23 нъі and 2duA ва (19) γkW3 вас o въі ва (26) εokwW23 въі The fact that witnesses of η very frequently vary in these forms led van Wijk 1975 83 to doubt whether the Adu forms на and ва were archetypal but the fact that in all four cases precisely these readings are preserved by at least α should dispel any doubt for it is im-plausible that archetypal нъі and въі should have been replaced rarr на and rarr ва

(g) For ἐντύχωmicroεν the witnesses give the following readings θ поимевѣ o поемлевѣ αcW2 повѣвѣ γεW1 повѣдаѥвѣ W3 исповѣдаѥвѣ k гливѣ This is the first of five times ἐντυγχάνειν κατά + G is translated as поѩтипоимати на + A and it must have baffled the mak-ers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes αγε (or the maker of the copy of ω they worked from) who replaced ndashѩти rarr ndashвѣдѣтивѣдати (W123 independently reacted in a similar way) The other occurrences show no significant variation (198 oslash kW1 229 a mistake in a) save the replacements 229 rarr бесѣдовати на k 2217 rarr молити сѧ на c or no variation at all (O13) As to the Slavonic verbal aspect either is possible SSS and Miklosich record in this sense only the imperfective but the fact that the extremes of the hyparchetypes agree on the perfective makes that more likely

(h) Where the translator used definite forms of Slavonic adjectives there is no variation only contraction of the compound desinences (in 15111b a not fully contracted desinence is preserved in a ndashѹмѹ 29) but the archetype must have contained the full double desinences as only they can account for the appearance in the witnesses of unwarranted anaphoric pronouns in the vicinity of adjectives which should be definite So we do well to restore небесьнаѥго (13) велилкѹѥмѹ (23) свѧтѹѥмѹ (29)

Where the translator used indefinite forms variation is absent only in adjectives which lack compound desinences eg божиѥ (16) In all other cases there is conflict еванъгельскѹ (12) γεkwW3 def іерѹсалимьскѹ (17) αγεζW13 def римьскѹ (23) aγεθ def кѵпрьскѹ (29) εkW13 def алеѯанъдрьскѹ (38) ckW13 def Here as in e above repetition (ic of desinences) in the end favours preservation The clearndashcut oppositions show that the variation already af-fected the Glagolitic hyparchetypes

(i) For ἐπὶ τοῦτο the witnesses read ε на того (ε in general exhibits a clear preference for тъ above сь) ocθ на сего αγkW23 ѿ сего W1 тако The translator nowhere uses G forms for the A so the shift in connection from the verdict to the judge cannot be imputed to him neither can the replacement of the preposition на rarr отъ I suspect the translatorrsquos grecism на се was either written so that n се could be read as m сь (which is more than likely in Glagolitic) or that the desinence was damaged or that a hendiadys note то (written so that it could be read as го) was added Any of these cases would have called for conjecture already by the makers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes and it is interesting to note that this conjecture is rooted in nonndashMethodian morphology viz mAanim = mG

8

(j) The Greek text lacks a verbum dicendi16 to motivate the direct speech in 24 but the Lat-in and the Slavonic attest its original presence The witnesses read αγε рѣста c рѣша wW123 oslash w сета The latter is the only hitherto known 3du form of this recessive verb Fol-lowing b above we do well to restore its explicit spelling сѧте

(k) For ἐγγίζειν + D the witnesses unanimously read приближити сѧ къ + D Yet it is be-yond doubt that in the archetype the prefix приndash in this verb (as elsewhere) governed the L First in six out of 16 cases L readings are preserved viz 1038 τα πάθη γζW3 похоти αW2 похотьмъ 1159 ἐκείνῳ ε ѡ томь αγζW123 томѹѥмѹ (cf also immediately preceding αγζW3 κολλήθητι ἀνθρώπῳ прилѣпи сѧ чьловѣцѣ W12 чьловѣкѹ) 1195 microοί αcW3 мьнѣ γokwW2 ми and ὑmicroῖν cW2 васъ αγokwW3 вамъ (αγow add къ) 2013 αὐτῷ αow ѥмь εkW2 ѥмѹ γc oslash and O14 (Greek untraced) all боꙁѣ secondly four of the remaining cases exhibit con-flicts similar to the preceding viz 52 σώmicroασι all инѣмъ17 тѣломъ (αkwB2W3 add къ) 11117 σοί aoc ти aγk oslash 1427 τῇ κώmicroῃ αγiokwW3 къ вьси ic до вьси 1541 τῷ Qεῷ all богѹ (αγεocW23 add къ) It appears that the replacement приndash + L rarr [къ +] D started already in the Glagolitic hyparchetypes and that we do well to restore приближити сѧ + L

(l) For ἀληθεία the witnesses in 33 36 read unanimously истина but in 39 W8 reads рѣснота This word like all recessive items is preserved rather by chance than by design in eight more places 10160 W58 1312 o 154 o 184 bbo 187 o 2016 c and J2ndash3 W8 (six adjectival forms are preserved as well in the range of chapters 10ndash18) It is likely that the cases where conflicting readings истина правьда (eg 1312 2016 and elsewhere) or oslash (eg 187 J2ndash3 and elsewhere) are present also betray an archetypal reading рѣснота which we do well to restore

(m) For καταγινώσκειν + G the witnesses read ꙁаꙁьрѣти 35 aγcW23 + L aεokθW1 + A 36 γcwA2W123 + L aεokwA3 + A It could be argued that with the pronoun себе the distinction L ~ A is not as remarkable as with other pronouns or nouns but consider the fact that the dis-tribution of both readings remains fairly stable in ꙁаꙁьрѣти себѣ for microέmicroφεσθαι σεαυτόν 387 bbiwA2W3 + L aiζA3B2W2 + A 1064 γocA3W2 + L aA2W3 + A 1531 γocW23 + L αk + A With other pronouns or nouns we find ꙁаꙁьрѣти (for both καταγινώσκειν and microέmicroφεσθαι) in 369 all своѥи немощи 103 W3 имь αγεζθcW2 oslash 1531 αγ чьловѣче (V) ζW3 чьловѣкѹ w чьловѣкомъ W3 чьловѣчьсцѣи 15111a αγoθ братѣ ckW13 братѹ εW2 oslash 1826 all вьсѣхъ In all instances at least part of the witnesses preserve the L and in 1531 the V and the adjective point precisely to the L чьловѣцѣ as the source of the disturbance As in k above the L rection must be considered archetypal and the variation shows that this type of rection was unfamiliar already to the makers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes (we may safely assume that for them the L had lost its autonomy)

(n) For κοινωνία in 15111b the witnesses read αγεζwW123 причѧстиѥ w обьщениѥ The latter word is unanimously used in 1842 it occurs also for προσφορά (203 c стое тѣло и кровь хса ба нашего) and as a translatorrsquos explication implying προσφορά (184 unanimous 1846 c тѣло хсво) which is normally rendered as приношениѥ (9 times in chapters 4ndash20 four unanimous two with c replacing rarr комъканиѥ three c rarr oslash) It appears that the translator dis- 16 Was φασάν or ἔφησαν omitted accidentally or was it obscure to the 10ndash11th century copyist of cod Paris BN Coislin 126 17 This of course is another instance of инъ as indefinite article (cf a above)

9

tinguished обьщениѥ lsquothe act of dispensing or partaking of the Eucharistic elementsrsquo (to which 203 pertains) and приношениѥ lsquothe consecration of the elementsrsquo lsquothe consecrated elementsrsquo Both причѧстиѥ and комъканиѥ are foreign intrusions the former not originally endowed with a liturgical meaning (cf Scete Patericon J98ndash100 microέτοχος причѧстьница) the latter like its Alpine Latin fellow traveler въсѫдъ (Schaeken 1988) kept out of the translation18

Our effort to restore the initial state of this translation by St Methodius ie to close the circle de la pluraliteacute agrave lrsquouniteacute has led us six times to read what is not there In doing so we found that the scribes of the extant witnesses rarely read what was not in their exemplar while those of the Cyrillic hyparchetypes did so more often (especially c the only purposeful edition of the text secundum scientiam and k) But the fundamental variation from the exemplar belongs to the makers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes We see αγ most noticeably and εζ to a lesser degree reading what is not in ω and even ηθ in some cases vary from their exemplar The var-iation in the Cyrillic renderings of Glagolitic exemplars need not surprise us The differences between W1 W2 and W3 who in the 14th century independently read η speak eloquently of the difficulties in deciphering the message of a text written in Glagolitic What should exercise us is the reception of a text known to be if not of St Methodius himself at least of venerable provenance by the scribes αndashε in the PliskandashPreslav area and ζndashη at some remove from them They were conversant with Glagolitic both receptively and productively Aleksandr V Bondarko has aptly called their attitude toward the text svojskoe lsquoas if they owned itrsquo Was it because the translatorrsquos language was theirs The problems discussed above should discourage such an explanation19 We should I venture to suggest rather consider these men of letters as recent converts to that rank not encumbered with either prior generations of skill and scholar-ship or any prendashordained concept of fidelity but ingenuously inspired by the task to assimilate and accomplish what the illndashfated mission to Morava (AD 863ndash885) aimed to do

Deerfield IL

REFERENCES

Battle Columba M 1971 Vetera Nova Vorlaumlufige kritische Ausgabe bei Rosweyde fehlender Vaumlterspruumlche Fest-

schrift fur Bernhard Bischoff Stuttgart 32ndash42

18 The translator took great care not to burden his translation with specific liturgical terms cf Guergova 2003 Whether комъканиѥ (the standard translation for κοινwνία and προσφορά in the Egyptian Patericon translated in the PliskandashPreslav area at the turn of the 9ndash10th centuries from a conflation of the Historia monachorum in AEliggyp-to CPG 6063 and the Historia Lausiaca CPG 6038 with the De Bragmanibus CPG 5820) andor въсѫдъ be-longed to his lexicon but were suppressed owing to this design requires further research 19 A differential study of the grammars of the translator and his first close readers will become possible when JG van der Tak and WR Veder produce their edition of the Greek text its early Latin translations and the reconstruc-tion of the Slavonic translation in the Bollandistsrsquo Subsidia hagiographica (Brussels) The machinendashreadable cop-ies of the Slavonic witnesses to the Scete Patericon and the full collation of their text (copies of which are in pos-session of many departments of Slavic Studies including that of the University of Leiden) will provide all the source data required

10

Caldarelli Raffaele 1996 Il Paterik alfabeticondashanonimo in traduzione slavondashecclesiastica Roma (Diss La Sapienza)

Capaldo Mario 1984 LrsquoAzbučnondashierusalimskij paterik (collection alphabeacuteticondashanonyme slave des Apophthegmata

patrum) Polata knigopisnaja 4 26ndash50 Cotelier JeanndashBaptiste

1677 Ecclesiaelig graeligcaelig monumenta 1 [Paris] repr in JacquesndashPaul Migne (ed) Patrologiaelig cursus completus Series graeligca 65 75ndash440

CPG Maurits Geerard (ed) Clavis patrum graeligcorum 1ndash5 Turnhout Brepols 1974ndash1987 Guergova Emilia William R Veder

2003 Bogoslužebnite posledovanija spored Skitskija paterik (predvaritelni beležki) Anisava Mil-tenova et al (eds) Pěti dostoitъ Sbornik v pamet na Stefan Kožuxarov Sofia Bojan Penev 95ndash111

Guy JeanndashClaude 1962 Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite des Apophthegmata patrum (Subsidia hagiographica

36) Bruxelles Socieacuteteacute des Bollandistes (2nd rev ed 1984) 1993 Les Apophtegravegmes des Pegraveres Collection systeacutematique chapitres 1ndash9 (Sources chreacutetiennes 387)

Paris Editions du Cerf Mikhailov Nikolaj

1998 Fruumlhslowenische Sprachdenkmaumller (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 26) Amster-dam Rodopi

Miklosich Franz von Miklosich Lexicon palaeligoslovenicondashgraeligcondashlatinum emendatum auctum Wien 1865 repr Aalen 1963

Nau Franccedilois 1905 Le chapitre Pερὶ ἀναχωρητῶν ἁγίων et les sources de la vie de St Paul de Thegravebes Revue de

lrsquoorient chreacutetien 10(1905) 387ndash417 1907ndash1913 Histoires des solitaires eacutegyptiens Revue de lrsquoorient chreacutetien 12(1907) 43ndash69 171ndash193 393ndash

413 13(1908) 47ndash66 266ndash297 14(1909) 357ndash379 17(1912) 204ndash211 294ndash301 18(1913) 137ndash144

Nikitin Petr V 1915ndash16 Grečeskij Skitskij paterik i ego drevnij latinskij perevod Vizantijskij vremennik 22 127ndash173

Nikolova Svetlina 1995 Otečeski knigi In Petăr Dinekov et al (eds) KirilondashMetodievska enciklopedija 2 Sofia

BAN 886ndash891 Pileva Stefka

2003 An Important Witness to Old Slavic Monastic Miscellanies Krka 4 (1346) Budapest CEU (Diss)

Reacutegnault Dom Lucien 1970 Les sentences des pegraveres du deacutesert Nouveau recueil Solesmes 1976 Les sentences des pegraveres du deacutesert Troisiegraveme recueil et tables Solesmes

Rosweyde Heribert 1628 Vitaelig patrum De vita et verbis seniorum libri x Antwerpen (1st ed 1615) Libri vndashvi repr in

JacquesndashPaul Migne (ed) Patrologiaelig cursus completus Series latina 73 855ndash1022 Schaeken Joseph

1995 Nochmals aksl vъsǫdъ vъsǫdьnъ Die Welt der Slaven 331 87ndash101 SSS Ralja M Cejtlin et al (eds) Staroslavjanskij slovarrsquo (po rukopisjam XndashXI vekov) Moskva

Russkij jazyk 1994 Stefanov ieromonax Pavel

1994 Dreven paterik ili duxovnata mădrost na otcite na pustinjata Sofia Monarxičeskondashkonser-vativen săjuz

van Wijk Nicolaas 1936ndash37 Podrobnyj obzor cerkovnoslavjanskogo perevoda Bolrsquošogo Limonarija Byzantinoslavica

6(1936ndash1937) 38ndash84

11

1975 The Old Church Slavic Translation of the Ἀνδρων ἁγίων βίβλος The Hague Mouton Vasmer [Fasmer] Max

1967 Etimologičeskij slovarrsquo russkogo jazyka 2 Perevod s nemeckogo s dopolnenijami ON Trubačeva Moskva Progress

Veder [Feder] William R 2005 Hiljada godini kato edin den Životăt na tekstovete v Pravoslavnoto slavjanstvo Sofia BAN in

print [Vissarion episkop]

1874 Drevnij paterik izložennyj po glavam Moskva (3rd ed 1892)

8

(j) The Greek text lacks a verbum dicendi16 to motivate the direct speech in 24 but the Lat-in and the Slavonic attest its original presence The witnesses read αγε рѣста c рѣша wW123 oslash w сета The latter is the only hitherto known 3du form of this recessive verb Fol-lowing b above we do well to restore its explicit spelling сѧте

(k) For ἐγγίζειν + D the witnesses unanimously read приближити сѧ къ + D Yet it is be-yond doubt that in the archetype the prefix приndash in this verb (as elsewhere) governed the L First in six out of 16 cases L readings are preserved viz 1038 τα πάθη γζW3 похоти αW2 похотьмъ 1159 ἐκείνῳ ε ѡ томь αγζW123 томѹѥмѹ (cf also immediately preceding αγζW3 κολλήθητι ἀνθρώπῳ прилѣпи сѧ чьловѣцѣ W12 чьловѣкѹ) 1195 microοί αcW3 мьнѣ γokwW2 ми and ὑmicroῖν cW2 васъ αγokwW3 вамъ (αγow add къ) 2013 αὐτῷ αow ѥмь εkW2 ѥмѹ γc oslash and O14 (Greek untraced) all боꙁѣ secondly four of the remaining cases exhibit con-flicts similar to the preceding viz 52 σώmicroασι all инѣмъ17 тѣломъ (αkwB2W3 add къ) 11117 σοί aoc ти aγk oslash 1427 τῇ κώmicroῃ αγiokwW3 къ вьси ic до вьси 1541 τῷ Qεῷ all богѹ (αγεocW23 add къ) It appears that the replacement приndash + L rarr [къ +] D started already in the Glagolitic hyparchetypes and that we do well to restore приближити сѧ + L

(l) For ἀληθεία the witnesses in 33 36 read unanimously истина but in 39 W8 reads рѣснота This word like all recessive items is preserved rather by chance than by design in eight more places 10160 W58 1312 o 154 o 184 bbo 187 o 2016 c and J2ndash3 W8 (six adjectival forms are preserved as well in the range of chapters 10ndash18) It is likely that the cases where conflicting readings истина правьда (eg 1312 2016 and elsewhere) or oslash (eg 187 J2ndash3 and elsewhere) are present also betray an archetypal reading рѣснота which we do well to restore

(m) For καταγινώσκειν + G the witnesses read ꙁаꙁьрѣти 35 aγcW23 + L aεokθW1 + A 36 γcwA2W123 + L aεokwA3 + A It could be argued that with the pronoun себе the distinction L ~ A is not as remarkable as with other pronouns or nouns but consider the fact that the dis-tribution of both readings remains fairly stable in ꙁаꙁьрѣти себѣ for microέmicroφεσθαι σεαυτόν 387 bbiwA2W3 + L aiζA3B2W2 + A 1064 γocA3W2 + L aA2W3 + A 1531 γocW23 + L αk + A With other pronouns or nouns we find ꙁаꙁьрѣти (for both καταγινώσκειν and microέmicroφεσθαι) in 369 all своѥи немощи 103 W3 имь αγεζθcW2 oslash 1531 αγ чьловѣче (V) ζW3 чьловѣкѹ w чьловѣкомъ W3 чьловѣчьсцѣи 15111a αγoθ братѣ ckW13 братѹ εW2 oslash 1826 all вьсѣхъ In all instances at least part of the witnesses preserve the L and in 1531 the V and the adjective point precisely to the L чьловѣцѣ as the source of the disturbance As in k above the L rection must be considered archetypal and the variation shows that this type of rection was unfamiliar already to the makers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes (we may safely assume that for them the L had lost its autonomy)

(n) For κοινωνία in 15111b the witnesses read αγεζwW123 причѧстиѥ w обьщениѥ The latter word is unanimously used in 1842 it occurs also for προσφορά (203 c стое тѣло и кровь хса ба нашего) and as a translatorrsquos explication implying προσφορά (184 unanimous 1846 c тѣло хсво) which is normally rendered as приношениѥ (9 times in chapters 4ndash20 four unanimous two with c replacing rarr комъканиѥ three c rarr oslash) It appears that the translator dis- 16 Was φασάν or ἔφησαν omitted accidentally or was it obscure to the 10ndash11th century copyist of cod Paris BN Coislin 126 17 This of course is another instance of инъ as indefinite article (cf a above)

9

tinguished обьщениѥ lsquothe act of dispensing or partaking of the Eucharistic elementsrsquo (to which 203 pertains) and приношениѥ lsquothe consecration of the elementsrsquo lsquothe consecrated elementsrsquo Both причѧстиѥ and комъканиѥ are foreign intrusions the former not originally endowed with a liturgical meaning (cf Scete Patericon J98ndash100 microέτοχος причѧстьница) the latter like its Alpine Latin fellow traveler въсѫдъ (Schaeken 1988) kept out of the translation18

Our effort to restore the initial state of this translation by St Methodius ie to close the circle de la pluraliteacute agrave lrsquouniteacute has led us six times to read what is not there In doing so we found that the scribes of the extant witnesses rarely read what was not in their exemplar while those of the Cyrillic hyparchetypes did so more often (especially c the only purposeful edition of the text secundum scientiam and k) But the fundamental variation from the exemplar belongs to the makers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes We see αγ most noticeably and εζ to a lesser degree reading what is not in ω and even ηθ in some cases vary from their exemplar The var-iation in the Cyrillic renderings of Glagolitic exemplars need not surprise us The differences between W1 W2 and W3 who in the 14th century independently read η speak eloquently of the difficulties in deciphering the message of a text written in Glagolitic What should exercise us is the reception of a text known to be if not of St Methodius himself at least of venerable provenance by the scribes αndashε in the PliskandashPreslav area and ζndashη at some remove from them They were conversant with Glagolitic both receptively and productively Aleksandr V Bondarko has aptly called their attitude toward the text svojskoe lsquoas if they owned itrsquo Was it because the translatorrsquos language was theirs The problems discussed above should discourage such an explanation19 We should I venture to suggest rather consider these men of letters as recent converts to that rank not encumbered with either prior generations of skill and scholar-ship or any prendashordained concept of fidelity but ingenuously inspired by the task to assimilate and accomplish what the illndashfated mission to Morava (AD 863ndash885) aimed to do

Deerfield IL

REFERENCES

Battle Columba M 1971 Vetera Nova Vorlaumlufige kritische Ausgabe bei Rosweyde fehlender Vaumlterspruumlche Fest-

schrift fur Bernhard Bischoff Stuttgart 32ndash42

18 The translator took great care not to burden his translation with specific liturgical terms cf Guergova 2003 Whether комъканиѥ (the standard translation for κοινwνία and προσφορά in the Egyptian Patericon translated in the PliskandashPreslav area at the turn of the 9ndash10th centuries from a conflation of the Historia monachorum in AEliggyp-to CPG 6063 and the Historia Lausiaca CPG 6038 with the De Bragmanibus CPG 5820) andor въсѫдъ be-longed to his lexicon but were suppressed owing to this design requires further research 19 A differential study of the grammars of the translator and his first close readers will become possible when JG van der Tak and WR Veder produce their edition of the Greek text its early Latin translations and the reconstruc-tion of the Slavonic translation in the Bollandistsrsquo Subsidia hagiographica (Brussels) The machinendashreadable cop-ies of the Slavonic witnesses to the Scete Patericon and the full collation of their text (copies of which are in pos-session of many departments of Slavic Studies including that of the University of Leiden) will provide all the source data required

10

Caldarelli Raffaele 1996 Il Paterik alfabeticondashanonimo in traduzione slavondashecclesiastica Roma (Diss La Sapienza)

Capaldo Mario 1984 LrsquoAzbučnondashierusalimskij paterik (collection alphabeacuteticondashanonyme slave des Apophthegmata

patrum) Polata knigopisnaja 4 26ndash50 Cotelier JeanndashBaptiste

1677 Ecclesiaelig graeligcaelig monumenta 1 [Paris] repr in JacquesndashPaul Migne (ed) Patrologiaelig cursus completus Series graeligca 65 75ndash440

CPG Maurits Geerard (ed) Clavis patrum graeligcorum 1ndash5 Turnhout Brepols 1974ndash1987 Guergova Emilia William R Veder

2003 Bogoslužebnite posledovanija spored Skitskija paterik (predvaritelni beležki) Anisava Mil-tenova et al (eds) Pěti dostoitъ Sbornik v pamet na Stefan Kožuxarov Sofia Bojan Penev 95ndash111

Guy JeanndashClaude 1962 Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite des Apophthegmata patrum (Subsidia hagiographica

36) Bruxelles Socieacuteteacute des Bollandistes (2nd rev ed 1984) 1993 Les Apophtegravegmes des Pegraveres Collection systeacutematique chapitres 1ndash9 (Sources chreacutetiennes 387)

Paris Editions du Cerf Mikhailov Nikolaj

1998 Fruumlhslowenische Sprachdenkmaumller (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 26) Amster-dam Rodopi

Miklosich Franz von Miklosich Lexicon palaeligoslovenicondashgraeligcondashlatinum emendatum auctum Wien 1865 repr Aalen 1963

Nau Franccedilois 1905 Le chapitre Pερὶ ἀναχωρητῶν ἁγίων et les sources de la vie de St Paul de Thegravebes Revue de

lrsquoorient chreacutetien 10(1905) 387ndash417 1907ndash1913 Histoires des solitaires eacutegyptiens Revue de lrsquoorient chreacutetien 12(1907) 43ndash69 171ndash193 393ndash

413 13(1908) 47ndash66 266ndash297 14(1909) 357ndash379 17(1912) 204ndash211 294ndash301 18(1913) 137ndash144

Nikitin Petr V 1915ndash16 Grečeskij Skitskij paterik i ego drevnij latinskij perevod Vizantijskij vremennik 22 127ndash173

Nikolova Svetlina 1995 Otečeski knigi In Petăr Dinekov et al (eds) KirilondashMetodievska enciklopedija 2 Sofia

BAN 886ndash891 Pileva Stefka

2003 An Important Witness to Old Slavic Monastic Miscellanies Krka 4 (1346) Budapest CEU (Diss)

Reacutegnault Dom Lucien 1970 Les sentences des pegraveres du deacutesert Nouveau recueil Solesmes 1976 Les sentences des pegraveres du deacutesert Troisiegraveme recueil et tables Solesmes

Rosweyde Heribert 1628 Vitaelig patrum De vita et verbis seniorum libri x Antwerpen (1st ed 1615) Libri vndashvi repr in

JacquesndashPaul Migne (ed) Patrologiaelig cursus completus Series latina 73 855ndash1022 Schaeken Joseph

1995 Nochmals aksl vъsǫdъ vъsǫdьnъ Die Welt der Slaven 331 87ndash101 SSS Ralja M Cejtlin et al (eds) Staroslavjanskij slovarrsquo (po rukopisjam XndashXI vekov) Moskva

Russkij jazyk 1994 Stefanov ieromonax Pavel

1994 Dreven paterik ili duxovnata mădrost na otcite na pustinjata Sofia Monarxičeskondashkonser-vativen săjuz

van Wijk Nicolaas 1936ndash37 Podrobnyj obzor cerkovnoslavjanskogo perevoda Bolrsquošogo Limonarija Byzantinoslavica

6(1936ndash1937) 38ndash84

11

1975 The Old Church Slavic Translation of the Ἀνδρων ἁγίων βίβλος The Hague Mouton Vasmer [Fasmer] Max

1967 Etimologičeskij slovarrsquo russkogo jazyka 2 Perevod s nemeckogo s dopolnenijami ON Trubačeva Moskva Progress

Veder [Feder] William R 2005 Hiljada godini kato edin den Životăt na tekstovete v Pravoslavnoto slavjanstvo Sofia BAN in

print [Vissarion episkop]

1874 Drevnij paterik izložennyj po glavam Moskva (3rd ed 1892)

9

tinguished обьщениѥ lsquothe act of dispensing or partaking of the Eucharistic elementsrsquo (to which 203 pertains) and приношениѥ lsquothe consecration of the elementsrsquo lsquothe consecrated elementsrsquo Both причѧстиѥ and комъканиѥ are foreign intrusions the former not originally endowed with a liturgical meaning (cf Scete Patericon J98ndash100 microέτοχος причѧстьница) the latter like its Alpine Latin fellow traveler въсѫдъ (Schaeken 1988) kept out of the translation18

Our effort to restore the initial state of this translation by St Methodius ie to close the circle de la pluraliteacute agrave lrsquouniteacute has led us six times to read what is not there In doing so we found that the scribes of the extant witnesses rarely read what was not in their exemplar while those of the Cyrillic hyparchetypes did so more often (especially c the only purposeful edition of the text secundum scientiam and k) But the fundamental variation from the exemplar belongs to the makers of the Glagolitic hyparchetypes We see αγ most noticeably and εζ to a lesser degree reading what is not in ω and even ηθ in some cases vary from their exemplar The var-iation in the Cyrillic renderings of Glagolitic exemplars need not surprise us The differences between W1 W2 and W3 who in the 14th century independently read η speak eloquently of the difficulties in deciphering the message of a text written in Glagolitic What should exercise us is the reception of a text known to be if not of St Methodius himself at least of venerable provenance by the scribes αndashε in the PliskandashPreslav area and ζndashη at some remove from them They were conversant with Glagolitic both receptively and productively Aleksandr V Bondarko has aptly called their attitude toward the text svojskoe lsquoas if they owned itrsquo Was it because the translatorrsquos language was theirs The problems discussed above should discourage such an explanation19 We should I venture to suggest rather consider these men of letters as recent converts to that rank not encumbered with either prior generations of skill and scholar-ship or any prendashordained concept of fidelity but ingenuously inspired by the task to assimilate and accomplish what the illndashfated mission to Morava (AD 863ndash885) aimed to do

Deerfield IL

REFERENCES

Battle Columba M 1971 Vetera Nova Vorlaumlufige kritische Ausgabe bei Rosweyde fehlender Vaumlterspruumlche Fest-

schrift fur Bernhard Bischoff Stuttgart 32ndash42

18 The translator took great care not to burden his translation with specific liturgical terms cf Guergova 2003 Whether комъканиѥ (the standard translation for κοινwνία and προσφορά in the Egyptian Patericon translated in the PliskandashPreslav area at the turn of the 9ndash10th centuries from a conflation of the Historia monachorum in AEliggyp-to CPG 6063 and the Historia Lausiaca CPG 6038 with the De Bragmanibus CPG 5820) andor въсѫдъ be-longed to his lexicon but were suppressed owing to this design requires further research 19 A differential study of the grammars of the translator and his first close readers will become possible when JG van der Tak and WR Veder produce their edition of the Greek text its early Latin translations and the reconstruc-tion of the Slavonic translation in the Bollandistsrsquo Subsidia hagiographica (Brussels) The machinendashreadable cop-ies of the Slavonic witnesses to the Scete Patericon and the full collation of their text (copies of which are in pos-session of many departments of Slavic Studies including that of the University of Leiden) will provide all the source data required

10

Caldarelli Raffaele 1996 Il Paterik alfabeticondashanonimo in traduzione slavondashecclesiastica Roma (Diss La Sapienza)

Capaldo Mario 1984 LrsquoAzbučnondashierusalimskij paterik (collection alphabeacuteticondashanonyme slave des Apophthegmata

patrum) Polata knigopisnaja 4 26ndash50 Cotelier JeanndashBaptiste

1677 Ecclesiaelig graeligcaelig monumenta 1 [Paris] repr in JacquesndashPaul Migne (ed) Patrologiaelig cursus completus Series graeligca 65 75ndash440

CPG Maurits Geerard (ed) Clavis patrum graeligcorum 1ndash5 Turnhout Brepols 1974ndash1987 Guergova Emilia William R Veder

2003 Bogoslužebnite posledovanija spored Skitskija paterik (predvaritelni beležki) Anisava Mil-tenova et al (eds) Pěti dostoitъ Sbornik v pamet na Stefan Kožuxarov Sofia Bojan Penev 95ndash111

Guy JeanndashClaude 1962 Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite des Apophthegmata patrum (Subsidia hagiographica

36) Bruxelles Socieacuteteacute des Bollandistes (2nd rev ed 1984) 1993 Les Apophtegravegmes des Pegraveres Collection systeacutematique chapitres 1ndash9 (Sources chreacutetiennes 387)

Paris Editions du Cerf Mikhailov Nikolaj

1998 Fruumlhslowenische Sprachdenkmaumller (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 26) Amster-dam Rodopi

Miklosich Franz von Miklosich Lexicon palaeligoslovenicondashgraeligcondashlatinum emendatum auctum Wien 1865 repr Aalen 1963

Nau Franccedilois 1905 Le chapitre Pερὶ ἀναχωρητῶν ἁγίων et les sources de la vie de St Paul de Thegravebes Revue de

lrsquoorient chreacutetien 10(1905) 387ndash417 1907ndash1913 Histoires des solitaires eacutegyptiens Revue de lrsquoorient chreacutetien 12(1907) 43ndash69 171ndash193 393ndash

413 13(1908) 47ndash66 266ndash297 14(1909) 357ndash379 17(1912) 204ndash211 294ndash301 18(1913) 137ndash144

Nikitin Petr V 1915ndash16 Grečeskij Skitskij paterik i ego drevnij latinskij perevod Vizantijskij vremennik 22 127ndash173

Nikolova Svetlina 1995 Otečeski knigi In Petăr Dinekov et al (eds) KirilondashMetodievska enciklopedija 2 Sofia

BAN 886ndash891 Pileva Stefka

2003 An Important Witness to Old Slavic Monastic Miscellanies Krka 4 (1346) Budapest CEU (Diss)

Reacutegnault Dom Lucien 1970 Les sentences des pegraveres du deacutesert Nouveau recueil Solesmes 1976 Les sentences des pegraveres du deacutesert Troisiegraveme recueil et tables Solesmes

Rosweyde Heribert 1628 Vitaelig patrum De vita et verbis seniorum libri x Antwerpen (1st ed 1615) Libri vndashvi repr in

JacquesndashPaul Migne (ed) Patrologiaelig cursus completus Series latina 73 855ndash1022 Schaeken Joseph

1995 Nochmals aksl vъsǫdъ vъsǫdьnъ Die Welt der Slaven 331 87ndash101 SSS Ralja M Cejtlin et al (eds) Staroslavjanskij slovarrsquo (po rukopisjam XndashXI vekov) Moskva

Russkij jazyk 1994 Stefanov ieromonax Pavel

1994 Dreven paterik ili duxovnata mădrost na otcite na pustinjata Sofia Monarxičeskondashkonser-vativen săjuz

van Wijk Nicolaas 1936ndash37 Podrobnyj obzor cerkovnoslavjanskogo perevoda Bolrsquošogo Limonarija Byzantinoslavica

6(1936ndash1937) 38ndash84

11

1975 The Old Church Slavic Translation of the Ἀνδρων ἁγίων βίβλος The Hague Mouton Vasmer [Fasmer] Max

1967 Etimologičeskij slovarrsquo russkogo jazyka 2 Perevod s nemeckogo s dopolnenijami ON Trubačeva Moskva Progress

Veder [Feder] William R 2005 Hiljada godini kato edin den Životăt na tekstovete v Pravoslavnoto slavjanstvo Sofia BAN in

print [Vissarion episkop]

1874 Drevnij paterik izložennyj po glavam Moskva (3rd ed 1892)

10

Caldarelli Raffaele 1996 Il Paterik alfabeticondashanonimo in traduzione slavondashecclesiastica Roma (Diss La Sapienza)

Capaldo Mario 1984 LrsquoAzbučnondashierusalimskij paterik (collection alphabeacuteticondashanonyme slave des Apophthegmata

patrum) Polata knigopisnaja 4 26ndash50 Cotelier JeanndashBaptiste

1677 Ecclesiaelig graeligcaelig monumenta 1 [Paris] repr in JacquesndashPaul Migne (ed) Patrologiaelig cursus completus Series graeligca 65 75ndash440

CPG Maurits Geerard (ed) Clavis patrum graeligcorum 1ndash5 Turnhout Brepols 1974ndash1987 Guergova Emilia William R Veder

2003 Bogoslužebnite posledovanija spored Skitskija paterik (predvaritelni beležki) Anisava Mil-tenova et al (eds) Pěti dostoitъ Sbornik v pamet na Stefan Kožuxarov Sofia Bojan Penev 95ndash111

Guy JeanndashClaude 1962 Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite des Apophthegmata patrum (Subsidia hagiographica

36) Bruxelles Socieacuteteacute des Bollandistes (2nd rev ed 1984) 1993 Les Apophtegravegmes des Pegraveres Collection systeacutematique chapitres 1ndash9 (Sources chreacutetiennes 387)

Paris Editions du Cerf Mikhailov Nikolaj

1998 Fruumlhslowenische Sprachdenkmaumller (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 26) Amster-dam Rodopi

Miklosich Franz von Miklosich Lexicon palaeligoslovenicondashgraeligcondashlatinum emendatum auctum Wien 1865 repr Aalen 1963

Nau Franccedilois 1905 Le chapitre Pερὶ ἀναχωρητῶν ἁγίων et les sources de la vie de St Paul de Thegravebes Revue de

lrsquoorient chreacutetien 10(1905) 387ndash417 1907ndash1913 Histoires des solitaires eacutegyptiens Revue de lrsquoorient chreacutetien 12(1907) 43ndash69 171ndash193 393ndash

413 13(1908) 47ndash66 266ndash297 14(1909) 357ndash379 17(1912) 204ndash211 294ndash301 18(1913) 137ndash144

Nikitin Petr V 1915ndash16 Grečeskij Skitskij paterik i ego drevnij latinskij perevod Vizantijskij vremennik 22 127ndash173

Nikolova Svetlina 1995 Otečeski knigi In Petăr Dinekov et al (eds) KirilondashMetodievska enciklopedija 2 Sofia

BAN 886ndash891 Pileva Stefka

2003 An Important Witness to Old Slavic Monastic Miscellanies Krka 4 (1346) Budapest CEU (Diss)

Reacutegnault Dom Lucien 1970 Les sentences des pegraveres du deacutesert Nouveau recueil Solesmes 1976 Les sentences des pegraveres du deacutesert Troisiegraveme recueil et tables Solesmes

Rosweyde Heribert 1628 Vitaelig patrum De vita et verbis seniorum libri x Antwerpen (1st ed 1615) Libri vndashvi repr in

JacquesndashPaul Migne (ed) Patrologiaelig cursus completus Series latina 73 855ndash1022 Schaeken Joseph

1995 Nochmals aksl vъsǫdъ vъsǫdьnъ Die Welt der Slaven 331 87ndash101 SSS Ralja M Cejtlin et al (eds) Staroslavjanskij slovarrsquo (po rukopisjam XndashXI vekov) Moskva

Russkij jazyk 1994 Stefanov ieromonax Pavel

1994 Dreven paterik ili duxovnata mădrost na otcite na pustinjata Sofia Monarxičeskondashkonser-vativen săjuz

van Wijk Nicolaas 1936ndash37 Podrobnyj obzor cerkovnoslavjanskogo perevoda Bolrsquošogo Limonarija Byzantinoslavica

6(1936ndash1937) 38ndash84

11

1975 The Old Church Slavic Translation of the Ἀνδρων ἁγίων βίβλος The Hague Mouton Vasmer [Fasmer] Max

1967 Etimologičeskij slovarrsquo russkogo jazyka 2 Perevod s nemeckogo s dopolnenijami ON Trubačeva Moskva Progress

Veder [Feder] William R 2005 Hiljada godini kato edin den Životăt na tekstovete v Pravoslavnoto slavjanstvo Sofia BAN in

print [Vissarion episkop]

1874 Drevnij paterik izložennyj po glavam Moskva (3rd ed 1892)

11

1975 The Old Church Slavic Translation of the Ἀνδρων ἁγίων βίβλος The Hague Mouton Vasmer [Fasmer] Max

1967 Etimologičeskij slovarrsquo russkogo jazyka 2 Perevod s nemeckogo s dopolnenijami ON Trubačeva Moskva Progress

Veder [Feder] William R 2005 Hiljada godini kato edin den Životăt na tekstovete v Pravoslavnoto slavjanstvo Sofia BAN in

print [Vissarion episkop]

1874 Drevnij paterik izložennyj po glavam Moskva (3rd ed 1892)